Autonomy and Federation In

CEU eTD Collection Fulfillment the of RequirementsDoctor of Philosophy forthe of Degree AUTONOMY AND FEDERATION IN THE RUSSIAN LIBERAL RUSSIAN LIBERAL AUTONOMYFEDERATION INTHE AND Presentedthe to NATIONAL CHALLENGES DECENTRALIZATION: TO Faculties of theFaculties Central of UniversityPartial European in DISCOURSE, 1900 DISCOURSE, Supervisor of Dissertation of Supervisor Tatiana Khripachenko Tatiana A DISSERTATION Budapest, HungaryBudapest, Prof. Miller Alexei History 20 in

1914

CEU eTD Collection published published by person unless another otherwise noted. institu other any in degrees other thewrittenwithout permission ofthe Author. made be not may instructions such with accordance in made copies Further made. o part a form must page This librarian. the from obtained be may Details Library. University European Central the in lodged and Author the by given instructions the with accordance in only made be may part, or full in either process, I hereby declare that this dissertation contains no materials accepted for any for accepted materials no contains dissertation this that declare hereby I the with rests dissertation this of text the in Copyright

in ad o aeil peiul witn and/or written previously materials no and tions

Author. Copies by any any by Copies Author. f any such copies copies such any f CEU eTD Collection regarding presuppose not did and tactical, be only n did however, This, principalof assumptions theinitial incompatibility reason from differed essentially discourses Kadets’ the discuss to open was Party the among allies Ukrainian and Polish of representatives the and liberals Russian the between federation and for The dissertation is dissertation The

nta pa fr usas eraiain a challenged was reorganization Russia’s for plan initial Russia’s reorganization. Russia’s

the failure of an alliance of the Kadets with the national movements was a a was movements national the with Kadets the of alliance an of failure the regarding autonomy and federation. Moreover, the mea the Moreover, federation. and autonomy regarding national ot exclude the possibility of finding a compromise, yet it could it yet compromise, a finding of possibility the exclude ot national

movements the leadership of the Con the of leadership the movements devoted ht h Kadets the what possibility of decentralization of possibility movements

to the to

analysis of analysis Abstract the

in initially iii

rnia cnegne f h programs the of convergence principal

late

of all the partiof all the

imperial Russia. Russia. imperial the nesod y the by understood political debates on autonomy on debates political

of Russia of stitutional Democratic stitutional cipants of a dialogue cipants of

by ning ning okn fr the for Looking aiu national various . of these terms terms these of m However, the the However, h Finnish, the . The main main The .

CEU eTD Collection werealways my supportive of undertaking archival and library as well as time. any in help Vet, der van Irina Davies, to like consultations inspiring at me welcomed who very am I time, same Professor the At case. Finnish the of complexities the Finnish work their for Hall Karl and Janowski, Maciej Siefert, Marsha Zimmermann, perspective. Dolbilov Mikhail and Rieber finis to course of sup ervisor Prof ervisor and hing my work in time. I owe a great intellectual debt to debt intellectual great a owe I time. in work my hing First of First

xrs m wret prcain to appreciation warmest my express intellectual environment. His comment His environment. intellectual

s my my care

the Center of Center the atn Schulze Martin I am also also am I entire .

all, essor I would like to thank Professor Henrik Stenius for inviting me into the into me inviting for Stenius Henrik Professor thank to like would I Generous

I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciationand gratitude mysincere express to like Iwould

intellectual endeavor intellectual reseach.

Alexei Miller for his constant scholar and moral support moral and scholar constant his for Miller Alexei Ludwig were very helpful at helpful very were the epy thankful deeply -

and Wessel grants of Gerda Henkel, Center of International Mobility, International of Center Henkel, Gerda of grants

Polish I owe a great debt to my parents and to and parents my to debt great a owe I - Maximilians University in Munich Munich in University Maximilians Piotr G Piotr who , , -

Russian Acknowledgements atn Aust, Martin

ł uszkowski for their for uszkowski . ae osdrby nihd y research my enriched considerably have His

and to whom Iwhom and to work dedicate this to Professors Balázs Trencsényi, Susan Susan Trencsényi, Balázs Professors to

Dialogue and Reconciliation and Dialogue the final stage of my work. my of stage final the iv realism itr ai Ade Cusc Andrei Taki, Viktor

s and advice helped me a lot to lot a me helped advice and s

aa Osterkamp, Jana

andcrucial strictwere discipline

willingness Professors Alfred J. Alfred Professors and whose whose and n Jens and my interest in my in interest

to listen and listen to I would also would I , Franziska o,

family enable greatful .

rich Kersten fathom

in the in to , d my my d

who who and

my my to to

CEU eTD Collection Chapter 4. Chapter 3. Chapter 2.The Borderlands thein Support of Search the in Liberals Russian Alliance: Blindfolded The 1. Chapter Introduction

After theManifesto ofOctober 17 Autonomy intheofNational Program Democrats The Partner Deal theWrong with PartiesandPolish theQuestion of Autonomy Russian Finland" as The Theory"Non of "NonA Concept of ofA dispute onthelimits theFinnish Autonomy The thePoliticalDiscussions "Finnish Question" in The Deal thePoles with Approaching Opening Borderlands upthe Principles Declared The 1905 Spring of TheGroups Ukrainian Political Dragomanov’s Tradit The End ThirdDuma: theDead The towards Second Duma: AStep DeclarationPolish First Duma inthe

The “Polish Question”: Contesting the Meaning ContestingTheof Question”: the “Polish Autonomy The Question”: and “Ukrainian RealFederative Politics Utopia

...... "Finnish L iberals' Interpretation ofGeorg Position iberals' Jellinek's Staatsfragment"

the Allies the Question" of"Non Concept and the -

......

...... Sovereign State" - Table ofContents Table Sovereign States" for the Finnish Case Finnish for States" Sovereign the ion and Nationalism as a New Phenomenonion andNationalism asa New ......

......

...... th

...... a Realistic More Position? v

......

...... - Sovereign State" Sovereign

......

210 199 191 188 176 164 154 144 136 132 122 119 110 105

99 93 89 77 75 62 43 32 29 28

CEU eTD Collection Bibliography Conclusion Chapter 5.

The ofAutomists and Kadets theUnion Theoretical Approach toAutonomyFederation and From Self A Turn totheRightNew Hopes and The FirstSecondThe of Opportunities: andtheDuma Window

When the Eyes Opened: Inner Opened: theEyes LiberalWhen Challengesthe Theory of ......

...... - Government to Autonomy Government to ...... vi

......

303 293 282 268 259 258 239 229

CEU eTD Collection Baehr (Ca Baehr Idem Constitutionalism” 4 33 (1991): 53 Critique German New Question” Anti Modernist Weber: “Max Abraham, A. Gary Posen. in situation agrarian anti rigid a developed Weber particular, In chauvinistic. less no 3 2 (Ca Baehr Peter and C.Wells Gordon by translated and Edited 1 activists. liberal Russian few a with connections close attention. greater a intelligent liberal Russian of view the Weber’s Nevertheless, claims. German concede to it compel and Russia weaken to sought who scholar, German a of perspective biased a words Weber’s in recognized have would separatism, to identical intelligentsia. liberal Russian and bourgeoisie Russian of chauvinism the emphasized Weber Russia, Constitutionalism.”

Curiously enough, that Max Weber’s position regarding the national minorities inside Germany was Germany inside minorities national the regarding position Weber’s Max that enough, Curiously Ibid a Wbr “usas rniin o Pseudo to Transition “Russia’s Weber, Max

Two Weber’s works on Russia in 1906: 1906: in Russia on works Weber’s Two either deceivers who had themselves been deceived or completely without influence and in in and influence without completely or deceived comrades. their of Russian chauvinism ofGreater ofarousing fear constant been themselves had who federat deceivers equal either genuinely a into the Russia for striving of were who transformation school, Dragomanov old to belonging ideologues of group Meanwhile, little “liberation.” the of achievement the towards done be to remained everything home at Greate of task the as nation imaginable every of “liberation” and the proclaimed they Russia, of expansion future a for friends external creating to view the with only autonomy border Western the and Constantinople towards (though Liberation of Union the of personalities leading the all almost 1905 as early as goal, only the achi supposedly was the which of guarantee slightest the Before Movement. Liberation whole the of heyday the during even and intelligentsia, bourgeois the in even alive remained itself, Russia ., ., 243 h rpeettvs f usa right Russian of representatives The In

mbridge: Polity Press, 1995), Press, Polity mbridge: - 244. April 1917, Max Weber published an article “Russia’s Transition Pseudo article “Russia’s to an Weber published Max April 1917, They disputed the existence of a Ukrainian identity, and acknowledged Polish Polish acknowledged and identity, Ukrainian a of existence the disputed They T his imperialist legend, and especially the Greater Russian claim to dominance within within dominance to claim Russian Greater the especially and legend, imperialist his

3 1

Weber, who published in 1906 two serious works on Russia, had Russia, on works serious two 1906 in published who Weber, . Commenting on the perspectives of peace between Germany and Germany between peace of perspectives the on Commenting The Russian Revolutions Russian The not

the unjustly maligned Mr. Peter Struve) had turned their gaze their turned had Struve) Peter Mr. maligned unjustly the

148 Introduction -

240; - 66. 66. -

Constitutionalism” Idem. Idem. Constitutionalism” Idem, “On the Situation of Constitutional Democracy Constitutional of Situation the “On Idem, . Edited and translated by Gordon C. Wells and Peter Peter and Wells C. Gordon by translated and Edited . .

a Wbr “usas rniin o Pseudo to Transition “Russia’s Weber, Max

- 1 ig ate, w parties, wing

ion of nationalities, were, even then, then, even were, nationalities, of ion mbridge: Polity Press, 1995), 1995), mbridge:Press, Polity

- Polish stance in his evaluation of evaluation his in stance Polish 4

odn itaosy an Kistiakovsky, Bogdan o a fdrls as federalism saw ho h Rsin Revolutions Russian The - 2 Pluralism and the Polish Polish the and Pluralism

evement of liberty, liberty, of evement r Russia, whilst Russia, r s ia deserves ia 241 - 260.

the the

- - . CEU eTD Collection Tsarism Heuman, Susan 5 2003). Press, CambridgeUniversity Idem, Russia” in the doubt to ready was intellectuals liberal influential the of one besides question, the under was alliance an such movement Ukrainian the of case the in w already However, agreement tactical a only Poland of case the in while case, Finnish the in only gained was movements national with understanding common a end, the In autocracy. against struggle general the in allies important as movements these saw the in movements national to concessions certainfor commitment a expressed liberals Russian the time, same the at Yet, Poland). forgroup small a only (and Finland regarding was admitted, they exception trans only The its order. constitutional of course the in Russia former of space political the of unity the preserve to strive really did liberals Russian the that demonstrate will unitary. than other principle, the along reorganization Russia’s not necessarilyexclude did discourse liberalthe Russian of evolution second. the of beginning the to revolution Russian first the of beginning the from liberals Russian the of outcome the reviewed he 1917 in article this writing was autonomya liberation.Russia’s means as of l the of professor German to. his referred which school,” Dragomanov old to belonging ideologues of group “little that of representative the allegedly, was, disciple Weber’s immediate

For a detailed scrutiny of scholar connections of Max Weber, Kistiakovsky and Peter Struve see: see: Struve Peter and Kistiakovsky Weber, Max of connections scholar of scrutiny detailed a For

(Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1998). 1998). University Press, Harvard (Harvard: Was the German professor right in his evaluation? At the moment, when he when moment, the At evaluation? his in right professor German the Was

brl oeet wo ee iln t dsus h ies f eeaim and federalism of ideas the discuss to willing were who movement, iberal 5

Anyway, Weber was sceptic about the perspectives of those participants those of perspectives the about sceptic was Weber Anyway, oee, osdrd aeul, seily n t oiia pae the phase, original its in especially carefully, considered However, Kistiakovsky: the Struggle for National and Constitutional Rights in the Last Years of of Years Last the in Rights Constitutional and National for Struggle the Kistiakovsky: Weber Political Writings Political Weber

. Edited by Peter Lassman and Ronald Ronald and Lassman Peter by Edited .

omto twrs the towards formation

nm israin I dissertation, my In

borderlands, as they as borderlands,

Speirs) (Cambridge: Speirs) vlto o the of evolution the possibilityof the as possible. possible. as

CEU eTD Collection London : Harvard University Press, 1908), 213 1908), Press, University London: Harvard Pipes, Richard (1912); 1 6 a to monarchy traditional a from transition as described be could developments whic very Weber. attentiveMax observer An debates. these framed which Ukraine the and Poland cases various to devoted chapters particular in use will I which debates, these of analysis of methodology the expose the of sides the of each where detail, in debates political these consider to prompts struggle political common a in interact to attempts of series a in evolved gradually but beginning, the in obvious not movements thatgraduallyapparent.became national of participants of claims the with liberalism Russian of principles general of incompatibility rather but movements, national the of representatives and liberals agenda political the of convergence the hampered that chauvinism 17 October of Union (the spectrum political the of wing right the of position the and Party Democratic Constitutional the inte liberal of position equatethe to mean would so think To Russian of liberals. mindset the in initiallypresent chauvinism, certain consequenceof a not was nationalists with interaction of result negative a such that note, to important nation. Ukrainian the of existence very

Peter h aaye cret eeomns n usa Wbr oe ta those that noted Weber Russia, in developments current analyzed he h

Struve hs udmna ideologi fundamental This Pseudo to Transition “Russia’s 1906 of article the In , “ , Obshcherusskaia kul’tura i ukrainskii partikuliarizm. Otvet partikuliarizm. ukrainskii i kul’tura Obshcherusskaia Struve: –

I will p will I

Liberal on the Right, 1905 Right, the on Liberal

ilge rdal caiid hi pstos Bfr I Before positions. their clarified gradually dialogue d –

cal cleavage between liberals and nationalists was was nationalists and liberals between cleavage cal rovide a general description of a historical context, historical a of description general a rovide here again, I will refer to a view of “foreign,” but “foreign,” of view a to refer will I again, here

those of the Grand Duchy of Finland, Kingdom of of Kingdom Finland, of Duchy Grand the of those

- 6 th 219. 219.

However, contrary to the view view the to contrary However, ). I will demonstrate that it was not the the not was it that demonstrate will I ).

- 1944

(Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Cambridge, (Harvard, lligentsia gathered around around gatheredlligentsia

- Ukraintsu” Ukraintsu” osiuinls, in constitutionalism,” s of the Russian Russian the of s of Weber, it is it Weber, of Russkaia mysl’ Russkaia

CEU eTD Collection 10 9 8 7 autocracy. t towards society of distrust with Weber, for faces, bureaucracy the rulers.” for Renaissance place no of is characteristic there dilettantism where state, modern the of reality the with reconciled without cannot, which ambitions personal towards self inflated if vanity “dynastic monarch: traditional a of idea the realize would that stat functioning regularly a toward rule arbitrary from transition the meant, Weber for state”, “modern a towards transition the words, other In tsar. the of mood changeable on depend would influence whose rules strict to according function would which bureaucracy, rational modern a be would this whether was, question start con a as formed institutions, pseudo were 17 October of Manifest the by introduced supposedly were this used he when meant, state.” “modern

Weber, “ Weber, Ibid Ibid

Ibid able to force Russian society to submit to the system of “enlightened” (i.e. bureaucratically bureaucratically work. bureaucratic modern (i.e. “enlightened” system of system a the absolutism, to submit rationalized) to society Russian force to able may Terror Red The ben shelter seeking bureaucracy… into wealthy the scare temporally rational modern a into autocracy old the of development wie h ra atoiy eand n h hns f ueurc. oee, the However, bureaucracy. of hands the in remained authority real the while , . .

.,180.

Russia’sTransit

The whole of the rest of Russian society stands as one man precisely against the the against precisely man one as stands society Russian of rest the of whole The - etitos n rcie Te osiuinl ihs f h representative the of rights constitutional The practice. in restrictions 7

However, it is important to understand, what the German professor German the what understand, to important is it However, ion to Pseudo ionto 10

term. Weber argued, that constitutional restrictions, which restrictions, constitutional that argued, Weber term.

cession to a society were severely restricted from the very the from restricted severely were society a to cession

- Rechtstaat Constitutionalism…”, 179. 179. Constitutionalism…”, o i wud e ntok f conflicting of network a be would it or , which is the logical consequence of the technology of of technology the of consequence logical the is which

e machine, toward the power of bureaucracy of power the toward machine, e

. 8

4 ee i setc bu te oe o a of power the about skeptic is Weber

eath the bureaucracy, but… even this is not is this even but… bureaucracy, the eath

e, tasto t a modern a to transition a Yet, eiu hr big oe be done, being harm serious - sem la te monarch the lead esteem…

n scesv laws, successive and raditional servants of of servants raditional

satraps,

CEU eTD Collection Novyi Khronograf, 2010). Novyi Khronograf, Medushevskii, 15 gosudarstve o uchenie Obshchee 14 Schmitt Carl Weber, Max of 3. Thought chapter 2003). Press, University the in State the and Kelly, Duncan book a is state modern conceptualize 13 12 11 of liberalism. Russian doctrine the of elements core the of one was law of sovereignty of idea the Generally, scholarship. legal contemporary in word last the as professors German of ideas the Ger in studied them of Some liberalism. Russian of theoreticians state. the of essence the constitutes which order,” “legal impersonalan to but “nation”(“people”) the to nor monarch a to neither Jellinek. Georg friend state close German to According Weber’s representative, famous its of ideas the of tradition German the modified ways certain in institutions representative by controlled and law of formation the was Russia, in place Monarch parliame against monarch pleased.” they administrative their bereft and machinery by fabricated parliament shadow a with Ministers, of “ministers, Council because the namely bureaucracy, of hostage a was tsar the Weber,

A brilliant analysis of Weber’s theoretical borrowings from Jellinek and their common attempts to to attempts common their and Jellinek from borrowings theoretical Weber’s of analysis brilliant A Ibid Ibid recent A er Jellinek, Georg . .

,178. Thus, for Weber, the main substance of the historical process, which took took which process, historical the of substance main the Weber, for Thus, “pseudo of system emerged newly the Within

from this snare, because then because snare, this from

work on the influence of German theoreticians on the Russian liberal thought Andrei Andrei thought liberal Russian the on theoreticians German of influence the on work Dialog so vremenem: rossiiskie konstitutsionalisty kontsa XIX kontsa konstitutsionalisty rossiiskie vremenem: so Dialog 11

Only true constitutionalism, completely reified in law, could save the save could law, in reified completely constitutionalism, true Only lgmie Staatslehre Allgemeine

of any securely based influence of the law, would simply do as as do simply would law, the of influence based securely any of nt and would have a common interestnt andwoulda him.” have common with

(St.Petersburg: N.K.Martynov, 1908), 347 1908), N.K.Martynov, (St.Petersburg: - ea ter, n mdr sta modern a in theory, legal

Bri: elg o O Hrn, 95, 461 1905), Häring, O. von Verlag (Berlin: Rechtstaat

“the bureaucracy could be dependent on the on dependent be could bureaucracy “the

The State of the Political: Conceptions of Politics Politics of Conceptions Political: the of State The 5 14

. The position of Weber relied on and on relied Weber of position The .

uh ter ws ls t many to close was theory a Such , based on bureaucracy, subjected to subjected bureaucracy, on based , Staatsrechtslehre

n Faz Neumann Franz and - constitutionalism,” according to to according constitutionalism,” e h svriny belongs sovereignty the te - 352. 352. many and recognized and many –

nachala X nachala

, and particularly and ,

(Oxford: Oxford Oxford (Oxford: 12 X (Moscow: (Moscow: X

- 6; Idem, 468; 15 13

CEU eTD Collection Fundamental Laws, that they could be altered only by the tsar, which would entirely link the new new the link 17 entirely would which tsar, the by only monarch. ofa with person the order constitutional altered be could they that Laws, Fundamental 1919), Tipografiia, Gos. aia 16 of space political the defining for framework legal new created Laws, Fundamental the partieselections. that wonthe tothecould claims ofvoters, beinopposition interests whose had regime, autocratic the preserving at aimed Laws, Fundamental the of law positive nation. the of spirit state the of expression an be to supposed a such debates le “natural” a of abstraction theoretical of level the on resolved was collision German the In people. of sovereignty of idea the and possibilitya conflict principles of between thetwo of idea very the reject not could liberals the yetLaws, Fundamental the in implementation real its deny or acceptcould One state.” “modern a towards transition partial a was there terminology, Weber’s In order. legal impres an made it least at but sense, true the in constitution a not was the accepting “constitution,” the of master only the as tsar the frame to meant was act This Duma. the of convocation the before a advance, in Empire” Russian the of Laws “Fundamental the published assembly constituent the of a become would Assembly Constituent the that implied sovereignty of idea the of understanding an Such assemblies. representative elected properly of means by accomplished be to had which people,” of “sovereignty of idea

Michael Stolleis, Michael Stolleis, Tagantsev, Nikolay At the same time, the ideologues of Russia of ideologues the time, same the At “pseudo even Nevertheless, Kadets wo o te lcin i te is Dm, a t atr t into it alter to was Duma, first the in elections the won who , Public Law in Ger in Law Public Perezhitoe. Uchrezhdeniie G Uchrezhdeniie Perezhitoe. Aae f uh netos f the of intentions such of Aware .

185 - 187.

many Witte’s suggestion was to bring in an article into the body of the the of body the into article an in bring to was suggestion Witte’s

(New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2001), 322 2001), BerghahnBooks, Oxford: (NewYork,

- constitutionalism” implemented in the the in implemented constitutionalism” osudarstvennoi Dumy v 1905 1905 v Dumy osudarstvennoi

role 6

Rechtstaat

of a constituent power. constituent a of n liberalism were influenced by the by influenced were liberalism n –

the principle oflaw supremacy source of law. The initial idea initial The law. of source Sc a Such . Kadets 17

gal order, which was was which galorder,

Yet, in practice, the practice, in Yet, to be represented to be by iuto oee a opened situation – te government the ,

1906 sion of a unitary a of sion 16

(Petrograd: 1 (Petrograd: Of course, it course, Of

e days few - 352.

8 a - CEU eTD Collection osiki mei, oeeim ouai iprtr Nkli Proo sostavlennyi Pervogo part2. 1., 1892). Tipografiia, Gosudarstvennaia Nikolaia All imperatora gosudaria Imperial the poveleniem with imperii, Rossiiskoi connected inseparably are Finland of Duchy 21 deistvuiushikh 20 19 18 empire’s of owner an as emperor an of notion the with (linked empire concept in the newLaws. Fundamental the place its find not did tsar, Russian mentioning the of possession separate a as article, Poland of Kingdom older the finally, And, crown. the of possessions distinct of formula traditional the avoid to intended was laws the of text final the in “state” term the with “empire” state.” Russian the of part “inseparable Mor indivisible.” variantarticle ofthe indivisible.” and “united was empire Russian the that phrase a with ended possesse empire Russian the whereby formula strange a in resulted missing, was monarch the to references of absence the time, same the At monarch. a of person bythe all above united regions,of ( vladenii obladanii possessions supreme its all of of composed definition the suggested article this of version initial of idea the and monarchy traditional a of principle the between collision the how show, ar first the on discussions The empire. Russian the

The article 4 of the former Fundamental Laws “The thrones of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Grand the and Poland of Kingdom the of thrones “The Laws Fundamental former the of 4 article The Ibid. ( RGIA “Rossiia. Osnovnye Gosudarstvennye Zakony 23 aprelia 1906” 1906” aprelia 23 Zakony Gosudarstvennye Osnovnye “Rossiia. Rechtstaat

hs o te n hn, n cn e a emnlgcl rniin rm the from transition terminological a see can one hand, one the on Thus,

Russia konstitutsionnykh zakonov konstitutsionnykh

n State Historical Archive Historical nState a rsle i mnseil aies f h Rsin oenet The government. Russian the of cabinets ministerial in resolved was eover, the following article defined the Grand Duchy of Finland as Finland of Duchy Grand the defined article following the eover, ). 18 just contained and unite that “The thestatement was just state Russian

It conformed to an understanding of empire as a conglomerate a as empire of understanding an to conformed It h Rsin mie n te rn Dcy f iln a two as Finland of Duchy Grand the and empire Russian the d its own regions. Finally, this initial version of the article the of version initial this Finally, regions. own its d 21

(St.Petersburg: (St.Petersburg: ).

f. 727. op. 2. item. 56. p. 13. 13. 2. item.p. op. 56. f.727.

sseai rpaeet f h word the of replacement systematic A 7

“Pravo”, 1907) vol. 2., 2., 567. vol. 1907) “Pravo”, ahdahksa e derzhavnom ee v nakhodiashikhsia il o te udmna Laws Fundamental the of ticle Sovremennye konstitutsii. konstitutsii. Sovremennye - usa throne.” Russian

h Rsin mie as empire Russian the

(St.Petersburg: (St.Petersburg: Svod 19

The f The

zakonov Sbornik Sbornik inal CEU eTD Collection 24 forthcoming). Press, (eds.) Gra the of Incorporation the of and Laws 1906 Fundamental the Empire: Heterogeneous “Modernizing Khripachenko, Tatiana 2009); Brill, Alexander and Kusber Jan Self and Rationalization of Languages Out: Speaks Gerasimov, Ilia in: Duma” State the of Mirror the in Empire Russian The Russia”: of Map Ethnographic Live and Real ““The all Semyonov, Alexander an of likeness a create to V attempt Russia. an as 1906 in citizenship of concept Kritika I and Colony, the “Metropole, in population Morrison, of Alexander groups different empire: to applied norms of set varying a as or 2012); Press, University etc. Lohr, naturalization immigration, example for practices, of range broad a through crystalized 23 status. legal theirformal Empire” Russian the in Citizenship and Law Regime: Rights Imperial “An Burbank, Jane see which for review comprehensive 19 22 regulated laws. by special be to were that exemptions certain by compromised was however, rights, these of had “citizen.” a of rights certain acquired “subject” Russian the Thus, rights. civic certain with “subjects” imperial the providing to due meaning juridical new a with invested was “subjecthood” of notion to have special legislation). right the provided was Finland(Onlyfeatures. culturalethnic and distinct with regions accomp was laws Fundamental the in space political Russian the of Homogenization state. “indivisible” an of space legal unitary a into borderlands distinct formerly of incorporation jure theo part. On constituent a as treated is certainland a where state, impersonal of notion a to regions)

“Rossiia. Osnovnye Gosudar Osnovnye “Rossiia. aaek N.I, Lazarevki 09) Recent accounts on citizenship in the Russian empire tend to consider, how the notion was was notion the how consider, to tend empire Russian the in citizenship on accounts Recent

basic rights of personal inviolability and political participation. The universality universality The participation. political and inviolability personal of rights basic . Such a homogenization, however, did not do away with “legal pluralism” at the local level, a level, local the at pluralism” “legal with away do not did however, homogenization, a Such . Constitutionalism, Legitimacy, and Power: Nineteenth Power: and Legitimacy, Constitutionalism,

usa Ctznhp rm mie o oit Union Soviet to Empire from Citizenship Russian 13: 2 (2012) Both studies, however, neglect the significance of a legal transformation of the the of transformation legal a of significance the neglect however, studies, Both (2012) 2 13: fac the in consisted also state” “modern of idea an to Approaching

arious attempts to accommodate the diversity within the civic community are discussed in: in: discussed are community civic the within diversity the accommodate to attempts arious ther hand, due to such a formula, the Fundamental Laws acompleted de theFundamental formula, a due tosuch hand, ther

Zakonodatel’nye

lished by abolishing of special legal regimes for particular Russia’s Russia’s particular for regimes legal special of abolishing by lished

Kritika

24 stvennye Zakony 23 aprelia 1906...”, 580 1906...”, aprelia Zakony23 stvennye

7: 3 (2006). (2006). 3 7: 22

ky eehdoo rmn. 1904 vremeni. perekhodnogo akty

atclry tws declare was it Particularly,

nd Duchy of Finland” in: Kelly L. Grotke, Markus J. Prutsch Prutsch J. Markus Grotke, L. Kelly in: Finland” of Duchy nd

It rather unified rather It -

Description in the Russian Empire Russian the in Description 8

mperial Citizenship in the Russian Empire” Empire” Russian the in Citizenship mperial

- a broad variety of the regions in terms of of terms in regions the of variety broad a Century Experiences Century

(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Harvard Massachusetts: (Cambridge, d that the Rus the that d - - 1908 582. “Pravo,” (St.Petersburg: . - Semyonov (eds.) (eds.) Semyonov inclusive civic nation in in nation civic inclusive

(Oxford University University (Oxford

(Leiden, Boston: Boston: (Leiden, sian subjects sian ta the that t

See: Empire Empire

Eric - CEU eTD Collection demokraticheskoi partii partii demokraticheskoi 1902 party and program the For legislation. working the also 26 agenda. political 153 1991), literatury, politicheskoi Izdatel’stvo own his on liberalism British of trends 25 p. 25 i the protecting and representing as perceived was state the Meanwhile, state. existing the and minority” “exploiting to opposed was which majority,” “exploited an meant they “people,” By “nation.” a themselves proclaimed morewealth fair of inthe society. distribution a ensure to order in relations property of regulation the in state the of involvement groups. particular for preference no making inclusive), rather was (which community civic entire the for good common of ideas the of leadership T law. of supremacy of ideas the and entities collective of interests the over freedoms and rights individual of priority constitutionalism, of ideas the on based were principles ideological core Their Party. Democratic Constitutional formed “left,” the on and “right” the on neighbors their from the elections.theyclearly Therefore, needed toformulate their programs. illegally acquired orinemigration a legal revolution the before existed already that forces political Those debates. political for leastthanataction, political for not if space, thereemergedlegalastate, constitutional

In a certain way these principles were reflected in the position of the Kadets on agrarian question and and question agrarian on Kadets the of position the in reflected were principles these way certain a In Freeden, Michael - 70. Paul Miliukov in his memoirs mentioned about the influence of the new (socially oriented) oriented) (socially new the of influence the about mentioned memoirs his in Miliukov Paul 70. –

Contrary to liberals, the left the liberals, to Contrary them distinguished statements programmatic whose liberals of group the A of path the on embarked empire Russian the As

1905

Mso: OSE, 01, 170 2001), ROSSPEN, (Moscow: The New Liberalism. An Ideology of Social of Ideology An Liberalism. New The Kadets (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1997). v. 1, 19 1997). ROSSPEN, (Moscow:

shared the principles of New Liberalism and emphasized the emphasized and Liberalism New of principles the shared s expressing the interests of the “people,” instead of the the of instead “people,” the of interests the expressing s

nterests of exploiters. Thus, in the opinion of socialist socialist of opinion the in Thus, exploiters. of nterests - wing parties, though with varying political views, views, political varying with though parties, wing

- 156. 156. ground for mobilizing theirground mobilizing electorate for during

- 26

9 218; 218; discussions see: discussions

P hy upre te p the supported They vl Miliukov, avel - ’ed i ofrnsi konstitutsionno konferentsii i S’’ezdy 40. 40.

Reform (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1986) 1986) Press, Claredon (Oxford: Reform

transition towards a modern modern a towards transition

Liberal’noe dvizhenie v Rossii, v dvizhenie Liberal’noe a eti etn, the extent, certain a o

Vospominaniia Vospominaniia

a core of the future future the of core a

siiiy of ossibility (Moscow: (Moscow: - CEU eTD Collection Revolution of of 1905 Revolution 1907 Russia” “Renewed and “Conservatives Lukianov, Milhail intellectuals: conservative Russian of nationalism on branc Regional a newspapers thein developed 28 15 2001), Press, Fitzpatrick, Sheila 1917: before 40 1995), ROSSPEN, (Moscow: social Russian of sotsialistov materialy i Dokumenty goda. 1898 Mart RSDRP. s’’ezd Pervyi 27 the of part conservative nationalistic this besides ideology wing (“ nations other of claims the Russia the of “master a be to had people Russian the politicians, ( nation” Russian “leaderthe the of people,”as “Russian the with united monarchas the T nationalism. Russian of version peculiar a to adhered activists right the of Many right. divine the on based monarch, a of sovereignty of idea right the the of sovereignty it of Yet, discourse. socialist the in developed idea was it as “people” the recognize not did liberals) the to (next spectrum attribute ofa “b an as perceived was latter the for liberals the of support The individuals. of rights the over priority a have to had people” “working the of interests collective time, same the just new a create to had people revolutionary The value. positive a as regarded be not could and oppression of instrument an was state existing the by maintained and formed order legal the leaders, ezani oh’ usoo naroda russkogo vozhd’ derzhavnyi

rgam pltcekk pri Rossii partii politicheskikh Programmy See, for example, for See, right a took that movements and parties Those

- - wing politicians exclusively as traditional monarchists, who supported the the supported who monarchists, traditional as exclusively politicians wing revoliutsionerov. Dokumenty i materialy i Dokumenty revoliutsionerov. - -

31. h of of h 1914” 1914” ist parties: parties: ist ourgeois” natureourgeois” ofliberalism.

(

Vladimir Lenin, “Proekt i ob’’asnieine i “Proekt Lenin, Vladimir Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Russian Assembly. Since 1908 Russian Borderland Society Borderland Russian 1908 Since Assembly. Russian Slavic Review Review Slavic Novoe Vremia Vremia Novoe Programmy politicheskikh partii Rossii konets XIX XIX konets Rossii partii politicheskikh Programmy order that would be radically different from the old one. At one. old the from different radically be would that order zemstvo - h Rsin eouin eod Edition. Second Revolution. Russian The 52, 136 52, inorodtsy”

61: 4 (2002); (2002); 4 61: - oeet wo lo hrd h i the shared also who movement, 147; 147; , 419 …, (edited by Alexei Suvorin) Alexei by (edited

. codn t te otie f h right the of doctrine the to According ). A general A ). version. - 28

455.

(Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1996) v.1 1996) ROSSPEN, (Moscow: There were other variations of the right the of variations other were There 10 27

o C Don

uh vrin f usa ntoaim was nationalism Russian of version a Such

overview of the socialist ideological tradition tradition ideological socialist the of overview

programmy sotsial programmy lss t usa ieas a the was liberals Russian to Closest , 1995). ,

(Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1958); 1958); Gospolitizdat, (Moscow: .

Rawson, - wing position in the political the in position wing

and and

( Okrainy Rossi Okrainy would be wrong to see see to wrong be would usa R Russian xod Ofr University Oxford Oxford: - demokraticheskoi partii” partii” demokraticheskoi represented latter he n land,” contrary to to contrary land,” n ) . Historical accounts accounts Historical . es f “legal a of deas – - gtss n the and ightists 2; The programs The 2; ahl X vv. XX nachalo i (an organ of of organ (an Partiia - - wing wing wing -

CEU eTD Collection avtonomiia Pol’shi po pressydannym Pol’shi po avtonomiia Drel’, N.Ia. 32 31 30 TsK i zasedanii s’’ezdov 29 the to due Yet, nationality. their of irrespective empire, Russian the of population to readiness “separatism.” and throne the with “Russian united the of people,” might the demonstrate to was conditions these in from disintegration statehood Russian the preserve to way only The claims. their radicalize and state. own its “ Therefore,concessions to any create to run long the in was logic, their to according people, each o synonyms were federation and autonomy view, their In statehood. Russian the weakened peoples other to concessions any that believed and “realism,” of framework the within empire the in peoples other and Russians 17 of Union the of participants The Russia. in movements national of nature the of understanding the in difference fundamental a reflected rather but borderlands), certain of discretion lesser or (greater autonomy ofPoland). tothe Kingdom providing to all above referred discussions (the empire the of regions certain to rights future the from powera as pivotal core hadtokeep “anarchy” from that Russia “disintegration.” and monarchic strong a preserving for stood they Yet freedoms. civic certain and order”

Ob avtonomii Pol’shi. Izdanie Soiuza 17 Oktiabria 17 Soiuza Izdanie Pol’shi. avtonomii Ob partii Rossii politicheskikh Programmy dvizhen Liberal’noe rgam pltcekk pri Rossii partii politicheskikh Programmy First of all, it is important to under to important is it all, of First the of wing conservative the divided that issues the of One

anta ehu usi ovbdtlnm vzeim sveenm o’km i pol’skim sovremennym i dvizheniem osvoboditel’nym russkim mezhdu Raznitsa 32

Moderate Kadets ie v ie Rossii

(Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1996) v. 1 1996) ROSSPEN, (Moscow: ws h qeto o te osblt t poie autonomous provide to possibility the on question the was , …, Octobrists, 482 inorodtsy (Warsaw: Tipografiia okruzhnogo shtaba, 1906). 1906). shtaba, okruzhnogo Tipografiia (Warsaw:

- 495 …, 343. 343. …, th

p 339 p. … .

30 Oc

oee, eonzd ii rgt fr l the all for rights civic recognized however,

” oe udrto te eainhp between relationship the understood tober

stand that this division was not about details about not was division this that stand could only encourage their national feelings encourage feelings national could only their

(Moscow: “Pechatnia S.P. Iakovleva,” 1906), 1 1906), Iakovleva,” S.P. “Pechatnia (Moscow: - 11 350; 350;

- 2. ati “So Partiia

f separatism. f ihtn ay teps of attempts any withstand i uz 17 Oktiabria” Protokoly Protokoly Oktiabria” 17 uz zemstvo 31

The only aim of aim only The

movement movement - 29 7;

CEU eTD Collection 45; Nikolai Lazarevskii, Lazarevskii, Nikolai 45; 2 1905), 34 33 “ of concept the on relied which wouldbe ofproperly composed electedrepresentatives of all thenations. an Meanwhile, compromise. a such appro of realization the for guarantee a become to had Russia in order constitutional new The state. entire the of particular needs the to interests their opposing without compromise reasonable a find to able be would nationalities. the all of interests reasonable of realization with along space political unitary Russia’s the from separatism. nationalists towards tendency “cure” completely would etc.) international (economic, citize all the of majority the of view the In basis. national the on rights indiv of violation and cultures national of repression to an reaction understandable quite yet exaggerated, an were separatism towards tendencies the while sides, all for beneficial mutually be could state common a in nations of coexistence that Th positions. “idealist” from empire the in nations between relationship was onprotectionrights of the minority ofRussian in the national borderlands. fo major the borderlands, the in supporters their of composition

Partiia “So Partiia eo Kokoshkin, Fedor rae a hd o e lbrtd y n empire an by elaborated be to had law priate - t h sm tm, the time, same the At the treated liberals the right, moderate the of representatives the to Contrary Russia of peoples the between compromise possible a of understanding This 13; Vladimir Gessen, Gessen, Vladimir 13; s repcie f hi nationality their of irrespective ns i uz 17 Oktiabria” 17 uz

bataa vooia edinstv i avtonomiia Oblastnaia Avtonomiia civic nation,” which would be an association of free citizens citizens free of association an be would which nation,” civic …, Avtonomiia, federatsiia i natsional’nyi vopros natsional’nyi i federatsiia Avtonomiia, 11, 11,

(St.Petersburg, 1906), 3 1906), (St.Petersburg, 34 Kadets 157

hs tee xse a opruiy f preserving of opportunity an existed there Thus, - 158

eivd ht ain i te usa e Russian the in nations that believed

n udrtnig f omn interests common of understanding and 12 Rossii o

- 24.. 24..

- O.L.Somovoi, Tipografiia (Moscow: ie ersnaie assembly, representative wide Kadets

cus of the the of cus (St.Petersburg, 1906), 1 1906), (St.Petersburg, , the equality of of equality the , y assumed ey Octobrists 33

mpire idual ir -

CEU eTD Collection 629 569 1970), literatury, politicheskoi Izdatel’stvo 38 https://www.marxists.org/archive/leni 37 801 36 3331. zakonodatel’stva” i upravlenuia detsentralizatsii i natsional’nostei pravakh o voprosu 35 separation.” complete self for nations of “rights the of claim a posed and nationalities Great the of nationalism Lenin therefore autocracy, the against struggle the in allies potential as regarded were borderlands the combat. to had Democrats nationalism of ideology the that assumed they Thus, class. their of irrespective interests, their of commonality of sense a nations their of people exploited the in instil to landholders exploiters ( a among movements national the to regard in unity of lack the notice to important is it time, left and liberals collective rights. theory liberal the beginning nationalities. particular of representatives than rather individuals, as trudiashchiesia

Marxist idea of proletarian internationalism or an association of the working people people working the of association an or internationalism proletarian of idea Marxist See, for example, Vladimir Lenin, Theses on the National Question (1913) The article is available at at available is article The (1913) Question National the on Theses Lenin, Vladimir example, for See, Question” National the on Engels and “Marx A.Petrus, Joseph eo Kkskn “old organizatsionnogo “Doklad Kokoshkin, Fedor ldmr ei, O rv nti n smordlne Ie, zrny pozeeia (Moscow: proizvedeniia Izbrannye Idem, samoopredelenie” na natsii prave “O Lenin, Vladimir - - 632. 811.

the left the

epoe hs eso frhr I il osdr h dfeec bten the between difference the consider will I further, tension this explore o . 36

a a atfca cntuto t dcie h pol wih h Social the which people the deceive to construction artificial an was rm hs iwon, ainls ws n tep o bugose and bourgeoisie of attempt an was nationalism viewpoint, this From - wing parties themselves. For instance, For themselves. parties wing - o al h cutis n ntos n cmo srgl against struggle common a in nations and countries the all of ) wing parties in their approaches to the national question. At the same the At question. national the to approaches their in parties wing

ae “ilcia” itnto bten h “chauvinistic” the between distinction “dialectical” a made 38

Me - usas n te porsie ntoaim f oppressed of nationalism “progressive” the and Russians 37 nhl, h gad da o te oil eort ws a was Democrats Social the of ideal grand the anwhile,

contained At the same time, the national liberation movements in movements liberation national the time, same the At n/works/1913/jun/30.htm#fwV19E085

a tension between the notion of individual and individual of notion the between tension a - 621; Idem.“O natsional’noi gordosti velikorosov” velikorosov” gordosti natsional’noi Idem.“O 621;

ir s’zu esih grdkk ditli po deiatelei gorodskikh i zemskikh s’’ezdu biuro

the Social Democrats promoted Democrats Social the The Journal of Politics of Journal The

determination up to a to up determination 35

From the very the From Pravo

33: 3 (1971): (1971): 3 33:

40 (1905), 40 Ibid ., CEU eTD Collection axs: pri Nmi “ainls Mliutrls i Lt Ipra Asra s Ciiu of Critique a 290 as Austria Imperial Late Liberalis in Contemporary Multiculturalism “Nationalist Nimni, Ephraim Marxism: 43 55 (1906)” Rossii (SERP) partii partii rabochei sotsialisticheskoi Evreiskoi “Programma Unive London: (Minneapolis, Democracy Social and Nationalities of Question The Bauer, Otto 1899); (Wien, 42 1908). Prokhorova, Tipografiia (St.Petersburg: 41 sotsialistov politika sotsiologiia, 40 1 1999), 39 a such even Moreover, agenda. individualist strictly a with liberalism classical the rights the rights. over individual ofpeoples) (including rights collective of priority of idea the to liberals the than receptive more Renner. Karl federation, and Bauer exterritorial Otto by of formulated idea an of supporters the and centralism of advocates were nationalis and socialist of exponents regard in views semantic a did than often “federation” more notion the used they though views, clear less expressed anarchists the to Revolutionaries 1917. of Revolution the until developed sus economically be would that lines. ethnic along territories minor into republics republic socialist free of union

al enr Pednm Snpiu] Zr serehshn ainlttnrg: ta ud Nation und Staat Nationalitätenfrage: Österriechischen Zur Synopticus], [Pseudonym: Renner Karl Idem, antiteologizm” i sotsialism “Federalism, Bakunin, Mikhail example: for Compare, Smit Jeremy pri Nmi xrse smlr pno cmaig iea dsore ih h ies f Austrian of ideas the with discourse liberal comparing opinion similar expressed Nimni Ephraim - rtkl kneeti rsisih natsional’no i rossiiskikh konferentsii Protokoly 79. - 312. 312.

st o Mneoa rs, 00; o te eeto o te da o Asra Mrit see: Marxists Austrian of ideas the of reception the For 2000); Press, Minnesota of rsity

n motn group important an - a of adherents as liberals Russian the present to unjust, be would it Yet,

28. 28.

- revoliutsionerov” …, 205 …,

origin h, The Bolsheviks and the National Question, 1917 Question, National the and Bolsheviks The

to national movements, yet movements, national to - 206; 206;

in (Mosco m: the Case of Bauer and Renner” Renner” and Bauer of Case the m:

Bakunin’s tradition. Bakunin’s Protokoly konferentsii rossiiskikh i natsiona i rossiiskikh konferentsii Protokoly Politicheskie partii Rossii Rossii partii Politicheskie w:

n the in zae’to Pad, 1989 “Pravda,” Izdatel’stvo

s anbe Yt ti pr o te rga ws not was program the of part this Yet, tainable. Ti iel i nt rspoe h dvso of division the presuppose not did ideal This .

left t ideas were often the same people. same the often were ideas t

- the Social Democrats. Moreover, the term had had term the Moreover, Democrats. Social the wing parties. Among them were both the the both were them Among parties. wing 40 39

These socialist groups developed different developed groups socialist These

te scait ate, rm h Socialist the from parties, socialist Other it is noticeable that in the borderlands the the borderlands the in that noticeable is it - 42 14 osaitcekk pri. 16 partii. sotsialisticheskikh (Moscow, 1906), 18. 18. 1906), (Moscow,

43 n eea, h left the general, In

Journal of Political Ideologies Political of Journal Instead, ), 19; “Proekt programmy partii partii programmy “Proekt 19; ), - 23

l’no it presupposed larger units larger presupposed it (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, Press Macmillan (London: - sotsialisticheskikh partii sotsialisticheskikh Programmy politicheskikh politicheskikh Programmy

- ig ate were parties wing - 0 aprelia 20 41

4: 3 (1999): (1999): 3 4: The Filosofiia,

Jews 1907 … , CEU eTD Collection Victorian Age Victorian (eds.), O’Day Alan and Boyce Gross, Germany Century Nineteenth in B. Imagination Michael 2009); Press, Futur the and Empire Prin Oxford: and (Princeton J 1996); 1848 Empire, Austrian the in Identity National Judson, M. Peter empires: European 46 70. 9 2013), Press, University Yale London: and Haven 45 Essays 44 t tendency. theirinto programsnationalist rhetoric. ofimperialist or theelements countr different in liberals encouragedthe also This masses. of instincts chauvinist even and national to appealed often right the on liberals the of competitors socialjustice.of question the to freedoms andrights individual protectio from focus its shift to had liberalism parties, wing left the with struggle the in survive To voters. common of hearts the over win to had parties conservative larg franchise widened a of result the as because indicative, was transition a such time, same the At law. the by protected already were rights individual basic the France, th of evolution The rights. collective of importance the recognize to had Europe Western in movements liberal of majority the and demise, the in was theory liberal classical T community. civic overarching an within rights national the reconcile to possibility the on view sophisticated rather had Mill Stuart John as liberalism British of “classic” a te ol f euig h rgt o idvda ad h rl o lw a sil not still was law of rule the and individual of rights the securing of goal the hat the when time, the at right emerged it that was liberalism Russian the of drama he

e Western liberals was easier, provided that in such countries as Great Britain and Britain Great as countries such in that provided easier, was liberals Western e How the liberal rhetoric eventually conflated with national, racial, and imperialist languages in in languages imperialist and racial, national, with conflated eventually rhetoric liberal the How Idem. Government” Representative on “Considerations Mill, Stuart John a We Jan

er groups of population became involved in politics, while the socialist, liberal andsocialist,liberal while thepolitics, in becameinvolved population groupsof er

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). chapters 16, 17. 17. 16, chapters 2008). University Press, Oxford (Oxford: nie Pitts ennifer Russian the respect, this In

rner Müller, Müller, rner

Yet, in the Russian case, the situation was more complicated due to the fact the to due complicated more was situation the case, Russian the in Yet,

(Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). 2010). Macmillan, Palgrave (Houndsmills,Basingstoke: A un o mie Te ie f meil ieaim n rti ad France and Britain in Liberalism Imperial of Rise The Empire: to Turn A , o te ol Odr 1860 Order, World the of e otsig eorc: oiia Ies n Twentieth in Ideas Political Democracy: Contesting ceton University Press, 2005); Duncan Bell, Bell, Duncan 2005); Press, University ceton ldtn ad rln: oiis Rlgo ad ainlt i the in Nationality and Religion Politics, Ireland: and Gladstone Exclusive Revolutionaries: Liberal Politics, Social Experience and and Experience Social Politics, Liberal Revolutionaries: Exclusive h Wr gis Ctoiim Lbrls ad Anti and Liberalism Catholicism: Against War The

liberals were not an exception from a European European a from exception an not were liberals

(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2004); D. Ge D. 2004); Michigan, of University Arbor: (Ann – -

1900 1914 - 16; Michael Freeden, Freeden, Michael 16; 15

(Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University University Princeton Oxford: and (Princeton ( n Abr Univer Arbor: Ann

The Idea of Greater Britain: Greater of Idea The 45 The New Liberalism New The

At the same time, the time, same the At sity of Michigan Press, Press, Michigan of sity - On Liberty and Other Other and Liberty On etr Europe Century 46

ies to integrate to ies - Catholic …,

(New (New n of n orge orge

25 44 -

CEU eTD Collection V.Bezobrazova, 1878)” Idem. “Gosudarstvo i provintsiia” Idem. Idem. provintsiia” i “Gosudarstvo Idem. 2001). “Nauka,” Izdatel’stvo 1878)” V.Bezobrazova, Gradovskii, uchrezhdenii obshchestvennykh i zemskikh Vasil’chikov, Aleksander 1864); 48 1989). Press, CambridgeUniversity (Cambridge: Pearson, I Thomas War World during and before Council State the and (ed.), Conroy 1864 Russia, Imperial Porter, Earl Thomas 1972); Press, University Self and Decentralization L includes: 47 associatio the of members the all of good common towards pursuit civic the levels, these At other. the on interest egoistic private and freedom of expression an was who individual particular a and hand, one the on good, common a for necessary state the between tensions the that believed Gradovsky. Alexander and Vasil’chikov Alexander became Reforms. Great of all of framework reflected connection decentralization to commitment hand, one the On decentralization. groups inprogrammaticrequiredcompromises statements. the of leaders one was exactly This preference. ideological of core the in was that ideas of set a forward put to tried liberals Russian the achieved o

A selected list of literature on political and ideological context of functioning of zemstvo institutions institutions zemstvo of functioning of context ideological and political on literature of list selected A lkadr Lokhvitskii, Aleksander a Self cal the in idea key The

Terence Emmons and Wayne S. Vucinich (eds.), (eds.), Vucinich S. Wayne and Emmons Terence reflected . Therefore, in an attempt to attract hesitant voters on the left and on theright, and theleft voters on attempt toattracthesitant an Therefore, in . - Government itm msng urveia na upravleniia mestnogo Sistemy

of the liberal groups to the to groups liberal the of Emerging Democracy in Late Imperial Russia: Case Studies on Local Self Local on Studies Case Russia: Imperial Late in Democracy Emerging

intermediate levels of association of citizens were necessary to reduce reduce to necessary were citizens of association of levels intermediate Kadet usa Ofcadm n rss Atcay n Lcl Self Local and Autocracy Crisis: in Officialdom Russian -

estate institutions of local self local of institutions estate in the works of Russian theoreti Russian of works the in - 47 1917

party

h pltcl xeine n te rcie f hs institutions these of practice the and expedience political The (Cambridge: Cambridge University University Cambridge (Cambridge: -

oenet n usa 1830 Russia, in Government ueni, e esi i rvtlsvny uchrezhdeniia pravitel’stvennye i zemskie ee Guberniia, (San

to concede to

Kadet

Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1991); Mary Schaeffer Schaeffer Mary 1991); Press, University Research Mellen Francisco: O samoupravlenii. Sravnitel’nyi obzor russkikh i inostrannykh inostrannykh i russkikh obzor Sravnitel’nyi samoupravlenii. O

s s an as ’

vision of reorganizing Russia’s political space was space political Russia’s reorganizing of vision

(St.Petersburg: Tipografiia Pratz, 1872) v. 1 v. 1872) Pratz, Tipografiia (St.Petersburg:

, when the logic of tactical alliances with various with alliances tactical of logic the when , The Zemstvo and the Emergence of Civil Society in Late Late in Society Civil of Emergence the and Zemstvo The zemstvo

aae voy v Rossii v i Evropy zapade

moiet f uiom co uniform a of embodiment

of the reasons for unwillingness for reasons the of

(Niwot: University Press of Colorado, 1 Colorado, of Press University (Niwot: -

movement, which emerged within the within emerged which movement, government, introduced in the course the in introduced government, - 1870 cians of law Alexander Lokhvitsky, Alexander law of cians The Zemstvo in Russia. An Experiment in in Experiment An Russia. in Zemstvo The

(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Princeton Jersey: New (Princeton, rs, 92; .rdrc Starr, S.Frederick 1982); Press, 48

o eape Gradovsky example, For

Sochineniia (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Tipografiia Petersburg: (St. - oenet 1861 Government,

ercive order, order, ercive - n is in unity in is n (St.Petersburg: (St.Petersburg: (St.Petersburg, (St.Petersburg, 2; Aleksander Aleksander 2; - Government, Government, of the of

- their their 998); 1900 the the

CEU eTD Collection Grazhdanskoe obsh Grazhdanskoe 52 England” 51 50 49 of States United the or Switzerland as states federative such that considered He state. i illegitimate an be would functions “state” with institutions local investing Gradovsky, For “autonomy.” into government self local society. of life actual Riehl, of view the in that, schemes administrative abstract to enable sugg Riehl (1851) Gesellschaft” bürgerliche “Die work his In Riehl. Wilhelm thinker conservative German a of theory liberalism. classical arbitraryaction of onthepart local administration. any prevent to and authority central the to regards as function axillary an perform self local of institutions those wanted he time, same the At institutions. t to center the from authority of delegation and decentralization administrative state. the of unity the for dangerous d and order legal s the At region. particular they that provided life, civic a involve run, longthe in This, state. the of powerorganizing the with

Wilhelm Wilhelm Ibid., A.Gradovskii, a Pal Jan

d 199. Strictly speaking, speaking, Strictly

The Historical Journal Historical The organic development of specific historical features of society. It society. of features historical specific of development organic osi “ieaim n Lcl oenet n ae Nineteenth Late in Government Local and “Liberalism mowski, - Riehl oenet I ohr od h ws gis tasomto o lcl self local of transformation against was he words other In government.

, “Gosudarstvo i provintsiia… “Gosudarstvo Die bürgerliche Gesellschaft bürgerliche Die chestvo id 51

o alw hm o eod h lmt, hr te wud be would they where limits, the beyond go them allow not

rdvk i fc criticize fact in Gradovsky (St.Petersburg: Tipografiia A.E.Landau, 1883). 1883). A.E.Landau, Tipografiia (St.Petersburg:

t the At ame time, state control subjected control state time, ame uh vepit dd o cml wt te rmwr of framework the with comply not did viewpoint, a such

45, 2 (2002) p. 386 (2002) 2 45,

ae ie Gaosy eid h “oiia” oe of role “political” the denied Gradovsky time, same ested were nterference of society into the functioning of the of functioning the into society of nterference

, an oe nomd f h sae f far i their in affairs of state the of informed more ” 196 ”

Sutat 81;Rsintasain Vlglm Ril,’ Vil’gel’m translation: Russian 1851); (Stuttgart,

49 idea of a hierarchical “volkish” society that society “volkish” hierarchical a of idea

- - hs Gaosy upre a ie of idea an supported Gradovsky Thus, 198. 391. 17

50 d

uh ieaim rfrig o the to referring liberalism, such

these

strivings to a unified unified a to strivings we - Century Germany and and Germany Century d e eahd from detached re

local forces into into forces local - government to government wa s opposed s he local local he - CEU eTD Collection 57 19. 56 55 54 53 were absent. still self extend to necessity the as well as institutions those of competences the of nature the and volume the about only disagree could liberals Russian discussions. these of place discret common a was institutions certain providing of idea the Meanwhile, and liberal of members the among discussion further for framework provided the local authori it is inasmuch reforms, “progressive” impede could decentralization justified: thus werecenter) the in life political the of concentration(i.e. centralism parliamentaryand regio the of development the well and “educated” only view, education. and mor were localities the in people that believed and capital the in bureaucrats the trust not did who landholders, Russian of applicable toRussia. be not could models these that and conditions historical specific in emerged America

A. Gradovskii, “Gosudarstvo i provintsiia…,” 295 i provintsiia…,” “Gosudarstvo A.Gradovskii, predely” ee i avtonomiia “Oblastnaia Kistiakovskii, Bogdan 201 Ibid., Dmitrii A.Gradovskii,

rte i 1880 in Written c a Such

Shipov - 203. 203. zemstvo

, “Gosudarstvo i provintsiia…,” 178. i provintsiia…,” “Gosudarstvo 54

Vospominaniia i Dumy o perezhitom o i Dumy Vospominaniia onflation of liberal and conservative principles matched the worldview the matchedconservative andprinciples liberal of onflation

57 At the same time, these people shared conservative beliefs. In their In beliefs. conservative shared people these time, same the At

ciit. mn te, hr wr mn “progressive” many were there them, Among activists. - ies the works of Gradovsky offered an original theoretical theoretical original an offered Gradovsky of works the ies ty tothe representativesof conservative elite. e competent in the matters of local economy, infrastruct economy, local of matters the in competent e ns. -

- oenet n h bord the in government 55 established persons could make decisions regarding regarding decisions make could persons established

h ssiin o te doae o constitutional of advocates the of suspicions The

296; 296; 18

(Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2007) (Moscow: ROSSPEN,

Liberal’noe dvizheniie v Rossiiv dvizheniie Liberal’noe Moskovskii ezhenedel’nik Moskovskii ional power to local elective elective local to power ional erlands, where the the where erlands, , zemstvo 56

110

, 93 , -

111. 111. 4 (1907): 18 (1907): 4 - zemstvos 96.

circles.

ure, -

CEU eTD Collection 59 1700 Power, People, Imperii Space, 502 Empire: 2007), Russian Indianapolis: (eds.) Remnev Anatolyi Nineteenth Pan and “Federalisms the Hagen, in Russia of Reconstruction Federal of Century Projects and Plans Russia: of States United 1882); slovo,” 58 of idea abstract an Thus, movements. national various of representatives the with dialogue the in crystalized program liberal the how examine will It challenges. these also theborderlands. in of groups thecenter,b in intellectuals wider likeminded of groupto bounded a limited not electorate, convincing of importance the realize to had program liberal the of authors the time, same the At movements. national of claims the to assumptions the complicated further program their relate and theories abstract abandon to liberals space the led It situation. political public of emergence The organization. self local transforming of possibility rega position clear a have not did liberals Russian the began, movements unpractical tothe needsand of irrelevant theregions ofthe population concerned. th intellectuals of schemes general Otherwise, established. was representation elected properly a after possible be only would which needs, local of examination careful a required discussion for a such that assumed liberals the Generally, alternative reasonable a be could federation center. the from remoteness or composition, national and development historical their to due discretion larger

Kokoshkin, Kokoshkin, Dragomanov, Mikhail

(Moscow: NLO, 2007). chapter.9. chapter.9. 2007). NLO, (Moscow: My dissertation will consider how the leaders of Russian liberalism reacted to reacted liberalism Russian of leaders the how consider will dissertation My interactionwiththe peripheralThus, at an the moment,intensive when national required regions certain that argued thinkers liberal the time, same the At

(London and and (London “Doklad organizatsionnogo biuro…,” 3338. biuro…,” organizatsionnogo “Doklad A general review of particular political projects: political particular of review general A oot: soitd nvriy rse, 91. hpes 6 chapters 1981). Presses, University Associated Toronto: Politicheskaia programma obshchestva programma Politicheskaia - 506; Lev Dameshek, Anatolii Remnev (eds.), (eds.), Remnev Anatolii Dameshek, Lev 506;

- movements: Re movements:

oee te questio the However

- government into a more complex form of state of form complex more a into government - imagining Empire” Jane Burbank, Mark von Hagen, and and Hagen, von Mark Burbank, Jane Empire” imagining

Dimitry Von Mohrenschildt, Toward a Toward Mohrenschildt, Von Dimitry

“Zemskii Soiuz” “Zemskii Russia o wehr uooy or autonomy whether of n

Sibir’ v sostave Rossiiskoi Rossiiskoi sostave v Sibir’ eand unresolved. remained - 1930 (Bloomington and and (Bloomington 1930 etnd o become to reatened

(Genève: “Vol’noie “Vol’noie (Genève: - , 0 Mr von Mark 10; 7, dn the rding matic 59

ut ut CEU eTD Collection 61 512 2005), “Kolo,” Dom Izdatel’skii (St.Petersburg: Finliandiia Klinge, Matti Imperskaia 734; 60 that demonstrate, will I chapter, third the both sides. Jellinek. Georg Therefore, scholar, single of a of principle theory the the to to fact in referred and law, Finland of of supremacy status special the of advocates the and enfo would order constitutional Finnish the of preservation that believed they because but Russia, with union real a in was Finland that recognized they because not so did they the decision. unilateral a by institutions autonomous Finnish the of competence the restrict could Duma State Russian the case, latter the In state. Russian un real a by united constitution, own its with state separate a Finland consider to appropriate was it whether namely, argument, theoretical heated a provoked debate The constitution. “constitu Finland. of Duchy Grand the of status special the on “attack” an launched government Stolypin’s when Revolution, the after already place took question” “Finnish the on discussions Kadets national decentral

Georg Jellinek, Georg 1809 Finliandskoe, Kniazhestvo Velikoe Jussila, Osmo Ka rce constitutional order in Russia proper. In this case, both the Russian liberals Russian the both case, this In proper. Russia in order constitutional rce dets

n h cs o Fnad wih il e osdrd n h scn catr the chapter, second the in considered be will which Finland, of case the In the case Polish the Regarding

encountered context to another. to context tion” or integrate the Grand Duchy into the framework of the new Russian Russian new the of framework the into Duchy Grand the integrate or tion” zto gauly curd pcfc enn. oevr i vre from varied it Moreover, meaning. specific acquired gradually ization

were the were there was no sharp contradiction between the initial assumptions of the the of assumptions initial the between contradiction sharp no was there ion with the Russian empire, or it was only an autonomous province of the the of province autonomous an only was it orempire, Russian the with ion

Allgemeine Staatslehre Allgemeine h mjr usin a wehr o rsre seil Finnish special a preserve to whether was question major The

advocates of preservation of the Finnish special rights. However, rights. special Finnish the of preservation of advocates h pltcl rus that groups political the

; Idem

Kadets ,

Ueber Kadets

were in a more complicated situation. In situation. complicated more a in were 20

Staats

- doae smlr da. h maj The ideas. similar advocated 1917 (Helsinki: Ruslania Books, 2009), 725 2009), Books, Ruslania (Helsinki: 1917 had to deal with the political group political the with deal to had fragmente

(Heidelberg

In these circumstances these In , 1896 , ).

- 530. 530. one one

or or 61 -

CEU eTD Collection Poland 62 right andleft t between power balancing a of role the assumed they where parliament, Russian the in participate to had Poles the Finns, the to Contrary constitution. Polish special a of existence the on rely not could status special a of claims Polish the case, Finnish the in unlike Therefore,empire. Russian the in population Polish entire the of interests the represented it that claimed Duma the delegation Polish the Meanwhile, Kingdom. of Kingdomthe of status historical the of restitution afterthe that fact complicatedbythe was question the Besides, instrumental. were references such However, agreements. leg to rhetoric their in referred Democrats National the nation, the of sovereignty the of non and weak as a tactical a while Russians, with compromise strategic reciprocal a of possibility the denied interests. egoistic own its pursue to had nation each that believed they because co not did Democrats National the hand, other the On opposition. Russian the among support for look to than rather government, the with Poland of Kingdom the of autonomy the discuss to preferred Poles the because was it hand, one the On partner. strategic a as Kadets the regard to reluctant was Duma the in delegation Polish the result, the the of ally ideological close that Brian Porter, Porter, Brian Poland, a substantial Polish minority would still remain beyond the borders of the the of borders the beyond remain still would minority Polish substantial a Poland, ality, or rather to the historical rights of Poland, bolstered by international international by bolstered Poland, of rights historical the to rather or ality, adhered the idea of priority of national interests, understood in a realist way. A A way. realist a in understood interests, national of priority of idea the adhered

unt on the sympathy of the Russian liberation movement to the Polish cause, Polish the to movement liberation Russian the of sympathy the on unt (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 190 2000), University Press, Oxford Oxford: (NewYork,

lliance, in their view, was meaningless, because they initially treated liberals liberals treated initially they because meaningless, was view, their in lliance, - hn ainls Bgn o ae Iaiig oen oiis n Nineteenth in Politics Modern Imagining Hate. to Began Nationalism When wing parties. wing parties. - influential party. Despite their “national egoism” and the adherence the and egoism” “national their Despite party. influential

Kadets

, the Progressive Democrats, lost the elections. As elections. the lost Democrats, Progressive the ,

- 219. 219.

62 - Century Century

They he

CEU eTD Collection (Genève: Tipografiia “Gromady,”1884). (Genève:Tipografiia politico ukrainskoi Opyt spilka.” “Vil’na 64 (1900 Ukrainy partii Liberal’ni stolittia XIX (kinets diial’nist’ 63 political the for arena an Ru and Kadets the between competition was Russia Little that was autonomy on discussions the motivated that circumstance additional An region. the in perspectives electoral w perspective, remote a in even autonomy, Ukrainian the of question the this, to Due movement. Ukrainian the the of many time, same the At impossible. institution local to regional to communes local center the from authority delegating implied autonomy from of idea Kadet The autonomies. up, bottom the from organized federation, a origi their had Party) Democratic Radical Ukrainian the all (above groups Ukrainian the of assumptions theoretical The Poland. of Kingdom the of exception the with autonomy, the of was suppo the on rely to had and this Duma the in deputies few a only Partially, had party the because discussions. Duma the of agenda the on autonomy Ukrainian Kadets Russian the with alliance electoral an for opted movement Ukrainian the of representatives the party, Moreover, political national their ideas. forming of instead liberal than rather socialist, to attracted strongly were activists loose a intelligentsia. as of circles small emerging of association just was movement national Ukrainian the cases, previous

Mikhail Bakunin, “Federal Bakunin, Mikhail .. Strilets’, V.V. n in the ideas of Mikhail Dragomanov and Mikhail Bakunin. Mikhail and Dragomanov Mikhail of ideas the in n

. The Ukrainian Radical Democratic Party failed to put their slogan of of slogan their put to failed Party Democratic Radical Ukrainian The . The Ukrainian case will be regarded in the fourth chapter. Unlike in the two the in Unlike chapter. fourth the in regarded be will case Ukrainian The

Kadets

kan’a Radikal’no Ukrains’ka and the latter were reluctant to regard any idea of any regional regional any of idea any regard to reluctant were latter the and s. Therefore the agreement on common theoretical ground seemed ground theoretical common on agreement the Therefore s. ism, sotsialism i antiteologizm…; Mikhail Dragomanov, Dragomanov, Mikhail i antiteologizm…; sotsialism ism, – -

1919) 1939 rik) 1939 s rca fr oh h uiy f the of unity the both for crucial as

(Dniprodzerins’k, 2004), 43 2004), (Dniprodzerins’k,

(Kiev, “Kyivs’kii universitet, 2002), 11 2002), universitet, “Kyivs’kii (Kiev, - - partiia: demokratychna osa’o pormy So i b’anni programmy ob’’iasneniia i Svod programmy. sotsial’noi

ssian right ssian

Kadets 63 22

Besides, the majorit the Besides,

wing nationalists, who formed the formed who nationalists, wing in Little Russia sympathized with sympathized Russia Little in -

78. 78. vytoky, ideologiia, organizatsiia, organizatsiia, ideologiia, vytoky,

- ie p wide 64 Kadet y of the Ukrainian the of y

They presupposed They - arties, mostly the the mostly arties, 40; S.P. Donchenko, Donchenko, S.P. 40; “Vol’nyi soiuz” soiuz” “Vol’nyi

at and party

its rt –

CEU eTD Collection 1905 67 Century Miller, Alexei 66 427 NLO,2012), (eds.) Schirle Ingrid 65 the autonomy inorde the for challenge the exclude not did this yet foundati theoretical unity. internal its strengthening to contributed contrary, the on but, Russia, of disintegration Ka the between choice hesitated intheir who prove tothose liberalsto Russian demonstrate the tried will how defe liberals. Russian the and Ukrainians the of dialogue uneasy the in complications additional Kadet very the also but all the of part integral an were they assumed, he as because, nation, distinct a be to right the “All the for significance gr a was political there party Kadet the within a Meanwhile, had one, tactical a only if nationalists, Nationalists. Russian of Club Kiev

Struve h eouin f h cnet f “All of concept the of evolution The Anton Kotenko, Olga Martyniuk, Aleksei Miller, Miller, Aleksei Martyniuk, Olga Kotenko, Anton - nding their theory their nding - 1 Russian nation.” Russian 944

fe 1905 After (Budapest, New York: CEU Press, 2003). 2003). Press, CEU New York: (Budapest, Russian culture. He questioned not only the idea of the Ukrainian autonomy, Ukrainian the of idea the only not questioned He culture. Russian , “ , at dd o apoe f uh vepit Srv’ psto bogt in brought position Struve’s viewpoint, a such of approve not did party As

, Obshcherusskaia kul’tura i ukrainskii partikuliarizm…”: 66 partikuliarizm…”: ukrainskii i kul’tura Obshcherusskaia

213

h Kadets the - The Ukrainian Question. The Russian Empire and Nationalism in the Nineteenth Nineteenth the in Nationalism and Empire Russian The Question. Ukrainian The 219 - 433. 433. .

existence of the Ukrainian culture. Ukrainian the of existence Pnaia Rsi. K soihso smnie mesoo perioda imperskogo semantike istoricheskoi K Rossii.” o “Poniatiia

Kadets’ leadership Kadets’ h Kdt’ oiin n h ntoa qeto aqie a deep a acquired question national the on position Kadets’ the

n I gnrl te aes hfe twrs rae centralization greater towards shifted Kadets the general, In on. r t 66

dets and moderate Octobrists that their program did not lead to lead not did program their that Octobrists moderate and dets against the attacks of the right the of attacks the against

o prevento within asplit for The leader of this group, Peter Struve denied to the Ukrainiansto denied Struve group, Peter this leaderTheof e ter rgamtc oiin they position, programmatic their med

oaiy f h oiin inside opinions the of polarity

- usa nto” n h iaiain f usa nation Russian of imagination the in nation” Russian

was to diminish inner disagreements regarding disagreements inner diminish to was 65

hrfr, n line ih h Ukrainian the with alliance an Therefore,

Mlrs” lke Mle, ei Sdvizhkov, Denis Miller, Aleksei “Maloross”

the party.

oup of adherents of the idea of the the of idea the of adherents of oup 67 - wing activists. The fifth chapter fifth The activists. wing

Although the leadership of the of leadership the Although

- 70; Pipes, Pipes, 70;

h party the faced the task of of task the faced Liberal on the Right, the on Liberal .

A additional n

(Moscow: (Moscow: Kadets. alism: alism: er ,

CEU eTD Collection 69 natsional’nostei” i problema pravitel’stvo Vremennoe voiny mirovoi pervoi gody v politika natsional’naia i upravlenie gosudarstvennoe imperii: Rossiiskoi Okrainy Bakhturina, Aleksandra 2008); Studies, Asian Central and European, East Russian, for Center J.Ellison Galicia in Plans Occupation and Occupations borderland: War 68 of thechapters,evolution devotedofthe discourse to ofthe liberals. Russian narrative framing a by united become chronologiesthese All War. World the of outset r the of beginning the in topical became question” “Ukrainian The reaction. mounting of because significance, its lost already had autonomy Polish the of question the when revolution, the after already own their cli the example, For dynamics. with accordance in asymmetrically, rather away faded and intensified chronology. distinct its with been had side each when period, thatwouldguideformulating position their theoretical futureactions. its preceding the of debates the to research my front. Austrian at Russia of losses and gains the on depended Po Russian of territory the occupied troops of idea the example, For for autonomy providing delay. with reacted nationalists and liberals the both between territories controlled of empires. belligerent borders moving affected also but questions,” manyaggravatedNot only“national nationalists. it peripheral andliberals betweenthe th setting the changed dramatically war The I. War World of beginning

Bakhturina, Okrainy Rossiiskoi imperii, chapter 1; Mark von Hagen, von Mark Hagen, 1; chapter imperii, Rossiiskoi Okrainy Bakhturina, Lohr, Eric

(abig, as: avr Uiest Pes 20) Mr vn Hagen, von Mark 2003); Press, University Harvard Mass.: (Cambridge, I (1914 (1914 Within th Within as a defined be research could ofmy Chronological boundaries

– Nationalizing the Russian Empire: The Campaign against Enemy Aliens during World World during Aliens Enemy against Campaign The Empire: Russian the Nationalizing

97 gg.) 1917 intensive public debates (approximately 1903) to the beginning of the the of beginning the to 1903) (approximately debates public intensive is general chronological scope, each chapter regards a separate case separate a regards chapter each scope, chronological general is 68

Moreover, the situation developed in such a such in developed situation the Moreover, (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2004); Mark Ferro, “Voina, revoliutsiia, imperiia: imperiia: revoliutsiia, “Voina, Ferro, Mark 2004); ROSSPEN, (Moscow: the Kingdom of Poland of Kingdom the max of the debate on the “Finnish question” took place took question” “Finnish the on debate the of max

h dbts n ah f h “ainl questions” “national the of each on debates The evolution, yet the discussion reached its peak at the at peak its reached discussion the yet evolution,

Ab Imperio Ab 24

ad wie h stain in situation the while land,

lost its significance, its lost

and Ukraine, 1914 Ukraine, and , 4 (2001). (2001). 4 , War in a European border European Wara in 69 t rmd h dialogue the framed at

Therefore, I will limit will I Therefore, - sweeping pace that pace sweeping 1918

after the German the after a i a European a in War

period from the from period

(Seattle: Herbert Herbert (Seattle:

Ukraine

land

CEU eTD Collection 71 70 self “local the of concept of aims tactical particular co The discussion. the of participants defining allows situation historical particular conceptsin the of varying ofuses analysis the time, same the At society. the organizes of concept the example, For notion a suggests ideology. “decentralization” common by united discussion, the of participants the of beliefs fundamental with linked are which presuppositions, hidden rhetori and concepts and concern prudence the normsof and efficiency. politics the of side technical the to refer beliefs Operative prescriptions. moral involve them.” justify to invoked the are above and dimension set second are which and realized, be will they which on vistas grand the and goals final the “determine argues, he as principles, Fundamental ideologies. operative Seliger: ar steps what of notion a also and future of vision certain express that beliefs and ideas of set a as ideology consider I Seliger, Martin of definition the Following context. particular a in ideologies political

Ibid B. Thompson, John reconstruction of a given order. given ofa reconstruction or destruction, reform, preservation, the for action concerted ensure to are which prescriptions, a basis permanent relatively a on serve to designed is It statements… explanatory and sentences appeal sentences, .

apoc t ielge aoe l truh n nlss f atclr ss of uses particular of analysis an through all above ideologies to approach I distinction Seliger’s the apply to useful is It dissertat the of methodology The

An ideology is a group of beliefs and disbeliefs (rejections) expressed in value value in expressed (rejections) disbeliefs and beliefs of group a is ideology An Studies in the Theory of Ideology of Theory the in Studies group of people to justify … the legitimacy of the implements and technical technical and implements the of legitimacy the … justify to people of group srtge. nhnebe enn o te ocps reflects concepts the of meaning Unchangeable strategies. c - oenet rfetd h itnin f h lbrl t defend to liberals the of intention the reflected government” 70

e needed to accomplish this this accomplish to needed e

nvergence of the notion of “autonomy” with the the with “autonomy” of notion the of nvergence of a decisive role of the state as a force that that force a as state the of role decisive a of ion is based on the study of functioning of of functioning of study the on based is ion

(Ca

mbridge: Polity Press, 1990), Politymbridge: Press,

sal fu Usually ewe fnaetl and fundamental between future. According to to According future. dmna beliefs ndamental

79. 79.

CEU eTD Collection metode istorii poniatii” Idem. Istoriia poniatii, istoriia diskursa, istoriia metaphor (Moscow: NLO, NLO, 73 (Moscow: metaphor istoriia diskursa, istoriia 2010). poniatii, Istoriia Idem. poniatii” istorii metode Time Historical of 72 the of vision world the of analysis an requires question last the to answer The other. also but said, author communication. political of act an as language the of use the approaches who Skinner Quentin methodologyof the This analysis. my of part essential an is dialogue the of participants the of aims particular of Interpretation strategy. rhetorical their of part a as concepts these use who groups, particular those to attention more pays dissertation of theory the Begriffsgeschichte with accordance In period. chronological short relatively a during Begriffsgeschichte. meaning,which therepresentatives ofmovements thenationalinvestedin word. definition a suggested they parties, word this of diff the emphasize not did and “autonomy” on agree to tended liberals Russian the Poles, the with concordance a reach to trying example, For latter. the convers or, dialogue the in partners the with the voters of that theliberals any to“disentanglement” support lead of would thestate. “disin with “federation” and “autonomy” right of attacks the from themselves

Quentin Skinner, Skinner, Quentin Idem, History” Social and “Begriffsgeschichte Koselleck, Reinhard

y prah o h aayi o te ocps relies concepts the of analysis the to approach My compromise rhetorical a accomplish to used be could concepts the Moreover,

. When the the When .

(New York: Columbia University P University Columbia York: (New Visions of Politics of Visions

72 the concepts are understood as contested notion contested as understood are concepts the

why Yet, unlike the former, I analyze the evolution of the concepts the of evolution the analyze I former, the unlike Yet, Kadets

and 73

Thus, the major question to the text is not only not is text the to question major the Thus, for what aim what for

needed to defen to needed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) v.1, v.1, 103 2002) University Press, Cambridge (Cambridge:

of”

- ig orait. h lte tne t identify to tended latter The journalists. wing autonomy”, which was incompatible with the with incompatible was which autonomy”, tegration” of Russia. They tried to convince to tried They Russia. of tegration”

the author the ely, to fix the ideological boundaries with with boundaries ideological the fix to ely, 26 ress, 2004); Khans Bedeker, “Razmyshleniia o “Razmyshleniia Bedeker, Khans 2004); ress,

d their position against the right the against position their d

sai d exactly in this way, and no and way, this in exactly d brings my approach close to close approach my brings Futures Past: On the Semantics Semantics the On Past: Futures

on the methodology of of methodology the on s. By contrast, my contrast, By s. erent meanings erent what what - 128. - wing wing the

CEU eTD Collection the character differ ofwith thedebates and situation political the in changes the to evolution this link to seek also I question. of uses the of evolution the intellectual their indebtednessof theideas Bakuninand to Dragomanov. traces parties Ukrainian the sch of legal programs German political of of theories discussion the to belongs discourse liberal the of analysis the in place prominent particularly A approach. my in role important an plays strategy ofthe inthe context aims and methods rhetorical their of interpretation an as well as dialogue political the of participants and meaning the of evolution the consider to is analysis my of aim main The programs and statements political the of context intellectual an of analysis An

the key concepts in the liberal discourse related to nationalto related discourse liberalthe in concepts key the ent of partners thedialogue.

political

struggle.

olars. The The olars. CEU eTD Collection national Russification and repression of theborderlands. separatist in sentiments forced of attempts the than effective more be would interests, economic mutual on as such connections, voluntary development the contrary, the On empire. prevent not would borderlands to concessions liberals the general,In them. solve not if borderlands, national the in tension the decrease also would conditions, ethnographical geographical, economic, specific with regions the believed cost at even parties by “victory of principle nationalities claims the that so rights political equal with citizens the all provide to enough autocracy when t acknowledged the they in which borderlands, situation the about information scarce very had liberals Initially, position. pragmatic more a to regime autocratic with struggle the for alliance strong a creating the in movements The Blindfolded Alliance: Russian Liberals in the Search Search the in Liberals Russian Alliance: The Blindfolded a opsd o the to opposed as , The interaction of Russian liberal activists with the representatives of national national of representatives the with activists liberal Russian of interaction The chapter this In

moveme that certain decentralization, such as for exa for as such decentralization, certain that n h brelns eoe milder. become borderlands the in was t i Fnad n Pln md te liberals the made Poland and Finland in nts borderlands can be de be can borderlands

of Support in the Borderlands Borderlands the in of Support of separation of borderlands. At the same time, time, same the At borderlands. of separation of , abolished and replaced by constitutional order, it would be be would it order, constitutional by replaced and abolished

wl ty o eosrt, that demonstrate, to try will I any means” any right Chapter Chapter 1. - ig ideologues wing professed by the representatives representatives the by professed scribed esle. e te wr convin were they Yet hemselves.

the

as gradual evolution from the hope of of hope the from evolution gradual as

strengthening of strengthening oee, h lbrl den liberals the However, mple regional selfregional mple ,

re t prove to tried h encounter the

modify their initially initially their modify

the

of revolutionary of - with organized organized with

government in government ties within the within ties ht political that h liberals the these ced that that ced ied the the ied

of the of based

CEU eTD Collection he sought he movements national of representatives the among allies possible the of aims about vague rather remained T borderlands. the of state the about readers the inform to order particularlyin systematic, more launching of fact very journal of representatives the and moderategroups ofthe society. nationalistRussian right the from critics the by as statehood, Russian the of interests liberals the However, concessions. alliancegroups liberalswith Russian couldonly ofthese be tactical. st their in the constitutionalists of support Russian of exchange in autonomy more acquire to desire the and egoism” of agenda concessions, and compromises movements these of representatives the with discussions of course the In assumptions. optimistic n hn, ee Srv, h aut who Struve, Peter hand, one Sporadic contacts between the organizers of the future Russian liberal party party liberal Russian future the of organizers the between contacts Sporadic possible their of limits the about decide to had liberals the situation this In

Osvobozhdenie the to retain the moderate the retain to

t eae la ta atog te atr ee ed fr certain for ready were latter the although that clear became it Russian liberals. It would be more appropriate to speak about “national about speak to appropriate more be would It liberals. Russian he he - wing ideologues. At the same time, they did not want to alienate to want not did they time, same the At ideologues. wing

dtrs drs pbihd n h frt issue first the in published address editor’s was founded, but these were mostly private contacts. Yet, th Yet, contacts. private mostly were these but founded, was Osvobozhdenie non - Russian Russian

Princip the

zemstvo r ia aims final ir tc t ter principle their to stuck the liberals regarding the national question. On question. national the regarding liberals the ruggle against the autocracy. Therefore, the the Therefore, autocracy. the against ruggle oe te editorial the hored

national movement took place long before the the before long place took movement national provoked the editors to make these contacts contacts these make to editors the provoked les D

circles, necessity to respond to necessity 29 eclared

i nt onie ih h political the with coincide not did

which

were sensitive of the critics critics the of sensitive were , i nt want not did nt o uh in much so not s . On the ot the On . convincingly

f h journal the of o alienat to

her hand, hand, her affairs in in affairs

to the the to

the e e CEU eTD Collection 2 1 landlord people Russian in consists It teaching. his of significa national “The wrote: Struve latter hero “national dvizhenie natsional’noe ( “natsional’nyi” nat this of substance the formulate i the on based nationalism, Russian suppression and depriving other of policy brutal a it with blessing and justifying nationality, Russian very the exploits that noted time, same the At entities. collective nationa various of representatives opportunity developmentfreedistinctive of a and oftheir national features.” ( nationalities the “[all] that to intention their of liberals the Russia. disintegrate towards accusations their and right the from

anpeeng gosudarstva raznoplemennogo Ibid. Ibid. Struve, “Ot redaktora” Peter

To It

is notable, is : ( the

pomeshchik “ h gov the

repressive (

natsional’nyi geroi natsional’nyi national ( usoo naroda russkogo

In particular, in the in particular, In ernment ernment that the author did author the that ) the , ) in such ex such in ) ) Osvobozhdenie o nationalism ” ntoa liberation “national ,” –

the o te ae f t on self own its of sake the for

esn ( peasant nationalities oftheir individual nationalities )

( natsional’nostiam hud e rvdd ih qa rgt ad the and rights equal with provided be should ) )

at ht h get rit ece te ol f the of soul the reached artist great the that fact iis bt rather but lities,

of the new Russia” (Leo Tolstoy). Regarding the the Regarding Tolstoy). (Leo Russia” new the of movement national “wide as pressions epr hn others than deeper

1 f the authorities Struveopposed authorities the f e o pltcl ain H did He nation. political of dea oaim yt e osaty used constantly he yet ionalism, tue attacked Struve (1902): (1902):

the first issue of issue first the not speak of equality of individual rights of rights individual of equality of speak not muzhik

nce of Tolstoy is not in the entire contents contents entire the in not is Tolstoy of nce 30 1

( ) asoa’o osvobozhdenie natsional’noe

n the and the the f u mliainl state multinational our of fiil nationalism official ; he fathomed the Russian Russian the fathomed he ; Osvobozhdenie rights of nationalities as as nationalities of rights - preservation preservation

character. Russian Russian

another type of of type another

Stru ” o directly not

–

2 intellectual 1

, when he he when ,

h word the

( cynically cynically

ve wrote ve shirokoe ) ,” ,”

CEU eTD Collection 7 6 5 4 3 abolition the on exemptions justice… of free social life “ authors, the to according which claims, programmatic zemstvo of group the C representatives movements. national of other to adherence period Tolsto the of bearer the as On the otherTolstoy hand, the all concerned regime bureaucratic liberation (

intelligent Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., Ibid. konstitutsionalistov” Russkikh “Ot Miliukov, onstitutionalists.

3. 3. Srv’ reoi suggested rhetoric Struve’s , y understood either the Polish landlord or landlord Polish the either understood y The the by followed was introduction editorial Struve’s

This

Vospominaniia “t . ea eult, n a a osqec, blto o al xlsos and exclusions all of abolition consequence, a as and equality, legal 2. ) e claims se … he majo

rhetoric of “restrictions of

[and] [and] a the

in all cultural s in allcultural citizens of the free Russian state disregarding their ethnic belonging. ethnic their disregarding state Russian free the of citizens national, estate, and religious basis.” religious and estate, national, ”

r task ofour time”r task Initially written by Miliukov, this address was later on e on later was address this Miliukov, by written Initially high Russian culture. As a result, a As culture. Russian high

expressed a burning national striving to freedom.” to striving national burning a expressed ih Get Rus (Great high is ambiguous is was , 164. , nldd “ included - constitutionalists.

emerges in the Struve’s articlewriter, emergesas aRussian intheStruve’s national elrd s omn national common as declared in the sphere of personal and property rights regarding rights property and personal of sphere the in Osvobozhdeniie

tates alongago time 1. personal freedom, guaranteed by independent independent by guaranteed freedom, personal 1. . On the one hand, the struggle with struggle the hand, one the On .

pcla cnlto o cvc ainls with nationalism civic of conflation peculiar a . 4

in clue wih ih alienate might which culture, sian) 5

eta t ti dcaain a a was declaration this to Central

1 (1902): 9. (1902): 1

Finnish peasant. Thus, already in this this in already Thus, peasant. Finnish ”

it was not possible to say that that say to possible not was it

were placed were The latter claim presupposed presupposed claim latter The “A ol wih potentially which goal, ddress ddress

in the foundation foundation the in of the Russian Russian the of 3

the Struve called Struve a utocratic dited by dited

it of list

the the

CEU eTD Collection 9 8 Hertzen’s of continuation as journal zemstvo of agreement ethnicity through issues A nation. of understanding the with specific tendencies these of One Party. Democratic Constitutional future the of ideology the in tendencies two the of have topropose practical their parti overindividual pr its with liberalism classical to closer was understanding an Such basis. defined right the while rights, individual advocating in consistent Poles.” and Jews the

Ibid.,10. Ibid. ua rgt ad ed o vros oil n ntoa groups national and social various of needs and rights cular

of issue first the in already Thus, author The Osvobozhdenie

ly Gre ally

in negative terms as the l the as terms negative in

(as wellandestate).(as as religion idea of individual rights and freedoms, freedoms, and rights individual of idea revealed agenda

the t usa maig Te te tnec cnitd n preoccupation in consisted tendency other The meaning. Russian at a tothese specificquestions. solution o te declaration the of s collective rights -

8 constitutionalist group i group constitutionalist a te ovcto o pplr representat popular of convocation the was

a nt tues person Struve’s not was

a negative meaning of freedom as legal equality legal as freedom of meaning negative a s n cn see can one As t the same time same the t Opening the Borderlands Opening up osse i linking in consisted

ack of ack .

Kolokol

refused to suggest any definite solutions solutions definite any suggest to refused

legal restrictions on a on restrictions legal Osvobozhdenie , Russian liberal approach to approach liberal Russian , in this document, the authors were more more were authors the document, this in

r Dragomanov’s or

St. Petersburg St. al enterprise. It was founded founded was It enterprise. al

t e usa ntoa tss to tasks national Russian he hc proceeded which 9

, one can see the beginnings beginnings the see can one ,

o ntoaiis were nationalities of s . Struve envisioned this envisioned Struve .

national and religious religious and national o’o Slovo Vol’noe .

o, hc would which ion, h frt su of issue first The

from the nationality the regardless of regardless eference of eference

the civic civic the n the on The . for for

CEU eTD Collection Shkola Politicheskikh Issledovanii, 2007), 152 2007), Issledovanii, Politicheskikh Shkola Tyrkova Ariadna 99; 1972), Press, Missouri 1899 Liberals, 11 318 1970), Press, University 10 Struve wrote: 8 the from editorial the sense this In autocracy. with struggle own their of symbol a as arbitrariness administrative factors agreements. the only not was opposition. Finland through out well. as side technical particular a was there Moreover, forum. this of participants the Plekhanov refused toc since movements, oppositionist some about for diverse unite to attempt abolishing a groups,nation includingvarious of opinions of forum as rather but group, particular one of mouthpiece a as designed not was journal

William R. Copeland, “Relations between the Finnish Resistance Movement and the Russian Russian the and Movement Resistance Finnish the between “Relations Copeland, R. William ihr Pipes, Richard iln ad usa ae o am on n this in down [the calm advantage… to have Russia and on Finland disputes the all government, Petersburg

ah te, n elimin and other, each

oee, pr from apart However, groups national Naturally,

that allowed the Russian liberals to perceive the struggle of the Finns with the the with Finns the of struggle the perceive to liberals Russian the allowed that , the transfer the , ne oe rpesos u repressions, open Under the absolutist police regime and establishing a new free order. This was an was This order. free new a establishing and regime police absolutist the 11

94 Cals . ibrae (ed Timberlake E. Charles 1904” hrfr ivtn is ersnaie fr ulcto in publication for representatives its inviting Therefore

tue Lbrl n h Lf, 1870 Left, the on Liberal Struve:

government] government]

eut f dooia coc, u as a osqec o tactical of consequence a also but choice, ideological of result by by o from abroad from - - 319. operate“bourgeois” journal with the hnes cnrle b te ersnaie o te Fi the of representatives the by controlled channels,

e of ces th robbed the robbed t mta peuie. I prejudices. mutual ate the

issue of 2 of issue

uey ehia ise there issues technical purely dr pn ilto cmitd f the of committed violation open nder in the the of the issues of the journal to Russia was carried carried was Russia to journal the of issues the of

- h borderlands the Villiams, Villiams,

- law fr law 156. 156. Russian opposition, help them to learn more more learn to them help opposition, Russian nd the Social Democrats lead by Lenin and and Lenin by lead Democrats Social the the

October 1902 is important. I important. is 1902 October o Essays .) om a peaceful and loyal cultured loyal and peaceful a om

juridical nature of the relationship between between relationship the of nature juridical ecfl cu peaceful 33 Na putiakh k svobode svobode k putiakh Na

1905

al Rsin Liberalism Russian n (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Harvard Massachusetts: (Cambridge, practice n ee lo supposed also were ltured ones, which shared the goalsharedthe which ones,

. onr… sn ph Using country… 10

, ee eti poli certain were hs ple ol to only applied this (Moscow: Moskovskaia Moskovskaia (Moscow:

law by by law Osvobozhdenie n this editorial this n

people. And And people. Uiest of (University

to become become to the the ysical ysical nnish nnish St. St. tical of of In

CEU eTD Collection gg. gg. 15 14 13 12 society. Russian all which consciousness, was cultured and peaceful the between struggle interfer against Finns the of struggle enemy common against nation tended Struve the between struggle all of introduction the present to tried in Finland:

Tuomo Polvinen, Tuomo Ibid., Ibid., Osvobozhdenie off Russia against of. proud rightfully mormore and becomes proper. Russia in more esta issuffering. Russia whole which the under bureaucracy, Fi does more and More against bureaucracy Petersburg of violence the Yes, behalf. its on committed law, of violation all incredible by dishonored by itself country, suppressed supports and government mute The the Russia. where of behalf on committed was robbery juridical this (St.Petersburg: “Evropeiskii Dom,” 1997), 31 1997), Dom,” “Evropeiskii (St.Petersburg: its neck, then, then… gentlemen, you will have to go away seriously. away go to will have you gentlemen, then… then, neck, its only ls tee h rls aant hc a which against rules, the there blish 115 114 There were several interestin several were There The articleconcluded by Struve

. . I Indeed,

n Russia, unfortunately, there is no such civic consciousness, consciousness, civic such no is there unfortunately, Russia, n defending

further wrote further to reframe this issue as a parallel struggle of the Finnish and Russian Russian and Finnish the of struggle parallel a as issue this reframe to 8 in

(

Struve Derzhava i Okraina. N.I. Bobrikov Bobrikov N.I. Okraina. i Derzhava 1902 what “legality” and “arbitrariness.” At the same time same the At “arbitrariness.” and “legality” reserve, and when Russia Russia when and reserve,

Y ): ): 113.

et instead instead et e hateful for for hateful e is the goal of of goal the is

nland falls nland usa and Russian Reining indirectly argued indirectly t voae rgt. tue lo mentioned also Struve rights. violated its

owed character of the Finnish nation. The latter The nation. Finnish the of character

about about

Finland is a national shame for Russia and the Russian people. people. Russian the and Russia for shame national a is Finland

n Finland in

the St. Petersburg government does not have another Russia Russia another have not does government Petersburg St. the more and more and more

– raig h eape f iln a a oe for model a as Finland of example the treating

the following statement: the

“ Viacheslav the the Russian people. Russian g passages in this text. Whereas text. this in passages g the the

ence in their national issues was regarded as a a as regarded was issues national their in ence

acti - St.Petersburg bureaucracy.” Consequently, the the Consequently, bureaucracy.” St.Petersburg conscious and natural indignation grows more and and more grows indignation natural and conscious

usa as ntetrioyo Fnada a as Finland of territory the on laws Russian y en o br violence, bare of means by unequivocally shake unequivocally - ins (r wds) ainl principles, national Swedish) (or Finnish

36. vity of these masters masters these of vity with those, who blame who those, with id o voec… hs nap count unhappy this violence… of kinds

under the yoke of unprincipled and shameless shameless and unprincipled of yoke the under 34 Plehve and and Plehve

–

13 general

- gubernator Finlaindii 1898 1898 Finlaindii gubernator

s Nikolai

the bothersome bureaucracy bureaucracy bothersome the in Finland? They seek to to seek They Finland? in

14 bureaucratic autocracy autocracy bureaucratic which Finland can be be can Finland which

, Struve emphasized Struve ,

Bobrikov’s activity Bobrikov’s the Russian people people Russian the ,

according to him to according

the government government the

ii l civic r the St. St. the y was was y –

egal 1904 the 15 ,

CEU eTD Collection Russian Underground, 1899 Underground, Russian 17 16 viewpoint words the chose he therefore Neovius language), Swedish t of (instead institutions Finnish the in language Russian the of introduction the burni potentially did Neovius of position the edited he 1905 and 1903 Between movement. resistance Finnish the of figures prominent oppositionconstitutionalist the of one Neovius, Arvid was articles these the subtitle under articles of number a published Struve issues introduction the by the way. same the in perceived be arbitrarinesswe wa situation the that prove its from awakened yet not n a of did it because Finland. against repressions for

William R. Copeland, Copeland, R. William v Finlaindii” “Silai Pravo

Law of Finland”) in the third the in Finland”) of Law ational disgrace of Russia). However, this wa this However, Russia). of disgrace ational d “F d in articles informative The

. I . rom our correspondent from Helsingfors” from correspondent our rom

quote

journal journal not object openl object not re able to act ablefront.re asa to united ng issues was the question of the state language. When he objected he When language. state the of question the was issues ng

the

of the statute of military conscr military of statute the of The Uneasy Alliance: Col Alliance: Uneasy The

ra Ord Fria original

- Osvobozhdenie Osvobozhdenie not 1904

, political sleep. The position The sleep. political

quite fit Struve’s approach to approachStruve’s fit quite who belongedgroup of toamoderate the

(Helsinki:

was

s y to the actions of its government (hence the expression the (hencegovernment its of actions the yto citation f h Rsin lawyer Russian the of

Thus

hnig n ta te opponents the that and changing Fe Wr) castigating Word) (Free For Struve, Struve, For

issue aware that he was addressing was he that aware Osvobozhdenie , the article the ,

3 (1902): 42(1902): 3 Suomalainen tiedeakatemia Suomalainen

indicated of the journal highlighted journal the of

laboration between the Finnish Opposition and the and Opposition Finnish the between laboration 35 th

, -

Rsin ain was nation Russian e

43. 43.

by he was in exile in was he “Sila i pravo Finliandii” (“F Finliandii” pravo i “Sila , written by the Finnish authors can can authors Finnish the by written ,

the iption iption s because the Russian Russian the because s and Boris

author of progressive activists had to had activists progressive of

the Finnish questi Finnish the h Bbio regime. Bobrikov the signed by F. The author of author The F. by signed in

, 1973), 163. 163. 1973), , il “ins Question” “Finnish title Chicherin . 1901

in Stockholm, where Stockholm, in Russian reade Russian

the s the . 16

Finnish peaceful Finnish In the following the In

f bureaucratic of

atal guilty partially truggle caused caused truggle o xrs his express to

nation had nation on. One ofOne on. orce rs 17

The and and and

he to to

CEU eTD Collection 21 20 19 18 the Manifesto the nationality,”by rather than words, other In nationalities. imposed which positi the with coincide

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 242. Ibid., vopros” “Finliandskii F. in… enhl, n iln tee ee las sgiiat ubr of number significant a population always were there “ Finland in Meanwhile, Finns… 1879 in trades on law the to According immemorial. humiliat freedomand of withrestriction along si a offend as language its imposes nationality reigning a when worse, the facilitating ae h Rsin edes n bet f oil upco and suspicion friendship. Bobrikov’s for theheaven praise social of object an peddlers Russian the on made law Finnish the of alteration the forge to and unlawful their and peddlers, byon an poor amongthe holders the about rumors false prais spread They spying. in as trade, in engaged much author’s with thesituation reflections on Russian

The author peddlers regarded these agen tobe the Neovius to according However, from deviation The C

s autiously expressed with the words of Chicherin of words the with expressed autiously

the defeated so uselessly as demonstrating one’s own superiority, especially superiority, own one’s demonstrating as uselessly so defeated the ee fr h ma the for Here, In order to eliminate the impediments on the way of his agents, the hawkers and and hawkers the agents, his of way the on impediments the eliminate to order In unpreced of wave huge A time since laws Finnish the by prohibited was hands from selling or Hawking

s”

treated – of

rcsl Karelian precisely uies of business t lnug, ahr hn ce than rather language, its February

them Osvobozhdenie Osvobozhdenie

friendly on of Struve, as the former spoke former the as Struve, of on ss te fiil agae s like is language official the sses…

1899. administration, administration, the the

leel frhoig itiuin f h lns of lands the of distribution forthcoming allegedly

until evu seemed Neovius edict of the Russian government. Russian ofthe edict central bureaucracy. shameless, yet almost unsuccessful agitation, Bobrikov began began Bobrikov agitation, unsuccessful almost yet shameless,

ented Russian peddlers rushed peddlers Russian ented purely leg purely

akr fo Ooes n Akaglk rvne. The provinces. Arkhangelsk and Olonets from hawkers

1879. 14

(1902): (1902): 19 21 , the attitudes of the population changed after changed population the of attitudes the , t creates it

ion of what is precious to people to precious whatis of ion trades…Meanw al view on the Finnish question appears in appears question Finnish the on view al

the ta bracay wih oppressed which bureaucracy, ntral ed the supremacy of the “Russian “Russian the of supremacy the ed 242 36 , such hawking is allowed only to the native native the to only allowed is hawking such ,

to be offended exactly by “dominant “dominant by exactly offended be to Russian peddlers. The

complications at every step. It is even even is It step. every at complications

hns gra Chinese ie h Bbio’ protection… Bobrikov’s the hile igs. H disgust. ts ofBobrikov,wrote: sohets

into Finland. They were not were They Finland. into gn of its domination. Nothing Nothing domination. its of gn

20 , Neovius’s position did position Neovius’s , about dom about

ns pdlr d not do peddlers onest mmar and instead of of instead and mmar . 18 inant nationali inant

author

h so the the laws” and and laws”

if it goes goes it if property

- wrote called called so both

- not

: ty,

CEU eTD Collection 23 pseudonym by signed were articles 22 These Finland. about articles the than later (“ Poland” Pol’she” sovremennoi o “Pis’ma entitled Osvobozhdenie “Fi the of nature question” the of liberals Russian the of understanding legal purely government,Russian alsothe“alien” but to Russi representatives Finnish political different agitation.” unsuccessful almost although dishonest, and “unlawful as epithets such by expressed the of land of distribution provinces “go former the example, For convictions. question this to attitude his in time, same the At police. with peddlers these of links the about correspondent that assume to possible Russia with connections economic stronger of development to due borderlands restrictions onthetrade peddlers of tobe undesirable.

Peter Struve Peter Ibid.

h “oih usin ws m was question” “Polish The of understanding the Thus, Struve’s, of view In not Struvecould point At this

that characterized theRussianliberals

the first of which appeared in appeared which of first the of propaganda the while Russian, than rather Karelian as regarded were ,

Patriotica. Politika, kul’tura, religiia, sotsializm religiia, kul’tura, Politika, Patriotica.

could obtain obtain could outlooks outlooks

the Russian liberal Russian the ol epes hi ngtv attd nt ny to only not attitude negative their express could later ideas about the natural process of assimilation of assimilation of process natural the about ideas later rprid mn te or caused poor the among propertied evu demonstrated Neovius justified justified informati

help noting Osvobozhdenie xettos A expectations. n n hs question this on on the issue issue the od” peddlers from Arkhangelsk and Olonets and Arkhangelsk from peddlers od” c mr ex more uch

hardly shared the suspicions of the Finnish the of suspicions the shared hardly 37

that “ that an migration,an and departed thus h Letters The of 20 of

” (Moscow: “Respublika,” 1997). “Respublika,” (Moscow: as a forum for for forum a as his own national and social social and national own his 22 in in tog i a vei a in lthough -

21 of 21 principle lsv. T plosive.

from a series of articles articles of series a from

1903, that is, some is, that 1903, bu Contemporary about

p a

we believet we ifl sentiment, ainful e edr of readers he articulation of of articulation e form led ward hat any hat 23

nnish nnish from from what

it is it

the the the the

CEU eTD Collection 28 27 26 1906). pol’za,” “Obshchestvennaia 25 of 1905 in the Revolution Reconciliation Russian 24 “ why is which the the the against struggle the ( “Russian accept to had people these among acting organizations beg ( Russification complete is Poland in policy Russian the of aim the and “direction the Thus, lower.” and lower “intel According authorities. the by Russification of policy the to attention special a bringing 1863, described Russia.” in disturbances political present the to Polan in parties political the among power balanceofthe is at aim the of education. P a was He (PPS). Party “ Informator

Ibid. Ibid. Wise, Kier Andrew Informator “Pis’ma o sovremennoi Pol’she” sovremennoi o “Pis’ma Informator present

Leon Vasilevski, Vasilevski, Leon n o fet o ol itlieti, u as wres n paat, h socialist the peasants, and workers also but intelligentsia, only not affect to an Pol ed other ligentsia and propertied layers of society,” but gradually the “Russification went “Russification the gradually but society,” of layers propertied and ligentsia

, , 372.

latest situation in Poland was publishe wasPolandin situation latest to ish

inform

, hand

24 the developments in Poland after the suppression of the Polish uprising of of uprising Polish the of suppression the after Poland in developments the

russkii socialist what are the political strivings of different levels of the Polish society, what society, what Polish the levels different strivingsof of political are the what ”

Later on

concealing the name of Leon Wasilewski, a member of Polish of member a Wasilewski, Leon of name the concealing , in the mid mid the in

the the ) regime” as one of their aims. As aims. their of one as regime” )

Aleksander Lednicki: a Pole among Russians, a Russian among Poles. Polish Poles. among Russian a Russians, among Pole a Lednicki: Aleksander

movement

Polish “ ormnaa o’h i e oiihsi stremleniia politicheskie ee i Pol’sha Sovremennaia

representatives in 1906, ole by origin, but was born in St.Petersburg, where he got his got he where St.Petersburg, in born was but origin, by ole obrusenie 1890

intelligentsia

the collection acquired to s a significant number of the oppositional intelligentsia oppositional the of number significant a s

the author, the Russification initially affected only only affected initially Russification the author, the o te oih population.” Polish the of )

Osvobozhdenie a the

also (New York: Columbia Universit (New Columbia York: clear political clear

Russian

of supplemented his articles d in abrochure separate in d

38 suffered

26 the opposition

n i fir his In

- from

author 21 and separatist character.” separatist and ( 1903 d, and what is theirattitudeis whatand d,

the

argued ” ): t ril, Wasilewski article, st

about 27 Russificatory 370 in Poland, conducted Poland, in

Since . y Press, 2003), 44. 44. 2003), yPress,

. 25 , “ ,

“

The by what

by Russification (St.Petersburg: (St.Petersburg:

early

author discussion

is S

regime ocialist Poland

1890 28

had On

s - ,

CEU eTD Collection 31 30 29 left who Ev Poland. for concessions anyplan not did government a representatives of aristocracy,clergy, bourgeoisie and upper Accord and regime Russificatory of the up publishing easing some on hopes expressing Ugodowcy the At Russia. towards provided author creation of Russ to also but to government, only Russian not opposed became Poland in parties oppositionist all Russification enemy common a with struggle the [came] mid with struggle the foreground the into everything Russian.” put which camp, national the in gathers ccording to the author, gradually lost its supporters as it turned out that the Russian Russian the that out turned it as supporters its lost gradually author, the to ccording

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. freedom Pol - ie landlords size misery. and happiness in both Russia of fate the with and

n t te uhr te program the author, the to ing aig a Having 22 the in published article, second his In argued Wasilewski

pure

(1903): Ugodowcy

oih oit rjcs oee the forever rejects society Polish of

an independent state. an independent

national nationalism

400 newspaper newspaper

chieved mr dtie caatrsi o Pls part Polish of characteristic detailed more a . mnfcues ad clergy.” and manufacturers, ,

development

29 turned their sympathies towards the National Democratic Democratic National the towards sympathies their turned

einn o Nic of beginning which certain success in the beginning, this conciliatory party, party, conciliatory this beginning, the in success certain

th Słowo at this trend graduallyacquired trend this at

and

[had]

immunity ofreligiou immunity and –

Russia.”

a s uh n pt n i o scsin and secession of aim an put and such as ia eaait ednis i links it tendencies; separatist the

unite f hs group, this of

h eky journal weekly olas II reign there emerged a party of of party a emerged there reign II olas 39 30

all

According to Wasilewski to According nd As

the classes of the Polish society in in society Polish the of classes the

s beliefs of the Polish people. Polish beliefsofthe s issue

result entually, the majority of those of majority entually,the

In of hc consisted which

return

its supporters among supporters its Osvobozhdenie suggested the following suggested the , Kraj “ in e ad th and ies

forever the fate of of fate the forever the

in asks

first St.

for

, because of because ,

i attitude eir Petersburg complete

mainly of of mainly pl 31 for

P 1903, 1903, there arty. “the “the the

CEU eTD Collection 35 34 33 Accordin 32 general. in socialism on view negative socialist mainly been revolutionary the step remained R of result o Kingdom certain argued an sincerely, could position legalist directly devoted Russia, towards attitude its about information any provide government ingeneral.” andtoeverythingRussian s essay This numbers. large in Poland Russian the into newspaper the thorough peasants among According to ii o te oih ainls; eie i [provoked] it besides nationalism; Polish the of pirit

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 444. (1903): 24 Ibid. Ibid.

results

due o te oih itr, h hsoy f ieaue n geography and literature of history the history, Polish the on s

, h ato frhr characterized further author The characterization author’s The

leniency

“ to

the

“ of

ussificatory policy. ussificatory an f Poland and Lithuania to acquire to Lithuania and Poland f his

teeoe hi itnin were intentions their therefore d any party the author the

etmns n usa Since Russia. in sentiments

absolutely extreme

to this topic. According to the author the to According topic. this to

in of

the the , the National Dem National the ,

conciliators

, this partythis thevery beginning , from loyalism. However, loyalism. reforms “ o epes hi att their express not

borderlands passive 34 ,

won

In spectator

expects

any

,”

of th of by which

the case ocrats regarded them negatively due to their to due negatively them regarded ocrats the view of the National Democrats on the the on Democrats National the of view the e Polish So Polish e

Polak

, h Rsin poiins movements oppositionist Russian the from

opposition.” he who , 40

gradually the positio the gradually td t Rsin poiins parties oppositionist Russian to itude according

would

edition would

tl unknown. still

ulse i Kao ad smuggled and Krakow in published the would 32

cialist party in the article did article the in party cialist g to the author, the National National the author, the to g opposition ,

allow

be “ Ugodowcy [provided]

not venture on any decisive decisive any on venture not to the

focused on the propaganda focused on the while the third article was article third the while

the

the Polish society in the the in society Polish the first ard o h Russian the to hatred

33 author movement

to , who took who ,

Yet n it had lost as the as lost had it n its readers its

take , , this written written as

advantage

the

party in

a strictly strictly a with

Russia author n the in

still had not the

CEU eTD Collection 37 36 quotes Here worse. things make could side their on parties Polish the of one Polish provi could who constitutionalists, Russian the of efforts the with sympathize would party this if even But Poland. to harm bring only could Russia in movement stemmed Democrats (1903, no.2,pp.8 Natio the of suplements author position The the Democrats. of transformation certain a author, the for caused, therefore was for it beneficial Poland.” ‘ the Democrats, National the of of appearance claims its and opposition Russian in interest an showed Democrats qabe f h Polan the of squabble

Ibid. Ibid. flexible, the morethe flexible, th in appeared trend s German the Poland… on pressure russificatory of influence the be that afraid opp are we however, us… to indifferent Russian nationalists, who take part in this movement. We would avert a substantial part of the the of part substantial a avert would We movement. this in part take who nationalists, Russian Poles the of appearance xrsin o poiinl tiig o aiu lyr fteRsinscey as society Russian the of layers various of strivings oppositional of expressions , osition

445 parties more favo more parties Przegl hs a te uhr tried author the as Thus, emergence The

. h contemporar The e ant oe n aoal resul favorable on hope cannot We

wo ą ociety…and ociety…and uld not be more sympathetic towards sympathetic more be not uld d Osvobozhdenie

Wszechpolski energetic will be will be energetic 7 - e Russian society… The less The society… Russian e 88) the society society the

rm h ie ta te eeomn o te constitutional the of development the that idea the from : ’ eeis ewe themselves.’ between enemies d’s rable conditions for legal political activity, the interference of interference the activity, political legal for conditions rable of more moderate constitutional group of the opposition opposition the of group constitutional moderate more of lbrl poiin os o tet us treat not does opposition liberal y

would provoke various suspicions even among the most moderate moderate most the among even suspicions various provoke would Russification began to make serious success success serious make to began Russification Przegląd Wszechpolski Przegląd .

(1903, vr h direction the over The author refer author The

therussific Germanization is so dangerous because it is carried out by by out carried is it because dangerous so is Germanization

o eosrt, h position the demonstrate, to

no ln qoain from quotation long a 36 . 2.

s o te oeet f e ae at n it… in part take we if movement the for ts atory activity atory

Russian society is restricted, the more it will be be will it more the restricted, is society Russian pp

fe i gt a etr da f us, of idea better a gets it after 41

. 90): The contrary… the on but us,

of r

ed tt afis te rae wud e the be would greater the affairs, state

, which ,

to the position of the major organ organ major the of position the to … 37

n a in

according to him, him, to according t eknd usa and Russia weakened It friendly reld Wszechpolski Przegląd only when a nationalist nationalist a when only

N the of way again

greater would greater only after the the after only , it is rather rather is it ,

the liberal liberal the

the “treated

ational author de for for de Th e nal nal

CEU eTD Collection 40 39 38 determination. self for right the obtain to deserve not do allegedly, latter, The nationalities. other all state. independent an of “samostoiatel'nyi” nationalities intheRussian state.” r complete a always PPS comrades, Russian to assistance be would party socialist only [assumed] the stru the facilitate would reform the of wing liberal oppositio take certain thebenefit in waygains from oftheRussianopposition.” the stay National

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. namelythat same the at and opposition,

final non the in possible be

hr ae w itrsig bevtos eadn te at fragment: last the regarding observations interesting two are There of outline his In Finally

Democrats participating it oeet te uhr spoke author the movement, nist

aim gt o a idpnet life independent an for ight that

it is above all Russia’s enemies, who are interested in transforming ofstate. in transforming whointerested are enemies, Russia’s all above it is

of cmlt stsato o te ed o te oih rltra would proletariat Polish the of needs the of satisfaction complete a the

does not signify autonomy here, but rather an urge towards c an towards urge butrather autonomy signifyhere, does not Polish

author did usa opsto. n i opinion, his In opposition. Russian

observers

not the A

the attitude of Polish Socialist party towards the Russian Russian the towards party Socialist Polish of attitude the

time we wou we time independent socialists t the same time, the “cultural nationalities” are opposed to opposed are nationalities” “cultural the time, same the t concluded

differ main , ggle of Polish workers for their liberation. However liberation. their for workers Polish of ggle

yet at the same time same the at yet

40 political from

was ld provide the argument for argument the provide ld ,

that the republic

(

samosto different

force. position

on of 42

the a

( Therefore eti sympathy certain eaiiaa respublika nezavisimaia kd h lte t recognize to latter the sked ae’uu zhizn’ iatel’nuiu

practical of codn t te author the to According

they hope they would be able to able be would they hope they

Ugodowcy

a minimal constitutionalist constitutionalist minimal a ,

when they when adversaries of the reforms the of adversaries level ,

“ the ) They

even after

position promised 39

both

towards

all cultural cultural all ) 38 ,

where

want ,

reation reation

“ f a of their PPS

, the the

to a - ,

CEU eTD Collection dvizhenie v Rossii v dvizhenie 41 that principles ideological of set of consistent pages the on Miliukov and Struve by formulated This Liberation. of Union movement zemstvo o emerged t Osvobozhdenie movement Osvobozhdenie. hi in essays further his in wrote Poland in groups oppositionist with collaboration for liberals Democratic attitudes political this that note, should One independence. Polish of claims with alliance the Pol for expecting fight the above stand to ready were Democrats National the and Ugodowcy The complicated. conclusio Informe e iuto i te borderlands. the in situation he

Pipes,

n motn tasomto to pae ihn h Rsin constitutionalist Russian the within place took transformation important An by provided parties, oppositionist Polish of description of basis the on Thus,

Struve: Liberal on the Left, the on Liberal Struve: , a r, ta claoain ih n ifunil oih party Polish influential any with collaboration that n t f ntal dvre n wa am weak and diverse initially of ut

Union a ebr f the of member long , 538. , , from ,

the Russian the side

( was

. Związek Postępowo Związek 41

which the Russian reader with liberal outlook could learn about learn could outlook liberal with reader Russian the which At

ih h opening the with ulse bfr te omto o te oih Progressive Polish the of formation the before published

the congr the

and some benefits from political cleavages in Russia, while Russia, in cleavages political from benefits some and organization was a natural consequence of the “necessity” the of consequence natural a was organization

Russian socialists was possible only possible was socialists Approaching the Allies Approaching 324, Dmitrii Shakhovskoi, “‘Soiuz osvobozhdeniia’” osvobozhdeniia’” “‘Soiuz Shakhovskoi, Dmitrii 324,

bo i 10, u tee ee o pbihd in published not were these but 1906, in book s

ess in Switzerland in July 1903 July in Switzerland in ess mr rdcl ru o like of group radical more A

poiin a lkl t make to likely was opposition - Demokratyczny

of a a of 43

ol dsigih ieas rm other from liberals distinguish would

laain f sltd rus n the in groups isolated of algamation certain forum on the pages of of pages the on forum certain

), which gave hope to Russian to hope gave which ), Osvobozhdenie if the latter recognized latter the if icsin f h Polish the of discussion . About this Wasilewski this About ,

they founded founded they minded activists activists minded ol b very be would n unfavorable an

to create a a create to Liberal’noe Liberal’noe their the

CEU eTD Collection 45 44 opposition. Finnish the with along Lef the on Liberal organization this with relationship working close 43 42 Liberation treatedand Finland Po from autonomy.” year” following m Finlan with reconciliation to enough be would it that thought any see not did Liberation of Union the of leaders The 1899. in regime Bobrikov’s byrights its of violation the before Finland in existed which order, to linked universities. S of Pale of abolition as well as rights politi and civic equal order, constitutional the under tolerance religious complete Jews. the was group representatives the including movement, the of allies political clear a with force agenda. political cohesive a as act to them allow and groups

Ibid. Rossiiv dvizhenie Liberal'noe develop to sought Struve Pipes, Richard to According Bund. of members the were these Supposedly, voprosam” Struveocherednym “K Peter uch more com more uch in it a opstoa party oppositional an into Finns interests

this document demonstrate document this

With respect to respect With founding The

Osvobozhdenie . 15). 15). They replace the center of gravity to the Russian Russian the gravityto of center the replace They 45 44

The report was delivered during the same first meeting. first same the during delivered was report The Two other groupsTwo wereother theFinnsPoles. and Conclusion t, 314. 314. t,

Peter Dolgorukov Peter plicated 43

congress In exchange for their for exchange In Finland, the representatives of the Union of Liberation, closely closely Liberation, of Union the of representatives the Finland,

. of

believed that it was necessary to restore to necessary was it that believed d, a “loyal and cultural nation. cultural and “loyal a d, In a In

an 37.

alliance

. short outline of his report “Constitutional party in the the in party “Constitutional report his of outline short

A common action with us in Europe. Europe. in us with action common A n wteln as considered also Switzerland in s the difference in the way the members of Union of Union of members the way the in difference the s land at this very initial stage:initial land at very this

wrote that wrote Osvobozhdenie abolish restricting measures restricting abolish

with

the tlmn and ettlement

support i support

“[Poles] should no should “[Poles] 4 Finns 4

17 (1903): 289 (1903): 17 ( . constitution; Open t was suggested was t

f ainl rus Te first The groups. national of

” etitos n diso to admission in restrictions or The “Polish question” was was question” “Polish The

secret - 292. 292.

try to unite with the withthe unite to try t be promisedpoliticalbet

in order to achieve a achieve to order in ) ?).

Mutual exchange of of exchange Mutual question of tactical tactical of question

problems there and there problems the “constitutional” the

Commonality to promise them promise to A fuller quote fuller A

Pipes, Pipes, Old Struve: Struve:

of -

cal

CEU eTD Collection 46 transformations inRussia. learn and the of opposition groups major Finnish of representatives with meeting a had he where Stockholm Dolgo 1903 June In Union. the of congress founding the of convocation the before shortly opposition Finnish the of figures key the with contacts political closer establishing for Dolgorukov byPeter led commission of core leading the time, same the mainly place took groups Finnish the with interaction th while opposition, of history long relatively the Poles couldafter bemadea oftheinPoland. situation thorough appraisal that namely Finland, of “federatio support the for argument major the here finds also One the of support Finns’ the for exchange in Liberation of Union presupposed It basis. practical

Ibid. not Geneva Lake the at (Museum reconstruction (Switzerland) not is Federation group. Petersburg St. the Involve autonomy. the political freedomsand former Finland’s materials. interesting

be n sol nt, ht h gop of group the that note, should One th that notable, is It

promised n is not separatism.” By separatism.” not is n h meig ih h Fns n w in Finns the with meeting The withFinland. unity forma of workthe constitution out in To 16). 16). , on the contrary, it is a stronger unity of Finland with Russia. Finland unity of stronger it isa theon contrary, , The . 46

Poles

ere were almost no efforts no almost were ere We

–

consider promise them assistance and propaganda of an idea to preserve preserve to idea an of propaganda and assistance them promise

rltosi wt te in was Finns the with relationship e eainhp ih h rpeettvs f h Finnish the of representatives the with relationship

d hi attd towards attitude their ed th e

agreement about the support of autonomy by the the by autonomy of support the about agreement contrast, situation

inter (prepare the theses and materials (Igelstrom). (Igelstrom). materials and theses the (prepare inter h Uin f Liber of Union the Bapechwil .

Decide whether to develop the relationship for relationship the develop to whether Decide rukov visited Helsingfors (Helsinki) and and (Helsinki) Helsingfors visited rukov the decision about further relations with relations further about decision the 45

separatism to approach the Poles at that time. The time. that at Poles the approach to

the the

) .

Spasowicz. Political Spasowicz. zemstvo by way of way by

( federatsiia ne est’ separatism est’ ne federatsiia

to cetd special a created ation constitutionalists had a a had constitutionalists potential constitutional constitutional potential

ersne a having as represented

Russian constitution. Russian

Osvobozhdenie

autonomy

should . At At . )

CEU eTD Collection Nationalities Question in the Last Years of the Russian Empire” Mary Schaeffer Conroy (ed.) (ed.) Conroy Schaeffer Mary Empire” Russian 49 the of Years Last Demo Emerging the in Question Nationalities 48 Community and History 47 mainly not did this of question the as such matters, conta close a in were leaders opposition Petersburg. for also and regime autocratic Russian Russi the of forces the unite to government Japanese no be also empire. the from Finland of separation complete a of possibility the exclude Fi the for masses of mobilization latt The Zilliacus. camp the to loyalty of principle the violating without in purpose major their saw they time, same the At Finland. of rights the on attack illegal called they what to resistance preoccu was group This opposition. Finnish the of part moderate a represented Mechelin, Leo senator was ideologue major whose resistance, famous the after emerged

William R. Copeland, Copeland, WilliamR. Kujala, Antti Korhonen, Outi hr wr te rpnns of proponents the were there

H moment that At both of representatives with Dolgorukov of meeting the Generally, get a owever, despite the difference in the methods of political activity the the activity political of methods the in difference the despite owever, ted

48 precludecompetition between the twogroups. these

“The Policy of the Russian Government Toward Finland, 1905 1905 Finland, Toward Government Russian the of Policy “The

cracy in Late Imperial Russia Late Imperial in cracy , that during the Russian the during that , - to International Law Situated: An Analysis of the Lawyer’s Stance Towards Culture. Culture. Towards Stance Lawyer’s the of Analysis An Situated: Law International - nw nepie and enterprise know r a involved was er

(The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000), 30 2000), Law International, Kluwer Hague: (The The Uneasy Alliance, Uneasy The ,

there were two m two were there Manifesto

dealing with dealing the the ns cue T cause. nnish internationalization of the “Finnish question,” yet question,” “Finnish the of internationalization

active resistance under the leadership of Konni Konni of leadership the under resistance active

(Niwot: University of Colorado, 1998), Colorado, of (Niwot: University 131

n lea atvt amn fr revolutionary for aiming activity illegal in -

the ct with e with ct Japanese war Zilliacus used the funds of the of funds the used Zilliacus war Japanese of of h dsuso o priua decis particular of discussion the - ajor camps of the Finnish opposition, opposition, Finnish the of camps ajor 141.

organization of organization February 1899. The group of peaceful peaceful of group The 1899. February the Russian liberal opposition. However, opposition. liberal Russian the 46

ach other, and other, ach

usa emperor. Russian e ebr o ti gop i not did group this of members he an opposition for weakening the the weakening for opposition an pied with the legal forms of of forms legal the with pied the - 31. 31. military uprising in St. in uprising military

discuss 49

–

1917: A Case of the the of Case A 1917:

n h opposite the In ed the common the ed

261 - groups was groups 277. 277. os was ions It should should It

which

CEU eTD Collection 52 51 KAY: Fo opposition. Finnish 50 Finla of separation th of exchange in would g constitutionalists following on pressure the po the negotiate to groups loyal of attempts the while indignation, poli This Russification. to resistance their and parties political major its Finland, in situation the of description article the of part significant A question.” “Finnish the on account un remained reasons some for but in article an as prepared was report The Liberation. of Union the of the from arrival establishment of case in Finland regar suggestions their formulate to time needed opposition Finnish later a for postponed

Peter Dolgorukov, “Finliandiia i Russkaia konstitutsiia” konstitutsiia” i Russkaia Dolgorukov, “Finliandiia Peter dvizhenie Liberal’noe the and Dolgorukov between discussion the joined and Helsinki to arrived Struve point, certain a At constitutional party… constitutional opp Finnish the makes everything that respect and norms established of fulfillment of guarantees serious provide their discuss could …Finland movement. oppositional Russian eiltv asmle, o ht iln cud ute dvlp t laws its develop further ofthe empire. unity the threatening without could Finland that so assemblies, legislative wit a there leave

931. pt. pt. 360 931. interaction an establish to have we addition In laws. fundamental own its h Thus, Dolgorukov sp Dolgorukov Thus,

idea s w As an more Finns the now And

: place for Finland, no less independent than it had been until now in accordance accordance in now until been had it than independent less no Finland, for place e

- , 369. 369. trip in iln cm t a ed end. dead a to came Finland

nd, just as he as just nd, needs … it looks for the legal order in the Russian government that… would would that… government Russian the in order legal the for looks it … needs our dtis Aksoats Fnih ainl Archive) National (Finnish Arkistolaitos details: r i spot Dlouo ecue te osblt o complete of possibility the excluded Dolgorukov support. eir

v Rossii to Finland Finland to

period.

turn, envision turn, cy, according to Dolgorukov, had Dolgorukov, to according cy, uarantee the protection of Finnish of protection the uarantee , 606. , oke 50

Both the Russian l Russian the Both

Dolgorukov presented his report on the first congress first the on report his presented Dolgorukov

of an of

excluded of constitutional order in the Russian empire Russian the in order constitutional of

mr raie h nece the realize more d the future political order in the Russian the in order political future the published. osition to follow one common aim with the Russian Russian the with aim common one follow to osition

agreement with the Finns, the with agreement

at the wants

the possibility of imposing laws on Finland on laws imposing of possibility the

47 51

Ibid n t ogrkv offered Dolgorukov it In iberals and the representatives of the of representatives the and iberals usa go Russian Dolgorukov . ,

59. st t rlt ter oe to hopes their relate to ssity

already caused the general the caused already

autonomy they which with vernment,

led

n h course the in Leo Mechelin Collection Collection Mechelin Leo of in which in

law. Thus, it seems seems it Thus, law. the ssibility of easing of ssibility ding the st the ding

between between empire, have to to have empire, Osvoboz ithin the em the ithin was

reader

the Russian the devoted to to devoted

detailed a of time, time, of the two two the

hdenie . Upon . atus of of atus

to the the

pire the ,

CEU eTD Collection 54 53 the convince to especially thesame theNationalDemocrats, expressed government. autocratic Russian the of measures repressive the than co liberals. Russian the with collaboration of perspectives about speaking groups Finnish the of meeting closed the “tolerant” par Russian the by Finland of repression the prevent to possible parliament. of part their of realization po own their of basis the on parliament the in representatives its but decide, would that partially rejected Dolgorukov Finland. of rights the restricting laws, adopt to began Duma Russian the Diet. was point This and parliament Russian the between agreement the by jointly adopted Th institutions. representative Russian the by

Copeland, Copeland, Ibid., nstitution and parliament and nstitution iia cnito ad program and conviction litical of be will it than rather accomplished, be will Russia and Finland of a through A closer in Galicia. against observe Austria and may Posnan, we against Prussia which like states, of parliamentary certain example an government, representative the through nationality not does and unlawful violence... unlawful 59 h ie o Dlouo aot h “oeac” o “tolerance” the about Dolgorukov of idea The

association between the Russian and the Finnish people would take would people Finnish the and Russian the between association such - wishful thinking, and partially a false assumption, as it is not the “people” “people” the not is it as assumption, false a partially and thinking, wishful 60.

We think, we are not wrong not are we think, We the The free By contrast, i contrast, By

Uneasy Alliance Uneasy Russian people Russian

cultural interaction and mutual trust and respect. And only then a more solid unity unity solid more a then onlyAnd respect. and mutual trust and interaction cultural possibility have any nationalist or chauvinist tendencies. It would not repress a weaker weaker a repress not would It tendencies. chauvinist or nationalist any have Finns that Finns

very im very

f nationalists became such a dominant force, it would it force, dominant a such became nationalists f :

this the , portant as it expose

Zilliacus feared lest lest feared Zilliacus 167. . Such a concern was expressed by Konni Zilliacus on on Zilliacus Konni by expressed was concern a Such .

scenario agreement agreement

, when we say that the Russian people is tolerant tolerant is people Russian the that say we when , d . h constitutionalists The s.

Finland to even more detrimental consequences detrimental more even to Finland wa

had anticipated only by becoming by only s impossible, yet his reliance on the natural the on reliance his yet impossible, s

lw rltd o iln hd to had Finland to related laws e

h etbihet f t of establishment the

idea. Dolgorukovidea. tried actually

what happened in 1910, whenwhat happened in1910, a

result of of result te usa peop Russian the f

a dominant party in the the in party dominant a

could guarantee the the guarantee could s

place, it will only be be only will it place, the present practice practice present the liament, liament, 54

h Finnish the e Russian he h Poles, The by nature nature by nd if a if nd however

no e is le t be t

be be

CEU eTD Collection the Russian rightthe Russian a an reach to easy were rhetoric Dolgorukov’s in result would borderlands fear could who those, particularly and pre Finns. influence ofRussian merchants. possi the about reservations in article the in peddlers about quotation and Finland between borders rigid The side. Finnish and some rather or t had convergence a peoples Finnish the and comparison with suggested Austria and Prussia o tolerance And the example of other peoples s peoples ofother theAnd example Fin that mentioned already have I unfounded. is fear this But empire. the from nationalities borderland the of succession of serving the serving

irto ec Nr i Dolgorukov did Nor etc. migration When he tryed he When h pr The time same the At

One of the widely spread arguments of the adver the of arguments spread widely the of One te usa pol was people Russian the f

be o Dlouo’ reoi wa rhetoric Dolgorukov’s of oblem cultural interaction as a result of development of economic connections economicof development of result a as interaction cultural Finnish autonomy, Dolgorukov addressed mainly addressed Dolgorukov autonomy, Finnish

- the German majority empires. ofthese wing thinkers. According toDolgorukovwing thinkers.

greement, but rather those who we who those rather but greement, atr as latter, o

take place. I place. take

to convince the readers of of readers the convince to

would be desirable, yet he did he yet desirable, be would , Dolgorukov assumed Dolgorukov , ad tef os o tik f sec of think not does itself land

the will be demonstrated, demonstrated, be will l ifu o mgat fo Rsi and Russia from migrants of influx ble o the not

disintegration of Russia. The major The Russia. of disintegration hows that a friendly cultural friendlycultural a that hows

t is not clear whether he spoke he whether clear not is t ht usas c Russians that

the empire. Moreover, as one can see from the the from see can one as Moreover, empire. the in, ih hm a h believed, he as whom, with Finns,

wa agmn. h hsoia e historical The argument. weak a

ae no osdrto te oiin f the of position the consideration into take

that concessions to Finland and other other and Finland to concessions that 49

Osvobozhdenie

that the convergence of the Russian Russian the of convergence the that Osvobozhdenie ud e n be ould saries of t of saries n h cnrr, tried contrary, the on ta i might it that s ession re quick to grasp to quick re

not indicate in wha in indicate not

cohabitation is the strongest way way strongest is the cohabitation : ( he constitution was the was constitution he otdelenii ls c less o , the Finns had their their had Finns the ,

about politic about

the Rus the of the of ) have group group from the empire. empire. the from

the rhetoric of of rhetoric the avnsi in hauvinistic the

necessity of of necessity irritated t ol be would it sian public, sian o establish to t form such form t ape of xamples targeted economic al unity, al

fear fear

the by CEU eTD Collection of Political Thought and C and Thought Political of Concept” the Emasculated Translation a How Citizen. Finnish “The Stenius, 56 55 their presented Finns the after changed suddenly had side Russian the of to Finns the Finnish constitutionalists inJanuaryInitially, 1904. of group moderate the and Liberation of Union the of participants the of meeting joint proveFinns. theexistence sameof onthepart ofthe intention not and voluntary were it if firmer, desire the as well rat Finland. of citizens as themselves considered Finns empi Russian wa this However, the in nation common one of regard cantons different in population the where na civic a as Russia perceive to intention exa the time, same the in At especially Russification. Russia, from separation of possibility remaining possibility the considered seriously politicians Finnish moderate only

Ibid. Max her that he clearly demonstrated that he wanted he that demonstrated clearly he that her live together peacefully… livetogether Italians and French the Germans, the where Switzerland, example for Take, state. the cement to ,

Engman, Engman, 60. The position o position The Dolgorukov’s way, some In

within Russia within

the congress of the Union, which took place simultaneously, but the plans the but simultaneously,place took which Union, the of congress the e ad atclry n iln. t a nt ut obvious quite not was It Finland. in particularly and re, Finliandtsy v Peterburge Peterburge v Finliandtsy s also s to prove to 56

Yet, it is not quite important, whether Dolgorukov was right, but right, was Dolgorukov whether important, quite not is it Yet, f the Finnish side in a more a in side Finnish the f onceptual History onceptual

, while , 55 wishful thinking, rather than the actual state of affairs in the in affairs of state actual the than rather thinking, wishful

to the Russian readers Russian the to

the is pae atog te spo they although place, first

ujcs f usa n h firs the in Russia of subjects

more radical groups in Finland did not exclude the exclude not did Finland in groups radical more reasoning seem reasoning

S.eesug “voesi Dm” 08, 33 2008), Dom,” “Evropeiskii (St.Petersburg:

8 (2004). (2004). 8 a forced one. However, Dolgorukov Dolgorukov However, one. forced a

in y nlg wt te lie country Alpine the with analogy by tion pe f wteln demonstrated Switzerland of mple 50

developed form was presented at presented was form developed that such a converge a such that themselves as Swiss as themselves the liberationists intended toinvitethe liberationists

a too presumptuous. In particular, particular, In presumptuous. too convergence

h cniin o forced of conditions the k pae ad ny then only and place, t e Redescriptions: Yearbook Redescriptions:

diff

with the F the with rn languages. erent

nce would be would nce Pro Memoria Pro and members and

f Finland of whe - ol not could 37; Henrik Henrik 37; hr the ther inns as as inns

the

’s a ,

CEU eTD Collection 59 58 aktov. konstitutsionnykh 57 deistvuiushikh 1907), “Pravo,” Sbornik konstitutsii. Sovremennye 57 bill the of versions identical the through created be would legislation such Finland, of Duchy Great Finland.” law fundamental while Finland, and Russia for common were throne the institutions. legislative Second which legisla that feared Mechelin par nationalistic the and lawtheoreticians of of terms the on Finland and Russia between connection a of idea old his developed Mechelin 1867. in Hungary and Austria between agreement the form of theproject of Mechelin, Thethetext document, was constitution. second composed by a the of version draft Le by meeting this for prepared specially

Ibid., 2. Ibid., Arkistolaitos “Zakon ob obshchikh delakh vsekh zemel’avstriiskoi monarkhii i o poriadke ikh razresheniia” razresheniia” ikh poriadke o i monarkhii zemel’avstriiskoi vsekh delakh obshchikh ob “Zakon the State Act on Act State the nationalrepresentation. Finnish the of consent the by than way other any altered be cannot latter The Finland. of Duchy Constitutio the representing Finland, of Laws Fundamental withthe accordance in and institutions state Finnish the with association in executed is Grand It the Finland. of as Duke Monarch Russian the to belongs country this in authority supreme The monarch. tive institutions. I tive institutions. would guarantee would , any changes of this order would be possible only by agreement of the Finnish the of agreement byonly possible be would order this of changes any , First, this passage presu passage this First,

59 el union real a The G The

Should certain issues certain Should (Finnish National Archive) Leo Mechelin Collection, box 93. folder 29. p.1. 29. folder 93. box Collection, LeoMechelin Archive) National (Finnish rand Duchy of Finland is connected with the Russian Empire and has its common common its has and Empire Russian with the connected is Finland Duchyof rand - 65. 65. i te usa Epr are Empire Russian the in s

the connection between Russia and Finland, which re which Finland, and Russia between connection the

tce wih a to had which rticle, 58 – Fu Finnish the threaten could order constitutional Russian the n thefirst articlen of Mechelin hisproject wrote: a special a

a theory, which caused a heated debate among the Russia the among debate heated a caused which theory, a rther on, the project suggested project the on, rther

y h Rsin n Fnih ersnaie assemblies representative Finnish and Russian the by pposed the pposed

legal order in Finland, in order legal require a common legislation of the Empire an Empire the of legislation common a require

existence of a special Finnish constitution, constitution, Finnish special a of existence o Mechelin. Mechelin. o t of the Russian society.A Russian the of t be included into the text of the Russian Russian the of text the into included be 51

o vld n h Gad uh of Duchy Grand the in valid not

distinct from the Russian on Russian the from distinct r Memoria Pro that the laws of succession of of succession of laws the that 57 i al te spheres other all “in

I n these two documents two these n

Vol. 2. (St.Petersburg: (St.Petersburg: 2. Vol. t the same time, time, same the t

adoption of the of adoption n of the Grand Grand the of n consisted of a a of consisted minded by its its byminded authorities authorities

d the d t he he e. n . ,

CEU eTD Collection 62 61 konstitutsionno konferentsii “Osvobozhdeniie” Konstitutsionno redaktsii Izdanie 60 Unio the of congress the on claims Finnish thought who liberals, Russian the of part the of concerns compared ofthe for Poles tothe demands the Finnish for the demand later, mentioned Zilliacus As London. in party Democratic National Finns liberals Russia institutions. R the for only norms established constitution Russian the of project later the of “independence” Rus the from actual Finland of constitution an implied which nations, political two between projects. the constitu Finnish of “incorporation” simple a presuppose not did Mechelin and Moreover, Russia Finland. of spaces constitutional of separation rigid a was parliament Russian opinion, parallel in discussed decisions international the However t was policy Foreign

Copeland, Copeland, Arkistolaitos imperii” Rossiiskoi zakon gosudarstvennyi “Osnovnoi into ainto symmetrical statewith autonomies At the same time, the formulation At thesame time, the The

60 h ol way only the

Instead the Finnish fundamental law fundamental Finnish the Instead The Uneasy Alliance Uneasy The

optimism optimism . t i nt vn eto Fnad ad rspoe a eraiain of reorganization a presupposed and Finland, mention even not did It

- Leo Mechelin Collection, box 93. folder 30. 30. folder 93. box Collection, LeoMechelin demokraticheskoi partii, vyrabotannaia uchreditel’mym s”ezdom partii” partii” s”ezdom uchreditel’mym vyrabotannaia partii, demokraticheskoi a a eut f hi earlier their of result a was tion into the Russian one, as Russian l Russianas one, intoRussian the tion

restorati

in the Russian and Finnish representative organs representative Finnish and Russian the in e ny spher only he - ih hc te in peetd their presented Finns the which with demokraticheskoi partii. demokraticheskoi o eue h Finis the secure to n f h pre the of on , 145.

Prs “Osvobozhden (Paris, , hr te R the where e,

sian constitution. Char constitution. sian eae t te i the to related -

of the question in such a form caused in sucha serious of form thequestion Bobrikov regime seemed quite quite seemed regime Bobrikov complete independence.complete

n of Liberation would alienate the alienate would Liberation of n lgsain rm h dmnto o the of domination the from legislation h

Vol. 1,37. Vol. meeting with the leaders of the Polish Polish the of leaders the with meeting 52

. had to be guarant be to had

Materialy po vyrabotke russkoi konstitutsii. konstitutsii. russkoi vyrabotke po Materialy 61 (Kon

sin oiac ws recognized. was dominance ussian

iberals did in their constitutionaltheir in did iberals i, 1905 iie,” stituion f stituion trss f iln hd o be to had Finland of nterests

ht h dsuso o the of discussion the that acteristically, ü claims to the Russian Russian the to claims r Russland) r - 1906), 2; “Programma “Programma 2; 1906), eed by an by eed 62

. I . , p. 1 p. , n Mechelin’s n ussian state state ussian Mechelin’s

oet as modest agreement -

20. majority

S”ezdy

CEU eTD Collection 63 Russia, in monarchy a of preservation presupposedthe construction a Such Russia. monarchof constitutional dynasty) common ba the envisioned Finns to only concern empire the from themselves but Finnish of groups the union, tactical a of possibility the preclude and not did This illusory. quite was opposition liberals Russian the of views of unanimity possible status.” (Finland country this in been had that “ of principle the proclaimed resolution the self of right the of recognizing ques national the on Liberation of Union the of congress January pre the restoring of moment. that at linked was it than closer, even opinion, their in as, proposal, this rejected of terms the on Finland and Russia connecting of idea Un the of members rejected immediately The circle. closed a within agreement of

Shakhovskoi, ““Soiuz osvobozhdeniia ““Soiuz Shakhovskoi, sed on the principle of a real union, i.e. through a person of a monarch (and (and monarch a of person a through i.e. union, real a of principle the on sed the h fnl goals final the participants. Therefore participants. The analysis of of analysis The

h qetos f ees ad oeg plc. t h sm time same the At policy. foreign and defense of questions the ,

- of figured idea same The regime. Bobrikov h hd o b to had who

the conditions of Mechelin’s project and instead suggested the suggested instead and project Mechelin’s of conditions the

oncin ewe Fnad and Finland between connection although in a constitutional form. Meanwhile, form. constitutional a in although the the the

Russian w sds were sides two

, as much as possible, limiting the issue of issue the limiting possible, as much as

the Russian and Finnish groups decided to consider the consider to decided groups Finnish and Russian the - determination for nationalities in the Russia the in nationalities for determination

…”, …”, - Finnish negotiation Finnish both e

552. 552. –

T.Kh.) before the u the before T.Kh.)

different. The Finns wanted wanted Finns The different. etrto o te lega the of restoration 53 h Gad ue f iln ad the and Finland of Duke Grand the federation would lin would federation

Finally, both sides a sides both Finally, a federation. T federation. a

demonstrates h Rsin mie was Empire Russian the nlawful violation of this of violation nlawful

in the resolution of the of resolution the in tion. Along with the with Along tion. k Finland to Russia to Finland k ion semi l greed on the idea idea the on greed a part of Russian of part a

he Finns he that the idea of of idea the that f Liberation of

the comm the - o distance to tt status state n empire, empire, n in turn in ,

the the on as

CEU eTD Collection 67 66 vlast’ partii, massy, (eds.) Galili Ziva Cherniaev, V.IU. Finliandii” nezavisimost’ Finliandskoe Kniazhestvo 65 64 Finnish feared who those, had they because to Accordingarticle. his of rest separation. memories historical any weak He state. independent own their create and Russia meetingFinns withthe question” “Finnish the about the point liberals of a monarch republican republic a as Russia envisioned constitutionalists

Ibid. Ibid. i konstitutsiia” vopros “Natsional’nyi Russkii Jussila, Osmo II. Nicholas of abdication the after 1917 in happened actually what is This 101 vRossii, dvizhenie Liberal’noe cohabitation with Russia, Finland would continue to develop materially and spiritually and and spiritually and materially develop to continue organization… state itsimprove would Finland Russia, with cohabitation c acts,

to become an independent state. Since it has never has it Since state. independent an become to

Dolgorukov implicitly compared Finland compared implicitly Dolgorukov denied Dolgorukov F

to the left placed their placed left the to mitd during ommitted rhr revolutionary urther tribe

liberals preferred to ignore to preferred liberals …

” scenario the Finns would have the possibility to argue that in that argue to possibility the have would Finns the scenario 67 Finland would be satisfied with its returning to the position it had before it had position the to returning with satisfied its be would Finland

thew rem

( iso plemia finskoe

(St.Petersburg: “Glago (St.Petersburg:

“historical memories.” At memories.” “historical

ht iln mgt at o eun o Sweden: to return to want might Finland that

Hlik: ulna 20) 758 2009), Ruslania, (Helsinki:

. ained noconnectionbetweenandained Russia Finland

h rin f Nic of reign the

ht ol pooe hr ee unrealist even there provoke would that ht h Fns ol wn t want would Finns the that

in an article an in 66 eeomns n Russia in developments

tactical union with the Finns the with union tactical

) - Dolgorukov, the Poles Poles the Dolgorukov, 115. 115. rvis considerably prevails l,” 1994), 293 1994), l,”

h this fact. This is what Peter Dolgorukov wrote Dolgorukov Peter what is This fact. this olas II. Protected by its constitution, in a peaceful peaceful a in constitution, its by Protected II. olas Osvobozhdenie published in published

the same time, time, same the 54

- 306.

- to Poland, Poland, to 6; io eoa “usaa eoitia i revoliutsiia “Russkaia Ketola, Eino 763; . Anatomiia Revoliutsii. 1917 god v Rossii: Rossii: v god 1917 Revoliutsii. Anatomiia

argued 59 ( 59

n cs o raiain f the of realization of case a In were thinking were Osvobozhdenie .

1904 n a the as and t os o hv anything have not does It o separate themselves from from themselves separate o been one been : in danger. danger. in

): 147. ): Dolgorukov argued with argued Dolgorukov to which he devoted the devoted he which to “ It is too small and too too and small too is It

“[

of rf of drift it does n does it I

n a year after the the after year a Up to a certain certain a to Up

. independence, independence, c ras of dreams ic

the unlawful unlawful the Finland

the absence absence the Russian Russian ot have ot Velikoe Velikoe ],

the

CEU eTD Collection (St.Petersburg, 1910). (St.Petersburg, maia 13 P.N.Miliukova 70 69 68 express choose to want might gr the given one, pleasant the while independence, for will a of absence regarded be interests, whichas wouldappear as soon of theGerman race p neighboring the against buffer a as people loyal and cultural this capital its to “buffer.” a of role a playcould difference. case we peoples po “great of categories ignored Dolgorukov too physiognomy This Sweden. with common

I Ibid eat powers eat E.N.Berendts, E.N.Berendts, bid. bid. many similarities many

either

Des again spoke he on Further expect not did Dolgorukov Yet,

ed such suspicions such ed

pite the seemingly friendly seemingly the pite re doomed to be under the influence of influence the under be to doomed re nbe o be to Unable usa r emn. Therefore Germany. or Russia

. A . . s fesv fr h Fns Sal ie did size Small Finns. the for offensive as ” fninsou ors. tti o oou eh cln Gsdrteni Dumy Gosudarstvennoi chlena rechi povodu po Stat’i voprosu. finliandskomu K 68 t the same time, Dolgorukov did not consider it possible that the Finns the thatpossible it consider not did Dolgorukov time, same the t

( sosednikh narodov rasy germanskoi sosednikh

with the Russian culture) Russian the with hs poss this 1908 goda pri rassmotrenii zaprosov po Finliandskomu upravleniiu upravleniiu Finliandskomu po zaprosov rassmotrenii pri goda 1908 vulnerability of F of vulnerability implied standpoint a Such wers.” o ally to

n needn country independent an . 70

tribe In this sense, sense, this In

According to him: “ him: to According with

blt, atal, eas h wa he because partially, ibility,

( plemia bu “ovrec” n h bss f common of basis the on “convergence” about

Germany

tone of the article the of tone

th t inland in in inland he “rep ) at the “Finnish tribe” (which did not did (which tribe” “Finnish the at

, develops Dolgorukov did Dolgorukov oml needne did independence formal 55

proposed vn huh the though even

would want to acquire to want would ression” ofFinlandression” discontinued is

the case of collision of neighboring of collision of case the Russia would benefit to have closehave to benefit would Russia Finland the

more big and s and big , )

. role of a “buffer” “buffer” a of role might rhetoric Dolgorukov’s

“

69 that in , and not necessarily mean the the mean necessarily not

o bigay arguments any bring not

ogrkvs opinion Dolgorukov’s the “small and weak” weak” and “small the more trong powers, in this this in powers, trong usa nationalists Russian s

hnig n the in thinking its

o make not independence.

own was not a not was

national eoples eoples

have

any .

CEU eTD Collection 71 the meeting with the Poles: regime. tsarist the powerof the undermine to parties was betwe relations subsequent the September in Paris in place took which parties, t of Liberation of Union the of moment the At Poland. to a natio Finns realized indeed constitutionalists Russian the of consideration sober a than prospective their of position the a certain would notbring any could that utonom

Dmitrii Pavlov, DmitriiPavlov, would be acceptable for both sides. I remember, after the discussion, a thickset Pole with a a with Pole thickset a discussion, the after remember, I sides. both for acceptable be would and sessions half a and one for discussion delegates there the through socialist the he Polish political parties. Nevertheless parties. political Polish he organized by Konni Zilliacus who sought to create a united front of oppositionist oppositionist of front united a create to sought who Zilliacus Konni by organized aitc at f hi audience their of part nalistic a psil wt te Finns the with possible was

As it has been mentioned, the second part of Dolgorukov’s article was article Dolgorukov’s of part second the mentioned, been has it As seeming the Thus,

was

yFinland helptostrengthenconnection of would withRussia its self A

ovne h Rsin edr ta poiig rae fedm o Finland to freedom greater providing that readers Russian the convince s for the Poles, who were represented at the meeting by two parties two by meeting the at represented were who Poles, the for s et ute, hn e n hs usin M subr rssac poogd th prolonged resistance stubborn My question. this in me than further, went any formula of the Polish Polish the of formula any

- mediation of A.R.Lednicki, a popular lawyer in Moscow. I do not think that in 1904 1904 in that think not do I Moscow. in lawyer popular a A.R.Lednicki, of mediation - deception on thepart liberal. Russian ofdeception on of the The understanding latter’s

our relations our Iaponskie den’gi dlia pervoi Russkoi Revoliutsii Russkoi pervoi dlia den’gi Iaponskie

damage tothestate Russian

with them regarding the question of a of question the regarding them with

simplicity of the question of Finland was a conseque a was Finland of question the of simplicity of publication of this article this of publication of did not succeed much in developing connections with any with connections developing in much succeed not did

the actual the en

p the Russian l Russian the ar uooy A te meeting the At autonomy.

they ,

nr n olto ws oe of more was coalition in tner n re t cnic the convince to order in was the reason why we have not got the formula that that formula the got not have we why reason the was public

, were consciously deceiving a moderate moderate a deceiving consciously were 56

the conference of Russian oppositionist Russian of conference the that only a tactical agreement tactical a only that

sentiments iberals and the Poles. The conference The Poles. the and iberals

. -

October 1904 October 71

This is This

(Moscow: “Veche,” 2011), 67 2011), “Veche,” (Moscow:

(October 1904), the members the 1904), (October utonomy began sometime later, later, sometime began utonomy

among the Finns. Finns. the among ,

tue n other and Struve how Miliukov described Miliukov how

had certain impact on impact certain had edr, ht greater that readers, , the , ihu thinking, wishful

. national and and national

s of our our of s Or

with the with devoted devoted

else nce of nce - 96. e , if ,

CEU eTD Collection 74 73 72 the interests ofboth tried Dolgorukov Nevertheless, Russia. s the of changes wanted seem ‘province.’” distance motherland their of past complicate more mutual concessions. any presuppose not did it Democrats, National the of opinion the in Yet, liberals. the r t possibility the exclude not did inten express to began evolutionary upheaval. Nor did the Poles the did Nor upheaval. evolutionary

Russkii “Natsional’nyi vopros i konstitutsiia…”: i konstitutsiia…”: vopros “Natsional’nyi Russkii Ko Miliukov, does not promise us notpromise does the meet to glad very am “I told: and me to approached gaze clever entity would be too weak too be would entity ten for sense no is state distinct there a into separate to Meanwhile, Russia yet. question the of out is entire the Poland restoring Therefore Austria. and Germany to belong Poland of parts certain that fact an only or body, political zicki, sification of the activity of of activity the of sification ed hs te rbe, codn t Dlouo, a th was Dolgorukov, to according problem, the Thus, Dolgorukov context this In A

independence, the independence,

irrecon give tr h bgnig f h Russian the of beginning the fter Historia Ligi Narodowej Ligi Historia However, a seemingly complex question of whether of question complex seemingly a However, Vospominania 74 s

for many Russians the reason to consider Poland an Poland consider reasonto the Russians manyfor ial. hra te oe, reli Poles, the Whereas cilable. d tatus of Poland as an attempt to bring about bring to attempt an as Poland of tatus

. On the one hand, one the On . certain interest in the Russian liberal movement. liberal Russian the in interest certain everything 73 the

, 169. ,

Poles andPoles

( autonomous region of the Russian empire Russian the of region autonomous is still alive. O alive. still is velichinoi

moderate Russian moderate

we want.” This wasDmowski. This want.” we , 2 33

the ). S ). a te latter the hat - the 235. - wrote about Poland that Poland about wrote

Russian liberals, the leadership of the Polish party Polish the of leadership the liberals, Russian uch Poland would be tied be would uchPoland even the staunchest patriots agree with this. Indeed, this. with agree patriots staunchest the even among the Poles there the memory memory the there Poles the among

Russians.

n the other hand, more than a h a than more hand, other the n

147.

exclude the possibility of an alliance with alliance an of possibility the exclude suggest a compromise a suggest

- 57 aaee a te Nati the war Japanese nationalists were likely to consider to likely were nationalists

would come to power as a result of of result a as power to come would ed

n hi hsoia memories historical their on

72 Poland should be an independent independent an be should Poland

among its large neighbors, and and neighbors, large its among

–

: finally a finally

appears simpler due to the to due simpler appears “[

the t he at opposite positions positions opposite at Vistula provinces provinces Vistula

] inalienable Russian Russian inalienable “

Russian that would satisfy would that Polish question is question Polish dis As o As nl Democrats onal undred years of yearsof undred integration” of of integration” of a historical historical a of bserving the the bserving

man, who man,

this this

of of

any and

CEU eTD Collection 76 75 a buffer between Russ of role a perform would latter the Finland, to Similarly Poland. weak relatively oth interestcommon of basis the on nations both of reconciliation a achieving in consist would scenario entirely,at least thenearest in andtocertain future, toagree “autonomy.” Rus with break to not parties Polish convince to possible be would it that hoped spoke th of measures Russificatory awkward in (as Poles the to threat greater a was Germany of pressure the that apparently Dolgorukov brought Germanization possible did Poles the

Ibid., Ibid. Russia by a customs border would threaten Poland withbankruptcy. economic wouldthreaten Poland border customs Russiaa by Ger of threat the under be even might it future, the in perhaps, it will again become an independent state. But, this perspective should not frighten frighten not should perspective this But, state. Russians. independent an become again the will favor it would perhaps, Europe of circumstances international the borders former its in Poland of restoration and Poles the of forces building the on drive If, might us… it to than Poland, closer for beneficial and convenient be would Russia cultural to and lawful way best they the be let would Russia, what liberated show, in will while a for live Poland gua the in forces material and theirspiritual Russian develop the of citizens the Let calmly. r ae one case, er

of Russia as a trade area for the pro the for area trade a as Russia of 147 o a eoe esetv, ogrkv ditd w psiiiis Te best The possibilities. two admitted Dolgorukov perspective, remote a For tried Dolgorukov

- The carriers of Russian statehood may treat the dreams of restoration of Poland quite Poland of restoration of dreams the treat may statehood Russian of carriers The 148.

not have reasons for immediate separation f separation immediate for reasons have not

s, which would allow the Poles to stay within the Russian state. Instate. Russian the stay towithin Poles the allow would which s, allow ia and Germanand states.ia d h Pls o lae ad create and “leave” to Poles the ed

took into into took otay te icmtne wud lo apaig h hde state hidden the appearing allow would circumstances the contrary,

to prove to a Russian reader that despite th despite that reader Russian a to prove to

consider the Poles closer to Russia. Russia. to closer Poles the

( vosstanovleniu Pol’shi v prezhnikh razmerakh prezhnikh v Pol’shi vosstanovleniu Rmnv mie Mroe, Dolgorukov Moreover, empire. Romanov e accommodate. It the peaceful cohabitation with a a with cohabitation peaceful the It accommodate.

ation

ducts of Polish industry. In this In industry. Polish of ducts 58 rantied freedom of everyone, an ofeveryone, freedom rantied

the position of Dmowski of position the manization

. In addition, addition, In .

o usa het of threat A Russia. rom n needn, e still yet independent, an ih hs argument this With 75 a separation a

eir declarations, eir

Posnan), than than Posnan), , who thought who , d

then future future then

) , than, than, , way, he he way,

from from - the the sia

a CEU eTD Collection 78 77 “autonomy.” howhe Thisis understo an of conditions the in impending Germans. conflict the with especially Germans, to than Russians, to friendly more territory. conquered a as than rather buffer, a as Poland have to easier be would it perspective, confrontat global a of framework pan big a when idea on based was Russia, of interests the threaten not would independence

Ibid., Ibid unnecessary - c and persistently compete to willhave race Slavic the that and established be would and also the school instruction in this language… language… this in peculiar laws, and traditions instruction school the also and self cultural the self regional a be would it Transcaucasia, and Poland as such borderlands, org conditions life and climate nationalities, o standpoint Landtag unite we – Russian the self local in wide a parliament, representation similar a empire, Russian the of citizens other as guarantees and

hopefully, peacefully, with the German race. Yet race. German the with peacefully, hopefully, the majority of the of majority the of“pan creating a ., nzto wud e wd lcl self local wide a be would anization mean

147. 148. hs Dlouo expressed Dolgorukov Thus, A Polish the that reader Russian the for Dolgorukov of argument The

the

Moreover, the very fact of the Poles’ be Poles’ the of fact very the Moreover, , or regional zemstvo with its representation in the Russian the in representation its with zemstvo regional or , “small” independent Poland did Poland independent “small” Besides Poles the Russia in order constitutional a withestablishing If Bosporus with peoples Slavic the all of federation a that suppose, us let Yet,

everything that refers to administrative and economic autonomy. autonomy. economic and administrative to refers that everything ten Vistula provinces provinces Vistula ten

f the Russian statehood, statehood, Russian the f to

us - - , determination, we we mean we we determination, Slavic federati Slavic .

we 77

Poles will be qui be will Poles consider

- Slavic federation,” Slavic - to to governm … certain regions… certain

hog a omn self common a through it would be desirable desirable be would it on was on

ent and and ent o o Gra ad lvc “races Slavic and German of ion osdrn bg spaces, big considering te satisfied for the time being time the for satisfied te od

oe ht h Pls ol b stsid with satisfied be would Poles the that hope

te tlc i mine is italics (the p - the meaning ofthisautonomy: by this term this by oenet A government. rojected. the

which would oppose the which

78 not seem to be a threat in the conditions, the in threat a be to seem not

so called right of “cultural” self “cultural” of right called so

even

s el as well as longi

to introduce a certain body that would would that body certain a introduce to

Here Dolgorukov thought Dolgorukov Here so - the right to use one’s native language language native one’s use to right the government in a form of of form a in government , ng to a “Slavic race” made race” “Slavic a to ng an d o ms lre n civiliz and large most for nd

large population and variety of of variety and population large allied –

th - T.Kh.) the only reasonable reasonable only the T.Kh.) wide assembly. … From the the From … assembly. wide e right to preserve certain certain preserve to right e . By local self local By .

are state

provided similar rights rights similar provided

- buffer

government. As for As government. Germans. Germans. ” and from this this from and ”

determination determination would would - government government ontinuously ontinuously

or without without or the a

it or diet,

within a within not utop

be ed them ian

CEU eTD Collection 80 79 choice: a offered Struve unacceptable be Finland. as status political similar a Poland provide Little Lithuania, he particular, In 28 inMoscow. program la ethnogra and climatic geographical, the not was autonomy fragment to but Finland, sel local of not matt economic and administrative by limited be would finally, education, in including language, the use to suggested he

ws tothe Peter Struve, “K programme Soiuza Osvobozhdeniia” Osvobozhdeniia” Soiuza Struve, “K programme Peter Rossiiv dvizhenie Liberal'noe E Transcaucasia. or Russia Little Lithuania, Poland, to example for conditions, historical and life distinct with Empire, the mpire their right for cultur for mpiretheir right “state autonomy” as in the case of Finland, bu Finland, of case the in as autonomy” “state Soon after,Struve Soon T did Dolgorukov that shows passage This

h establishment the

f he position of Dolgorukov, expressed in his article, led article, his in expressed Dolgorukov, of position he of the Union of Liberation, which was adopted on the congress on March 25 March on congress the on adopted was which Liberation, of Union the of - in the above cited passage shows passage cited above the in government and on a regional scale. Dolgorukov compared Dolgorukov scale. regional a on and government The widest regional self regional widest The

local conditions.

civic equality within the borders the within equality civic

- objected to objected h Ca the for Russia and Transcaucasia. According to him, it was necessary to to necessary was it him, to According Transcaucasia. and Russia

rncuai, e aoe ihai ad Little and Lithuania alone let Transcaucasia,

claim of a certain region for self for region certain a of claim

css n the and ucasus “ We unconditionally recognize after these nationalities of the Russian Russian the of nationalities these after recognize unconditionally We

either the paragraph on regional selfregional on paragraph the either

commented al selfal , of

160.

placing Poland on the same plane as the borderlands the as plane same the on Poland placing a - -

government should be in any in be should government determination. it o Lntg. e, h cmeec o te latter the of competence the Yet, Landtag). (or Diet

phic peculiarity, which required which peculiarity, phic

on this article of the programthe articleof this on Baltic

79 that the major ground for p for ground major the that

the of the Russian empire; second empire; Russian the of

Osvobozhdenie

not pro not rvne ( provinces preservation of local traditions, and traditions, local of preservation However rte asse of system a rather t mise the Poles too much: first, much: too Poles the mise

ers. In other words, other In ers. case provided to the regions of of regions the to provided case - determination, but rather its its rather but determination,

69 guber - , - government 70 (1905): 307. (1905): 70 he thought, he

to formulation of the of formulation to nii

- in

Russia. . h italicized The ). an adjustme an Osvobozhdenie

roviding such such roviding Poland Poland

provides to to provides this would this

, the right the , adv he spo he

Final not to not anced , like , nt of nt - ly, ly, k e - .

CEU eTD Collection 82 81 of Kingdom the of Charter Constitutional the of 35 and 4 (articles Poland of Kingdom th in least at other, the on authority, supreme of source as emperor the of person the and hand, one the on Russia, and Poland connecting institution essential an as monarchypresupposedthe constitution Polish older the of restoration case.The Polish Bobrikov 1815 merits beingcited infull: of 67 issue the in published was Poland of autonomy the on view articulate more His Poland. of status political the defining in region other any as government Poles]” the [to autonomy exceptRussia, or politics, Poland, for little

Peter Struve, “Demokraticheskaia partiia i eie programma” eie i partiia Struve, “Demokraticheskaia Peter Ibid. Kingdom ofPoland. Kingdom the of assembly constituent the and Empire Russian the of assembly constituent a of agreement principal a of basis the on I. Alexander transformed bygranted of1815, ofthe constitution recognition be to has Poland of Kingdom the and Russia between Gran the and Empire the of bodies legislative the between agreement an of matter a be to have future, the in Finland, of Duchy Grand the and Empire the both to common actions, further All empire. Russian the of laws fundamental the in the recognized that all, above follows, this be to has status, state special its providing Finland, From of constitution autocracy. the for peculiar centralization, bureaucratic -

1830, As position initial the with accordance in words, other In

h state The Russ liberated The iuto. oee, hr was there However, situation. one can see, Struve suggested restoring the status that status the restoring suggested Struve see, can one

f h prgah eie mr widely more defined paragraph the if y nlg wt te Finnish the with analogy by Finland and Poland, itgoesFinland Poland, and far.” too

- -

ea rltos ewe te mie n Pln hv t have Poland and Empire the between relations legal too little not from the view point of an abstract justice, but a real a but justice, abstract an of point view the from not little too 82

ia has to break decisively with the suppression of borderlands and and borderlands of suppression the with decisively break to has ia oad a spoe t hv te ae om f self of form same the have to supposed was Poland

h epr. Yet, empire. the

cas Osvobozhdenie otaito in contradiction 61

, where e,

81 Osvobozhdenie ta rltd o te r other to related than , d Duchy of Finland. The relationship relationship The Finland. of Duchy d

tue et vn ute in further even went Struve ugse restoring suggested entirely restored and and restored entirely

n te eeat passage relevant the and tues oiin on position Struve’s “not to promise political promise to “not

67 (1905): 67 o be regulated by an an by regulated be o

Poland Poland

279 enjo officially officially gos of egions .

h pre the y ed in ed the e - - CEU eTD Collection 84 Universiteta. Peterburgskogo Biblioteka 1881). 83 Polish Pole the towards constitutionalists the of assumed, requi and aut economic and “administrative with only Poland providing of plans initial Russian these of themajorityposition Liberation. inthe Unionof people, notintheof1815. tsar’s constitution sovereignty, as inthePolish Russia. Const French Po the and Empire Russian the of Assembly Poland).

Shakhovskoi, ““Soiuz Osvobozhdeniia…”, ““Soiuz Shakhovskoi, 1815 Pol’skogo Tsarstva byvshego akty drugie nekotorye i goda 1815 Khartiia Konstitutsionnaia agreement. Russian of question the in progress essential an made meeting This democracy. progressive and democracy national of parties the of the of initiative usa Smlry hy r uaios eadn t regarding present in Poland unanimous of Kingdom are they Similarly u state Russia. the preserve to necessity the of understanding their as unanimous as is Poland e them led - Russian meetingRussian inMoscow inApril: Miliukov’s memoirs help t help memoirs Miliukov’s One I

n his memoirs Shakhovskoi mentioned an event that could have changed the the changed have could that event an mentioned Shakhovskoi memoirs his n h suc o svriny resided sovereignty of source The 83 Shortly after the third meeting, two other other two meeting, third the after Shortly Lednicki

can infer from infer can 84 e, Struve’s Yet, itutiona

- red “regionalred self liberals as which, regions, other from Poland out single to agree to made that meetings, Polish

liberationists. On April 9 April On liberationists. okrain

stated l Assembly of 1789 of Assembly l

Rossii : ‘The Poles’ striving of towards the autonomy of the Kingdom of of Kingdom the of autonomy the towards of striving Poles’ ‘The :

( St

Shakhovskoi .

Petersburg, 1907), Petersburg, eeec t a areet ewe te Constitutional the between agreement an to reference limits No The Deal with the Poles DealThe with . 5. 5. . -

- government.” Polish relations and relations Polish .’ We had to use these conciliatory sentiments conciliatory these use to had We .’ o understand the reasons of a change of the of change a of reasons the understand o zai NDSrevkg. Zasluzh N.D.Sergeevskogo. Izdanie , there was a meetingwas a there ,

590 ’s testimony ’s s - - 591. . This is how he portrayed the details of the the of details the portrayed he how is This . 90, and hinted and 90,

41 the majority of the liberals liberals the of majority the

- n codne ih hs vision this with accordance in consultations took place place took consultations 63.

e da o eie h boundaries the define to idea he

l s Cntttoa De recalled Diet Constitutional ish

indicated particular grounds for grounds particular indicated

, that something happened during during happened something that , with the Poles, the representatives representatives the Poles, thewith

on the project of project noo rfsoa S. professora ennogo in Mosco in

and enforce and change their their change

republic in republic nity with with nity w

further further attitudes attitudes of the the of on the the on , onomy”

in the the in

the the

- - CEU eTD Collection 89 Wszechpolski (1905) April: 88 87 86 85 constitutionalists. Russian the was he side, Polish Russian t the understood latter the Yet, autonomy. of slogan the accept and independence of demands former their up give to had also Democrats National the Ultimately, Russia. an to itself could Union Progressive the that colleagues Russian his convince to managed empire. Russian the with unity the towards people Polish the of striving in the of creation the was question” “Polish that fact the about the autonomy. the to po constitutionalists Russian Namely, participants. ma the of attitude the of change the of reason the denoted comment r mc wdr ta Lednicki. than wider, much erm

Dmitry Shakhovskoi took for himself the arrangement of the meeting from the Russian side. side. meetingRussian from the the of arrangement himselfthe for took Shakhovskoi Dmitry in constitutionalists Russian with meeting the after Democrats National the of publications the See vopros” “Pol’skii Lednicki, Alexander Wise, Miliukov,

litical parties had been striving been had parties litical Warsaw in Warsaw hm ih finl Rsin epne hwvr AI Guchkov A.I. however… response, retort… heated and sharp hima gave I autonomy. Russian friendly a with them Poles against the criticism of criticism the against Poles St.B. “ St.B. ; Aleksander Aleksander h psto o Aeadr enci deserv Lednicki Alexander of position The his However, meeting. the at role personal his overestimate to seems Miliukov

a Pop Jan - Polish meetings.Polish Vospominaniia, Dąźenie do autonomii Królestwa autonomii do Dąźenie

other 7 (1905). 7

January 1905. January ł wk, Soue prawno “Stosunek awski, Lednicki, This made easier for constitutionalists to defend the defend to constitutionalists for easier made This two

the h mi eet that event main the oih ate, hc suh fr cmlt sprto from separation complete a for sought which parties, Polish

main 187.

70 -

75. 86

initiator

According to Lednicki to According

right

Russkaia mysl’ Russkaia for independence, were ready to concede and agree and concede to ready were independence, for

88 T he

h Pls scait dd o tk pr i the in part take not did socialists Polish The of the agreement between the Polish par Polish the between agreement the of - - , polityczny Krolestwa Polskiego do Rosyi” Rosyi” do Polskiego Krolestwa polityczny wing activists wing

ego źródla i podstawy ogólne podstawy i źródla ego introductory

disposed party of of party

General sympathies were at myside. wereat sympathies General 63

7 (1905): 130. (1905): 7

a ta te oe, hs major whose Poles, the that saw the P the the s dtie aayi. F analysis. detailed a es . , the Union expressed unanimousexpressed Union the ,

Meanwhile, Miliukov Miliukov Meanwhile, at f h program the of part constitutionalists rogressive De rogressive

strongly objected objected strongly ” Przegl jority of Ru of jority mocratic Union mocratic agreement ą d Wszechpolski d

towards the the towards 87 85 was

Lednicki

rom to ties and and ties Przegl

oppose oppose f the of

the the silent silent

ssian with

the ą

d 5

CEU eTD Collection 92 91 90 Polish the use satisfybeing. the time themfor expressed passage following The goa final a to way the on stage transitory a only were they yet moment, particular a The compromises. required the of goal major the was oftenunder mentionedasformula.” hisname and “Sieroszewski’s was it published was program this press Russian the In Union. the join to party socialist the left members other and he founded, was Union Democratic Progressive the When Wac was program the provided Democrats Progressive

Ibid., 16 Ibid., p.15. item 1. op. 174. f. 523. Federation). Russian ofthe Archive GARF(State Kareev, Nikolai maximal benefit for the time being. They should enable the welfare of the people and bring it it bring the and people bring thewh existence, of conditions the ideal to closer of could welfare the which enable should propositions, They being. the time formulate the for to benefit maximal be only may task major its conditions, outside… than rather itself, independence… its defend Lithuania and Rus’]. Lithuaniaand limitations legislative or self This ballot. constitution. Russian statewide inthe takepart to ofPoland the Kingdom allowing direct and equal, secret, universal, by self political and legal separate a becomeState... Russian ofthethe province to as opposed organization to has It… Russia. with united was it after immediately - government, which would rely on its own fundamental laws, approved by the diet, elected elected diet, the by approved laws, fundamental own its on rely would which government, From this vague formulation it is clear that clear is it formulation vague this From to right the and rights civic of list the declared program the of four article The - 17. 17. I. tasks practical of solution of art an is general in politics the Since u society, human Any III. II. The II. Restitution of the political status of the of status political the of Restitution

The Poles must be granted all national and civic rights without any administrative administrative any without rights civic and national all granted be must Poles The

“ agae A te ae time same the At language. Novaia pol'skaia partiia pol'skaia Novaia

Kingdom of Poland, as a distinct legal and political organization, would obtain obtain would organization, political and legal distinct a as Poland, of Kingdom ł aw Sieroszewski, a former participant of the Polish Socialist Party. Socialist Polish the of participant former a Sieroszewski, aw 92

in the regions, where they represent a part of part a represent they where regions, the in

vr living Every author nature of the compromises depended on the cond the on depended compromises the of nature ie b a ttt, ut sie oad self towards aspire must statute, a by nited

of the program. However, in the practical politics politics practical the in However, program. the of the ”

ir Pravo 15 (1905): 1176 15 Pravo en ses o ae the have to seeks being

political eiiin of definition ich it has in mind. has in it ich

, the program refused refused program the ,

Kingdom of Poland, which the latter enjoyed latter the which Poland, of Kingdom 64

ead o te no, hc would which Union, the of demands - oenet ant e sub be cannot government independence

“autonomy

91 - 1177.

center center

the local population [in [in population local the .” of

of the Polish people Polish the of

of social life in real real in life social of

its existence inside inside existence its - h ato o this of author The determination and and determination lis o include to claims

tttd by stituted itions of itions l. l. CEU eTD Collection 94 93 autonomy. of notion the from differed Poland laws) protectionthis was there. prevail would sentiments nationalist protect to wanted they Therefore general. in society Russian the of not attitudes did the regarding liberals, Russian the with compromise the for ready the in rights Polish empire.Russian the secure to enough be not would parliament central the in had tobeind recalled their autonomy of Thus, notion laws). local than (rather constitution Polish special a approve to have would latter The assembly. legislative own its with unit state separate a autonomy population of the that supposed program The 1772. before borders historical the in Poland regain to Polish the into Rus’” and “Lithuania

Ibid. Ibid. would face a legal one, which would be prepared in accordance with all rules of constitutional constitutional of murder… rules all with accordance in prepared be would which one, legal a face would parl the government; the of rule absolute an of well national

vr n ohr laws other any over As one can see, even the the even see, can one As The program the of demands the of essenceThe

the Polish people Polish the Our general Our 94

ependent from theone. Russian ependent from - Lithuania being, but, on the contrary, contrary, the on but, being,

to consist in in consist to

also explained equality in the all the in equality bureaucrats

and Rus’ had Rus’ theirand strivings. ownnational aetr mjrt wud prs us, oppress would majority iamentary

from the interference o interference the from

in the country. Such an understanding of the status of of status the of understanding an Such country. the in

the status of Finland with its disti its with Finland of status the

the Russian society Russian the the

representative

priority of the Polish constitution (thefundamental constitution Polish priority the of why the - Russian constitution Russian

autonomy it would seriously worsen worsen seriously would it Pro

For the For

simple participation of the Polish deputies deputies ofthe Polish participation simple

65 gressive Union w Union gressive

, which signified the actual repudiation actual the signified which , s of s , if it wanted, it if ,

f the R the f

members of the of members Lednicki

uld not only fail to provide our provide to fail only not uld ussian parliament in case in parliament ussian In the view of Russian Russian of view the In -

instead of of instead could sup could the the ’s group ’s one as to declare the Polish Polish the declare to as nct legal order, which which order, legal nct 93 .

press us along with with along us press abr an harbor

n this case, case, this n Progressive Union Progressive lawless death, we we death, lawless , who were most were who , instead i llusion the

CEU eTD Collection 98 97 96 95 Moreover,within Russ the who region, that the thought of population Jewish and Lithuanian, Russian, White of groups K Dr. minutes, the to Kingdom ofPoland readresolution. outa He Party. Democratic National the of leader a Balicki, Zygmund was them Among wereexpressed at meeting. this meeting. with the fundamental ofthe whole laws state. autonomy constitutionalists,

Ibid. 7. Ibid., of Archive State (Russian RGASPI formula.” “Sieroszewski’s it as mentioned Miliukov memoirs Inhis the freed the 6 November in meeting the of majority the by adopted were which movement, ballot.” constitution, own its War on in based issued organization, political and legislative autonomous an becomes state navy, and army of unity affairs foreign of commonality the state, native language, the right to have have to right the language, native el an as language Polish the namely

T Mr. fi the in views their presented spokesmen Polish Several H

he Polish representatives of Vilnius took an exceptional position. According According position. exceptional an took Vilnius of representatives Polish he 96 is Yet, before it will be analyzed it is important to expose other opinions, which other toexpose opinions, beanalyzed isimportant it will Yet, it before h dmns f h lcl oe ae iie t the to limited are Poles local the of demands The the of organization of form the namely authority, state central of unity the Recognizing om of religion, political, civil political, religion, of om

view on this issue this on view Poniatowski saw by the Polish constituent assembly, elected by universal, equal, and secret secret and equal, universal, by elected assembly, constituent Polish the by saw

this structurethis Lit . According tohim, 95 ucziewski and Mr. Loz Mr. and ucziewski

a sae re hd o e reorgani be to had order state ian ,

adwe rm Łuck, from landowner a -

wide budget and loan and budget wide implied t implied

Lednicki developed Lednicki specialized Social and Political History). f. 279. op. item.39. p 1. op. f. 279. History). Political and Social

ective subject at secondary schools, teaching the Bible in in Bible the teaching schools, secondary at subject ective huania had to acquire a status of ahuania toacquire afederalunit. had statusof , and economic equality, the right of a cultural minority, minority, cultural a of right the equality, economic and ,

and all international, political and trade agreements, the the agreements, trade and political international, all and

hat the local laws of the region were to comply to were region the of laws local the hat

Polish

ński 66

private schools, theatres, newspapers etc. newspapers theatres, schools, private

–

we demand that the Kingdom of Poland Poland of Kingdom the that demand we

subscribed to the opinion of opinion the to subscribed in his in spoke general claims of the zemstvo zemstvo the of claims general

speech at the Russian the at speech

about the Poles outside the outside Poles the about Miliukov, Miliukov, e aog eea lines. federal along zed rst day of the meeting. meeting. the of day rst Vospominaniia, - 9. They included included They 9. . . 4 .

- certain Polish Polish

97 98 187.

CEU eTD Collection 102 voprosu” 101 100 99 as constituent Polish Rodichev, as similarly time, same the legislation.” Polish the of competence the to subjected be would which matters, legislati self local offer question, national the movement. zemstvo to order in question, of this the onlyexhortedtopostpone discussion He reject autonomy. Polish idea of the Poland.” for autonomy the acquire to way other “ claims. InPolish Fedor Rodichev particular, declared: the Poles had to take part in the all the in part take to had Poles the

Ibid. 8. Ibid.

RGASPI. f. 279. op. 1. op. f. 279. RGASPI. Ibid. This view Rodichev developed in detail in the article article the in detail in developed Rodichev view This hs su. pr o or ebr cnie te nlso o inclusion alienate fearto They unreasonable. the consider members our of part A issue. this regarding opinion common no is there us Among program. our into claims Polish the integrate cannot We weak… too are forces Our Russia. in attitudes political of fact the ignore not should for our claims, if if claims, our for

Responding speakers,declared: tothe Russian Sieroszewski Kadets the of expert leading the becamelater who Kokoshkin, Fedor the Regarding the regarding skeptical more were meeting the of participants Russian The

e optne H competence. ve Pravo Pravo - e ut ae no osdrto te ead o te oe. e, hi turn, their Yet, Poles. the of demands the consideration into take must We We do not want to fight against the Russian people and the parliament, but we will fight will fight we but parliament, the and people Russian thewant against fight not to do We oenet bt lo n autonomy, an also but government, 11 (1905): 794 (1905): 11 only a minority in the parliament will support our claims. … in the case if our our if case the in … claims. our support will parliament the in minority a only 101 sembly.

item.39. p item.39.

itnt osiun asml i Wra, oihv oe that noted Rodichev Warsaw, in assembly constituent distinct ep h hstn gop am groups hesitant the keep - 798. ed that ed

owever, it it owever,

a part of the forces of opposition and push to the right… to push and ofopposition forces the of part a

the Kingdom of Poland Poland of Kingdom the

- Russian Russian oohi dne the denied Kokoshkin [ was

67 ]

constituent assembly, as there was no no was there as assembly, constituent

necessary… to define precisely the the precisely define to necessary… 100

in in .. n nttto wt a special a with institution an i.e.

As one can see, Rodichev did not did Rodichev see, can one As Pravo te oih ead ill demands Polish the f n ter deet wti the within adherents their ong

Fedor Rodichev, “K pol’skomu pol’skomu “K Rodichev, Fedor “ [ had

necessity of a special special a of necessity ] to acquire to ]

- timed and and timed the Poles Poles the regarding

not only only not 99

102

CEU eTD Collection 104 Dmitry 103 particular, P the In of claims cultural demands. “the that noted Shakhovskoi Polish the regarding position compromising movement, whowerezemstvo the receptive rhetoric more of time, same the At empire.” politicians, meaning. its of limits to themselves for leave to yet program, the into autonomy word Pole the with Polish the theprogramclaims into include to reluctant were activists, zemstvo of part conservative more term the of definition the clarify to soughtyet, claim, this accept to agreed members the of part diverse. were meeting the of participants Russian the of ess an Poland of Kingdom the of autonomy the recognize to demand the announced having position, give usup.” p Polish autonomy,the possible: for were Poles agreements the no of autonomy demands general the satisfying “without that constitutionalists

Ibid. 10. Ibid., demands will not be satisfied, you will have to fight against the Poles with reactionary means means reactionary with Poles will you wayofreaction theon the embarked having and against fight to have will you satisfied, be not will demands

As one can see, already on the first day of the meeting, the Poles took a strong a took Poles the meeting, the of day first the on already see, can one As Mr. R the meeting the of day next The of “autonomy.” On “autonomy.” of

Ż 104 h acsd h lbrl i te teps o “ to attempts the in liberals the accused who ukowski s, the majo s, the ential condition of a possible agreement. At the same time, the opinions the time, same the At agreement. possible a of condition ential

supported his argument of his colleague and warned the Russian Russian the andcolleague warned his his argument of supported In this way they hoped to to hoped they way this In arties would sign a capital sentence, as the Polish people would would people Polish the as sentence,capital asign would arties rity of the Russian members Russian the rity of of constitutionalists. Russian However thedebates involved in the other hand, other the hy tried they

o am on h moderate the down calm to ussian liberals opened with declaration of a a of declaration with opened liberals ussian

aig eatd rm h picpe of principle the from departed having 68

the liberals, who feared the feared who liberals, the

lose

avoid the criticism of the right the of criticism the avoid

newly acquired liberty. acquired newly

became ls n kan ad Lithuania and Ukraine in oles On the one hand, a certain a hand, one the On

more eager to include the include to eager more of the latter.of disintegrate define 103 circles of the the of circles

h Russian the publicly the the publicly break of a a of break - wing CEU eTD Collection 109 108 107 106 105 and national their develop cult and preserve to want but state, the of power political they now and past the in state a organize to failed They statehood. t him, autonomy theethnographic within restor to possibility the in believed bo the of Russia with unity state the preserve to necessity the of understanding their in unanimous were they that assured representative the gov that assert will they event, any in movement, liberation whole thinks people entire in published forcould theone threaten theliberationist agenda. warned and autonomy Polish the accepting for unprepared was society spokesmen Russian a rejecting recommended P of [did]

Ibid. Ibid. 11. Ibid., Ibid. Lednicki, “Pol’skii vopros…”: 130. “Pol’skii vopros…”: Lednicki, rmn wud ed usa o lo to Russia lead would ernment rl purposes.” ural ln, u t pspn the postpone to but oland,

not provoke any provoke not he Poles were “ were Poles he

Lednicki denied that the Poles aspired for an independent state. According to to According state. independent an for aspired Poles the that denied Lednicki moment, this At

dr o te igo o Poland of Kingdom the of rders

Russkaia mysl’ Russkaia 109

ee tl aant h atnm. hy argued They autonomy. the against still were about rather

discord. rm hs olwd ta te oe epce fo Rsi to Russia from expected Poles the that followed, this From lxne Ldik peetd his presented Lednicki Alexander

. Similarly, they expressed unanimous expressed they Similarly, . … Meanwhile our antagonists, are the opponents of the the of opponents the are antagonists, our Meanwhile … osiun assembly constituent

. According to him, “it is impossible to conceal, what the the what conceal, to impossible is “it him, to According . individual ” 105

icsin f hs question this of discussion

borders. He offered to accept t accept to offered He e the Polish historical borders. historical Polish the e

e t borderlands.” its se ists, than collectivists or collectivists than ists, 108

For Lednicki, no one among the Poles Poles the among one no Lednicki, For 69

n Warsaw. in he 107 autonomy of the Kingdom the of autonomy

Regarding . 106 speech, which he later later he which speech, proponents of proponents t h sm time same the At

eetees a Nevertheless, They They consent

struggle not for a for not struggle ht the that that the pursuit the that envisioned the envisioned h Pls he Poles, the

at the issue issue the at a Russian strong strong

few

CEU eTD Collection 111 110 argument. Accordin who M.Mandelshtam, reasons. other for participants Russian the of support find could institution legislative central constitutionalists. dis level local the competences of part a delegating as understood decentralization, for argument The central the and institution legislative Polish the between competence the divide to how question the on focus and “autonomy” term the of acceptability the of what these strivings implied. strivings.” cultural “natural their satisfy

RGASPI. f. 279. op. 1. item.39. p 1. item.39. op. f. 279. RGASPI. 131 Ibid, necessary to single it out and thus, to provide a more regular and peaceful functioning of the the of functioning peaceful and regular more cen a provide to thus, and out it single to necessary institution ma become all life If local interest. state of Russia’s questions of viewpoint the from autonomy Polish the for argument last the of competence the to belong should right political and personal of introduction as of well as law agreements, diplomatic and the trade customs, Meanwhile, budget, common state. the of laws general wou with which diet, accordance the by represented government, autonomous an to subjected be legislation local and administration its is for it relevant organization, autonomous are necessary an which of limits norms, the defining legal why, of is This creation spirit. in and consciousness also but life, local the of organization life independent an for is one; natural a is [themselves] gover to desire The people… Polish the for enough not is this frankly, say me Let sufficient… times enable the reactionary elements to dominate in the parliament. in the dominate to elements reactionary the enable times would it support this with and Poland, to concessions the in farthest go will which party, the I parliament. British thein do Irish as the role similar a parliament Russian future the in perform will party national Polish the absent, ke it cumbersome and and cumbersome it ke tral institution. tral Analyzing

- Bt wa i rqie fr ainl eeomn? s o the not Is development? national for required is what [But] [T 135.

the element of the struggle the of element the to to he] autonomy of Poland w Poland of autonomy he]

ae n id h rgt f lgsaie ntaie n power and initiative legislative a of right the mind in have

110 regarding the national question, national the regarding The idea to eliminate the national conflicts from the agenda of the the of agenda the from conflicts national the eliminate to idea The Lednicki’s speech, one can not can one speech, Lednicki’s g he tothe minutes, declared:

…. [T …. sl

ow… Besides, it would be wrong to introduce into a common common a into introduce to wrong be would it Besides, ow… the more natural, the natural, more the he

ujce t the to subjected . ]

cultural side, Russian the on spoke , school… the right for self for right the school… , - 15. 15.

ill t will be a master of the situation, providing the support to support the providing situation, the of master a will be t for the national rights… as we can see it in Austria. It is It Austria. in it see can we as rights… national the for

undoubtedly be beneficial for Russia, because if one if because Russia, for beneficial be undoubtedly

productivity of the people is expressed not only in an an in onlynot expressed is people the of productivity In the following passage Lednicki explained Lednicki passage following the In

institutes 70 more civilized and more prepared the people people the prepared more and civilized more

e, that he tried avoid tried he that e, echoed the rhetoric of rhetoric the echoed

f h c the of central state institutions…. And, the the And, institutions…. state central - taxation, local economy have to to have economy local taxation, nrl oenet ti will this government, entral 111

gave his reaction on this on reaction his gave war and peace, the army, army, the peace, and war

general equality is is equality general ....

ld function in in function ld the discussion discussion the courts, [The] the Russian Russian the parliament.

the at is is n to

CEU eTD Collection 113 3. chapter See convocation. 112 sympathies of claims further pose to opportunity an got Poles the turn, their In empire. the strengthen contrary, sense, with argument for space yet autonomy, an recognized adopted the following formula: competence the define would state the after convened be to had it view, their in yet, a ultimately discussants The Warsaw. in to sought from question.” the “Polish to way was autonomy the logic this with accordance i “reactionary” their preclude and parties Polish the isolate to order in rights autonomous with Poles the provide to necessary state the in pursue would Poles the policy the

RGASPI. f. 279. op. 1. item.39. p 1. item.39. op. f. 279. RGASPI. This was exactly the tactics of the Poles in the Russian parliament, especially in the Second Second the in especially parliament, Russian the in Poles the of tactics the exactly was This the meaning of autonomy until anall until ofmeaningautonomy the of limits the of definition detailed a postpone to necessary it considers meeting the unity… state preser and diet… distinct a with yet parliament, Russian the in representation with along

hy ol poe ht uh n uooy ol nt ekn bt o the on but, weaken, not would autonomy an such that prove could they sides both satisfy to had which compromise, the fixed resolution the Thus, discussion Further How

maneuver. The Russian constitutionalists Russian The maneuver. decide Recognizing the necessity of an autonomous arrangement of the Kingdom of Poland Poland of Kingdom the of arrangement autonomous an of necessity the Recognizing ever shrewd the speake the shrewd ever their voters in Poland. inPoland. voters their

and whereby extand the meaning of autonomy, which could raise the the raise could which autonomy, of meaning the extand whereby and h right the , whether ,

- wing politicians. politicians. wing

evolved around evolved it was necessary to convene a special constituent assembly constituent special a convene to necessary was it

in .

f h lte. s rsl, h mjrt o te meeting the of majority the result, a As latter. the of 19. 19.

a very vague formulation, vague very a - round examination of this question. ofthis examination round

r was, r

ccepted the possibility of such an assembly, an such of possibility the ccepted 112 the issue of the limits of the autonomy and autonomy the of limits the of issue the

aig a Having fune n h Rsin parliament. Russian the on nfluence

he did not harbor any illusion regarding illusion any harbor not did he 71

- ie alaet Fr i, t was it him, For parliament. wide acquired an additional line additional an acquired ssum “liberate” the central parliament parliament central the “liberate” ed -

wide constituent constituent wide which allowed each side a side each allowed which

the concept in a limited limited a in concept the 113

ving the the ving assembly in the in . It . In

CEU eTD Collection 114 constRussian Democrats power to come would former the if case the in Poles, the offer could liberals Russian the which benefits, the explore liberals. Russian the with were Democrats National the Moreover, National the debates, these in Democrats, involved force political major the Meanwhile, trust, liberals to tended Russian the which Lednicki, of opinion their The in autonomy. towards unanimous attitudes not were they that soon out found constitutionalists Russian to obstacle an become could Russian complet the until question sought liberals Russian The “autonomy.” term the of vagueness the to due only possible was delegates Polish the and constitutionalists recognized as “cultural autonomy.” national legal “free the their for provide guaranties to offered meeting the of members the Moreover, restrictions. administrative any without rights national and political their secure to agreed Regard support. any find not did unit distinct a as Lithuania out Russia entire the of federalization of ideas their

Ibid., 20. Ibid., It is possible to note that the compromise between the Russian Russian the between compromise the that note to possible is It Poland, of Kingdom the of borders the beyond Poles the of claims the for As

- iecnttet seby.Ohrie n hi iw h Pls questi “Polish the view, their in Otherwise, assembly). constituent wide

were still approached the autonomy as a dubious alternative to independence. independence. to alternative dubious a as autonomy the approached still it utional movement and th left for reflected the sentiments of only a small group small a only of sentiments the reflected reluctant to bind to reluctant

e victory against the autocracy (i.e. the convening of the the of convening the (i.e. autocracy the against victory e T

hey their political success. A success. political their

s rsl o te eouin Y revolution. the of result a as rather themselves -

utrl development.” cultural

rae these treated

upcos bu ay long any about suspicious

with additional obligations obligations additional with

emselves todefineclaimsemselves their n Empire n

otoe h dsuso o this of discussion the postpone

s for the Polish delegation, the delegation, Polish the for s eae a a opportuni an as debates

as well as the claim to single to claim the as well as 114

hs oml ws later was formula This of Polish intelligentsia. intelligentsia. Polish of ing them the meeting the them ing t the et, - term term towards agreement

Nation . or

y to ty legal

on” on” the the al

CEU eTD Collection friendly attitude towards the Finns contrasted with their polarity of the opinions opinions questi the “Polish the of regarding polarity their with contrasted Finns the towards attitude friendly empire. the in population Polish entire legisl central the in participate they Therefore minority. a were they where Poland, of Kingdom the of borders the beyond Poles the of interests the of position the case, Polish unit differences. alienatenot to their moderate Russian supporters order in form, vague consciously a in agreement their of result the formulate to tried unrealistic the although Russia, from form new different. were parties the of each of aims final the while temporal, was agreement any that understood parties the all that presupposed This alliance. tactical a of idea the towards pa Russian the of publication the Osvobozhdenie of beginning the from borderlands the in movements national

therefore they rejected the idea to take part in the in part take to idea the rejected they therefore At the same time, the position of position the time, same the At of representatives the and liberals Russian the of interaction of analysis The Conclusion

, Whereas

given the int the given the representatives of national movements wanted to separate themselves themselves separate to wanted movements national of representatives the The Finns pursued pursued Finns The

until the summer of 1905 shows that despite the initial the despite that shows 1905 of summer the until t o a emnn union, permanent a for rt

R ussian liberals sought to preserve the unity of the empire in the the in empire the of unity the preserve to sought liberals ussian ernational situation if the time. time. the if situation ernational y recognized that an open claim for claim open an that recognized y

on.” A part of the liberals offered to postpone the issue issue the postpone to offered liberals the of part A on.” the Poles was complicated because they had to consider to had they because complicated was Poles the ative institutions in order to protect the interests of the the of interests the protect to order in institutions ative the goal the

did not aim for a complete separation and sought to to sought and separation complete a for aim not did

to separate themselves separate to

As for the Russian liberals Russian the for As the Finnish and the Polish activists had their had activists Polish the and Finnish the

the relationship was gradually moving moving gradually was relationship the 73

among theRussians Russian state institutes. In the the In institutes. state Russian At the same time same the At

comple into a distinct political distinct a into , .

hi unanimous their te independence te

enthusiasm on enthusiasm ,

the liberals the

CEU eTD Collection igo o Pln ad erd ht n h nw uooy h dmnn Polish dominant the autonomy new population wouldsuppress them. the in that feared and Poland of Kingdom (the concessions similar a claimed latter The Lithuanians. and Ukrainians the all, of round empire, the Russian above in nationalitiesrepresentatives otherwith the of discussions new the opened and parties Polish the and liberals Russian the between to wouldsuggestsupport thegovernment,if it anythePoles. concessionsto ready were they way, same the In liberals. Russian the with agreement tactical Dmowski Roman of party the with deal to had liberals Russian the and Poland, in influence any have opinion. public Polish the of groups wider enideashis that illusion an created he Moreover, Union. Liberation the of leadership the for understandable and close was which language, the in demands Polish the convey to managed he liberals Russian the with links close provinces.” “Western for pretensions the as well as independence of claims the from refuse and the with ground common sam the At part. moderate too was issue this that thought They party. constitutional the of program the in demands Polish the include to not and utonomy) to their national movements as well. These groups were a minority in the the in minority a were groups These well. as movements national their to utonomy) Nevertheless, the “autonomy” became a starting point to further negotiat further to point starting a became “autonomy” the Nevertheless,

n hs epc, h A the respect, this In , which adhered the idea of “national egoism “national of idea the adhered which , Pole tm, ay usa constitutionalists Russian many time, e s , knowing they were eager to make certain concessions certainmake to eager were theyknowing , anu fr h ulc pno ad ol aint its alienate could and opinion public the for painful

lexander

Lednicki It turned out soon that his group did not did group his that soon out turned It 74

lyd dcsv rl. Having role. decisive a played joyed a strong support among support strong a joyed .” They admitted only a a only admitted They .”

atd o id a find to wanted

ions ions

CEU eTD Collection 1 agreed partners rightswith theirFinland. Finnish toprotect the traditional of the this, Considering legislature. Finnish the of competence the restrict would which laws, issue could Russia of institutions legislative new because particularly, Finland, of rights constitutional traditional the to threat a posed its order accept to had and transiti the Finland, principle of case the a regarding However, consequences. such of proponents major the were liberals Russian the sight, first At law. of rule the of principle the and assembly legislative that Russian of examined inthe following pages. problem the theory, this with accordance of sovereigntyratherthe sovereignty,becauseof the but loss the becauseofrestricted not sta the that implied this him, For law. of sovereignty of principle the on based was state modern the that idea the from proceeded Jellinek Georg thinker legal German famous A Finland. and Russia between relations the to federalism German concep a of adaptation of result a "Finnish was the problem This on question." discussions of course the in law of theoreticians liberal Russian

Georg Jellinek, Georg Rechtstaat

during the transition of Russia from a traditional monarch traditional a from Russia of transition the during The discussions on the "Finnish question" took place in the period after period the in place took question" "Finnish the on discussions The by raised was which problem, the consider to going am I chapter this In

The Obshchee ucheniie o gosudarstve o ucheniie Obshchee rspoe a ie o self of idea an presupposed "Finnish Question" an Question" "Finnish of of "Non

Chapter Chapter 2. -

Sovereign State" State" Sovereign

(St,Petersburg

- etan, hc lmtd rirr rule. arbitrary limited which restraint, 75

d the Concept d the , 1908), , - ins rltos il be will relations Finnish 348

y to a state with elected with state a to y - 34 9. tual framework of of framework tual on to a new legal legal new a to on

Russian liberals liberals Russian

te power was power te

1905 1905 1

In CEU eTD Collection conservative groups inside Russia, wher Russia, inside groups conservative right the by performed was order existing the of violators and revolutionaries sides, both of will good a require would it However, Russia. of order constitutional new a into it incorporate to mechanism a provide and Finland in order constitutional former alternativ The Finland. and a Russia between be relationship the reorganizing would of way revolutionary This institutions. legislative of Finnish mechanism and new Russian a both provide of agreement to necessity the by explained ca be latter could the In violation constitution. Finnish former the violate or preserve either could rupture a Such order. previous the with rupture a through only there established be could order constitutional the Russia, in Laws Fundamental the of introduction an elementarbitrary action. of inevitably would contain this But order. old modifythe waylegalto a order developed tr the and development further The order. constitutional established the with break a require old would this as easily done be The not could It Russia. of institutions constitutional new the guarantee. sufficient a not was constitut monarch Russian the of will good the onlyon reliancethe state Russian the of organization new a however within status; its recognized monarchs Russian the as long as Finland of order constitutional the ( autocratic traditional ansformation of the established order could be legally arranged only if the new new the if only arranged legally be could order established the of ansformation above ofthe Finnish all, theapproval legislative institutions. eadn te ae f iln ti mat h following. the meant this Finland of case the Regarding a into incorporated monarchy, constitutional a been had Finland 1905 to Up of role the that was Russia in situation political the of irony The ional order of Finland had to be somehow integrated into the framework of of framework the into integrated somehow be to had Finland of order ional e can be regarded as a conservative one. It would avoid the destruction of theof destruction the Itavoid would one. conservativea as regarded be cane samoderzhavnaya

) monarchy. This did not create any threat any create not did This monarchy. ) eas the majority of the liberals supported the the supported liberals the of majority the eas

eoe the Before se the the se - wing wing to CEU eTD Collection 2 theoreticians, Finnish monarch constitutional a became of view the to according Alexander, laws, these approved foundamentales” ( constitution the or laws fundamental about rather but Sweden, in provinces Finnishof laws local about just not spoke Alexanderreturn. loyaltyin asking for laws, Finnis new his of privileges and rights the preserve to promised Emperor the French) in (pronounced statements these In (Porvoo). Borga of Diet the at 1809 in I Alexander of statements the to referred usually Finland of mid of theliberalposition camp. the in weakness fundamental the was what and developed politicians liberal the and question. exactly suggested who Jellinek, Georg of opinion onthe relied politicians liberal the time, the same autocracy.the Russian At against struggle common processof the in 1905 before concluded activists Finnish the preserve to intention the a was This rather Finland. of rights” but “historical choice, ideological any of result a not was liberals the of position a Such question. Finnish the solving of way “conservative”

Georg Jellinek, Georg

19th century the Finnish legal thinkers when thinkers legal Finnish the century 19th The juridical status of Finland in Russia was initially not well defined. In the In defined. well not initially was Russia in Finland of status juridical The 19th late of disputes theoretical Finland: of status juridical The

In the following I will try to show how the discussion between right wing right between discussion the how show to try will I following the In Ueber Staatsfragmente Ueber The The ), according to which Finland was a was Finland which to according ), "Finnish "Finnish

Question" in theQuestion" Political in Discussions

- (Heidelberg,

a Grand Duke of Finland, while Finland itself was itself Finland while Finland, of Duke Grand a

this conservative solution of the Finnish Finnish the of solution conservative this part of agreement between the liberals and liberals the between agreement of part

1896) 77

. considering the issues of public law law public of issues the considering

h subjects, granted by the Swedish Swedish the by granted subjects, h

constitutional monarchy. Having monarchy.Having constitutional

early 20th cc. 20th early “Lois

CEU eTD Collection 1855 Edward in: based, were Finland in ruling 4 3 1864. was latter The Poland. to opposition in loyalty, its for elite Finnish the “rewarded” II Alexander unchanged) status its preserved Finland nominally, (although, institutions Finnish legislat exercising institution, representative permanent a as reconstituted was Diet Finnish the 1863 In order. internal of maintenance the and Finland in troops Russian the for (t Senate governor and Emperor, State the conv not was in formally, only existed varied which Diet, Finnish and the 1863 to 1809 situation From periods. different specific on depended authorities Russian of policy The Finns The Finnish the Finland. of neither status juridical the policy clarify to tended authorities foreign Russian nor intellectuals, and domestic of grounds the on Moreover, stat official or document any in included not was it as authorities, Russian for anxiety throughatwith it the same ruler unitedthedynastic time, distinct state, a within state peculiar a into transformed

See a more detailed description of motives and logics of Russian authorities, on which practices of practices which on authorities, Russian of logics and motives of description detailed more a See Danielson, Danielson, ement of the government. It was only discussed in theoretical works in Swedish. in works theoretical in discussed only was It government. the of ement - 1914 4

v atoiy n h lcl ee. y xadn te ata pwr f local of power factual the expanding By level. local the on authority ive Until the late 19th century, this theoretical construction did not cause any any cause not did construction theoretical this century, 19th late the Until

- he local organ of executive and judicial power). He was primarily responsible primarilywas power). He judicial and executive of organlocal he

Secretary office, which forwarded Finnish affairs for the consideration of the the of consideration the foraffairs Finnish forwarded which Secretaryoffice, ( Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981 Press, University Princeton Princeton: Soedinenie Finliandii s Rossiiskoi derzhavoi sRossiiskoi Finliandii Soedinenie were afraid that such a clarification would lead to restriction of their rights. their of restriction to lead would clarification a such that afraid were ervd f h rmis f uooy fe te eod piig n 1863 in uprising second the after autonomy of remains the of deprived ened in practice. The administration in Finland was carried out by offices: byoffices: out carriedwas Finland in administration The practice. in ened - general, appointed by tsar, who was the head of the Finnish Finnish the of head the was who tsar, by appointed general,

Thaden,

Russification in the Baltic Provinces and Finland, and Provinces Baltic the in Russification 78 ).

u…

from the Russian empire, but empire, Russian the from . 3

- CEU eTD Collection 7 and 6 rights with along laws special 5 its having empire, Russian the of provinces of one was Finland Ordin, of opinion the in Thus, administration. local of issues the regulate and legislature local their preserve to Finnish them with allow the would that to provinces accordance rights the In providing about Borga. only spoke Emperor of the interpretation, Diet the on statements Alexander's of meaning the distorted own had Mechelin that his argued he comments these with In comments. it providing book, Mechelin's of translation Russian his published f commonand by common dynasty, withtheEmpire Russian was united adistinct state, Finland that implied which union, real a of terms the on connected were Finland and Russia position, this with accordance In Finland). in culture and language Swedish of role dominant the of preservation of advocates (the Svecomans of position the international juridical community. his on 1886 in the of publishedit and manuscriptLeosenatorreport, the reworked this Mechelin, of authors One report. this of dissemination further a forbade Heiden count governor t of result Finland. of status judicial and political the on report a prepare to task a Senate State 1882 in commissions these of st juridical the of clarification the for commissions reign, his of period the in However, either.

oreign policy. oreign Ibid., 17 Ibid., LeoMechelin, Klinge, Matti Mechelin belonged to a number of those Finnish liberals, who were close to close were who liberals, Finnish those of number a to belonged Mechelin Finland of rights the limit not did III Alexander policy father's his Following

- 20. his work caused concern among the Russian authorities so that the general the that so authorities Russian the among concern caused work his atus of Finland in Russia were created. In the course of proceedings of first first of proceedings of course the In created. were Russia in Finland of atus

Imperskaia Finliandiia Finliandiia Imperskaia

Précis du droit public du grand du droit public du Précis 7

T w i French. in own he Russian officials also selfobliged also officials Russian he

(St.Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Kolo, 2005), 351. 2005), Kolo, (St.Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo 6

hs h itoue te ins vepit o the to viewpoint Finnish the introduced he Thus,

- Secretary baron Bruun assigned the Finnish Finnish the assigned Bruun baron Secretary - duché Finlande duché

(Helsingfors

respond publicly. Kesar’ Ordin Kesar’ publicly. respond , 1886) , .

Ordin’s 5

The the the the - CEU eTD Collection oioa .. Ooo gsdrto l poitia polm gosudars statei Sbornik problema sovremennosti. vyzovy i Rossii opyt istoricheskii vlasti: provintsiia: ili rossiisko v gosudarstvo Finliandii “Osoboe N.I. Novikova N.I.Bobrikov Okraina. I Derzhava Jussila See: experts. of 1808 Autonomy majority of Period the in the Crises International by recognized is Finland of rights 10 9 dopolnena 8 expansion The prerogatives. constitutional their on impingement an measures such of introduction the of approval the F require not did and authority supreme Russian the of orders the by accomplished be to had measures these authorities, Russian of opinion the In army. Russian the to subjects Finnish recruiting of procedure the changing of issue the including militaryprograms Russian into Finlandof contribution the ofincrease of poorly question a posing on to led anxieties These Finland. fleet including coastline, Baltic defended German the of attack possible the about circles military Russian the in concern growing a caused This area. Baltic the in navy a building of program relatio the changed a in place while took France, with alliance the into entered Russia 1894 In environment. international to continued question” “Finnish the on commissions relation of Finland toRussia. juridical the of clarification for commission the of proceedings the in part took who more Finliandii population. local the for privileges

Kesar' Ordin, Leo

nih eiltv institutions. legislative innish The influence The

Mekhelin

detailed way. In this book he referred to the opinion of Russian legal theorists, legal Russian of opinion the to referred he book this In way. detailed O n h ery eid f h rin f ihls I h wor the II Nicholas of reign the of period early the In

primechaniiami

Hentil si wt Gray eae tense became Germany with nship (1889) ("The Subjugation of Finland"), of Subjugation ("The (1889) Pokoreniie Finliandii. Opyt opisaniia po neizdannym istochnikam istochnikam neizdannym po opisaniia Opyt Finliandii. Pokoreniie , of Konstitutsiia ä

of the all the of foreign policy considerations policy foreign S - ., iladkk onseiah Aa’c BV, azlv .. (eds.) S.I. Barzilov B.V., Anan’ich otnosheniiakh” finliandskikh Nevakivi

russkim imperial law on army recruits to Finland caused a wave of of wave a caused Finland to recruits army on law imperial Finliandii

– .

general

rm rn Dcy o Mdr State Modern a to Duchy Grand From

dokumentam 10

8 h Fns o te otay cniee the considered contrary, the on Finns, The

izlozhenii -

gubernator Finliandii 1898 Finliandii gubernator

Later on Ordin published a book book a published Ordin on Later

on the intention of the Russian authorities to authorities Russian the of intention the on

( St

– 80 . Te atr a luce a ambit an launched had latter The . mestnogo

Petersburg

1914

where his position was set out in a in out set was position his where (London

senatora , 1888). ,

Paasvirta (Moscow, 2001). (Moscow, : C .

–

Hurst L 1904 1904 tvenno .

Mekhelina J . o governmental of k

…; iln ad Europe: and Finland and (St.Petersburg, 1889) (St.Petersburg, (St.Peterburg, 1997); 1997); (St.Peterburg, - pravovogo statusa statusa pravovogo

Tuomo Polvinen, Polvinen, Tuomo Company

. Perevedena Prostranstvo Prostranstvo Pokorenie

limit the the limit , 1981 , ious

) . ; i

CEU eTD Collection 12 11 constit liberal therewere Besides, Finns. “old” and “young” on principle political the additionallyby represented side Finnish the of groups thes in participants major three least at were There future. political distant and immediate be should the question Now monarchs. successor the by redefined and acknowledged Borga, of Diet the on I Alexander of statements the of basis the on empire Russian the in Finland of status la of theoreticians European and Finnish, Russian, of circle narrow relatively a in disputed was question this Earlier discussion. this of character the of transformation the was assassination terrorist to victim fell Bobrikov Finally, struggle. of methods active more to appealed o mostly stance, radical more a of organizations time, same the At resistance. passive afford onlycould Council. State Russian the of competence the to institutions autonomous Finnish governor not could elite Finnish the Nevertheless, priests. the and institutions official Finnish of representatives the involving protests,

Ibid see:Klinge, details For . hs eae a fcsd n o oe hud eie hoeial the theoretically define should one how on focused was debate This w. .

h pclaiy f h nx sae f h dsuso o te Fnih question" "Finnish the of discussion the of stage next the of peculiarity The

- general

osdrn dfeet nesadns f Rsi' itrss ad its and interests" "Russia's of understandings different considering was posed differently, namely, it was discussed what the status ofFinland discussed status what was it differently,was the namely, posed

by Schauman Eugen utionalists and more radical groups of socialist orientation. The common common The orientation. socialist of groups radical more and utionalists "Finnish question" inthe"Finnish 1901 of discussions political

Seoa oinain wr fudd hogot iln. They Finland. throughout founded were orientation, Svecoman f Bobrikov within the frames of the law of 1899, which subjected the the subjected which 1899, of law the of frames the within Bobrikov e discussions. discussions. e Imperskaia Fin Imperskaia the

Fennomans and Svecomans. The former were divided divided were former The Svecomans. and Fennomans First of all, there were the Finns the were there all, of First . liandiia 12

,391

oppose - 81 393.

the measures, promoted by a new new a by promoted measures, the .

The participants The -

1906

actual 11

CEU eTD Collection SPb ( Berendts okraine seima ( ( 14 Finliandii” R. konstitutsiia” finliandskaia i zakonov osnovnykh rossiiskikh 2 “Statia 13 eve will, byFinland the scoperights or ofhis expand limit of samecould time, theemperor all these contradicted E whole beenhad wit accordance In whole. a as empire the of interests the inc government, self local of rights the with emperors Russian the by provided was which empire, Russian the of provinces the of one only was Finland that assumed They opinion. of Borga. Diet the on established was thought they as which Finland, of status constitutional the of essence the was Finns, the to according This, Diet. i.e. organs, legislative Finnish n could empire Russian the of laws the politicians, Finnish of view the in case, any In one. sovereign “non a as characterized be could Finland Danielson), real a of idea the promoted Mechelin Leo following some, If Empire. Russian the with united state separate a was Finland that recognition the was currents these all for characteristic St St St

In Germanson R.G. R.G. Germanson . , . Petersburg Petersburg Petersburg odnne iladi s Finliandii Soedinenie . n without ann without agreementofFinnish representativeinstitutions

different Universitete

1899 1899

( usa ofca jrss n right and jurists official Russian

St E mpire, including the Finnish territory, by his own will. All local laws, which laws, local All will. own his by territory, Finnish the including mpire,

13 . . granted to Finland, and the Russian tsar had the right to introduce laws in thein lawsintroduce rightto the had tsarRussian the and Finland, grantedto N 1890). (St.Petersburg, Petersburg

(

, 1900); , 1902); , 1890); , St variants

Kratkii .

eesug 10) Idem 1901); Petersburg,

union, then, according to the others (Robert Hermanson and Richard Richard and Hermanson (Robert others the to according then, union, ( St t e plcbe n h trioy f iln wtot h apoa of approval the without Finland of territory the on applicable be ot luding the right of issuing l issuing of right the luding . Petersburg, 1901). Petersburg, Gosudarstvenno Idem

, 1905); 1905); , Borodkin this obzor Sergeevskii -

. the At consideration. into taken be not should laws, imperial idea Ob

finansov osiki ezaou P pvd scieia .ria “Pokorenie K.Ordina sochineniia povodu Po derzhavoiu. Rossiiskoi Jelenev

was istochnikakh M

. M N

advocated . . -

rvve oohne Finliandii polozhenie pravovoe Juridicheskoe i F

. finansovogo . K Uchenie .

Sovremennoe voprosu

finliandskogo

by :

o Korkunov wing politicians expressed the opposite opposite the expressed politicians wing ocal laws in the spheres that did that spheres the in laws ocal

Finliandskom polozhenie o upravleniia 82

finli

polozhenie

andskoi prava

N -

. sovereign” state united with the with united state sovereign” M Finliandii

. Velikogo

. Pervaia

gosudarstve Finliandskoe avtonomii h this view, no constitution no view, this h

Pravo Pravo russkogo

(St.Petersburg, 1892); Idem. Idem. 1892); (St.Petersburg, .

kniazhestva . lektsiia Zametki 14 No. 16 16 No.

( St dela

osnovnykh Velikoe , . Petersburg

(1908) chitannaia po

povodu Finliandskogo

Kniazhestvo finliandskoi ; not affect not

Danielson Danielson zakonakh , 1893); 1893); ,

v otzyva

Imp - .

CEU eTD Collection 16 15 one a by gover The autonomy. Finnish of rights the expanded measures following The victory. great a as accepted was October of 22nd the of Manifest the manifestations, and disorders autonomy. Finnish the restric which 1899, after issued orders and laws the of force the reversed Manifest The October). of 17th the of Manifest the after days several (issued 1905 October delegationFinnish Senate,was of theheaded theManifest 22ndof by Mechelin, ofthe state minister and negotiations Witte successful between of result The government. the of head a became Finland, regarding position conciliatory a had who Witte, Sergei after especially government, contacts the preferred contrary, the on Mechelin, of leadership the under service. secret Japanese they the of Moreover, support movement. direct a national accepted Polish the of representatives the and party with deal to preferred Zilliacus by headed Finns of groups radical More interrupted. were Finns the and liberals Russian the betweencontacts the chapter first the in regarded were Finns with autocracy a and bureaucracyfor constitutionalgovernment ofRussia. against struggle" "liberation common the in ally important an as regarded were Finns among Finland t views onthe statusof theoretical in cohesion no was There movement. liberal Russian the of representatives

Klinge, Klinge, Paasvirta nment introduced reforms in electoral system. A four A system. electoral in reforms introduced nment The first contacts of the representatives of the group o group the of representatives the of contacts first The discussion the joined group political new a 1903, after Finally,

Imperskaia Finliandiia Imperskaia - , chamber diet, elected on non on elected diet, chamber

Finland

and

Europe 16

In Finland, which was overwhelmed by that time with mass with time that by overwhelmed was which Finland, In , , 480 480 , 188 –

–

189. 189. 485. - ertr Lne, rm h Rsin ie and side, Russian the from Linder, secretary

he members of this movement. Nonetheless, the movement. ofthis the Nonetheless, he members - estate base, allowing women to participate in in participate to women allowing base, estate

. 83

In the period of Russian of period the In

15 - chamber diet was replaced replaced was diet chamber

mr mdrt group moderate more A f "Union of Libera of "Union f Socialist

- - Revolutionary Revolutionary Japanese War War Japanese

with Russian with tion" tion"

ted ted the –

CEU eTD Collection constituting an indissoluble part of the Russian state, in its internal affairs is administered is affairs See legislation." special of basis finall the on instructions internal its in state, the Russian the of and part indissoluble an constituting principles" special the with accordance in administered is affairs internal its in state, Russian the of part indissoluble an constituting 19 18 17 diss been a futureFinland. statusof version. milder a in accepted articlewas the of formulation the rejected, were suggestions Mechelin’s Although impreciseness. dangerous a such avoid to assumed, he as allowing, corrections, some suggested he (“ pri special the accordancewith "in governed domesticaffairs its in andempire Russian indivisible the of part a as characterized wasFinland statement In this empire. Russian the for e Laws Fundamental the of preparation reason for commission major the 1906, the was which Russia, graduallygovernmental intheFinnish was question, Already concessions in declining. in outburst revolutionary that notice, relativelyof number places. minor Swedish while places, of number substantial a took parties domin the Swedish the diet of composition former the in If work. its mpire included into its project the statement concerning the position of Finland in thein Finland of position the concerning statement the project its into included mpire

Compare «The Grand Duchy of Finland, being in the state possession of the Russian Empire and and Empire Russian the of possession state the in being Finland, of Duchy Grand «The Compare SergeiVitte, Ibid. na osobykh osnovaniiakh osobykh na

Finnish few a only events these of background the Against had Duma second the after complicated suddenly was Finland of position The olved and the new electoral law had been issued. Due to this law, the “Union the law, this to Due issued. been had law electoral new the and olved ant role, now the majority belonged to socialists. Also the Finnish national national Finnish the Also socialists. to belonged majority the now role, ant Vospominaniia. Tsarstvovanie Nikolaia II. II. Nikolaia Tsarstvovanie Vospominaniia. The in1907 attack Finland of ontherights

”). 18

Such a wording made Mechelin worry. Through Witte,Through worry. Mechelin made wording a Such

adopted y 19

: of question the settle not did it Nonetheless,

Ibid 84

(Berlin, 1922). v. 2,245 (Berlin,1922). statement statement «The Grand Duchy of Finland Finland of Duchy Grand «The - speaking Finns acquired a a acquired Finns speaking - speaking elite performed elite speaking -

1910

– politi

246.

in took cians

by special special by nciples"

CEU eTD Collection 1917) 1917) 21 20 authorities, police Russian the of opinion the to revolutionary According empire. the of capital the Russian of part large a undergroun attracted Finland that was authorities states, asRussia wouldfollowtheexample aunion ofthe oftwo Norwegians. worries caused Swedish the of dissolution the Moreover, recruits. providing of demand the replace would which payment, the of increase on demand def state the to contribution sufficient a making authorities Russian the time, same the At program. this of realization the hinder would authorities Finnish autonomous the of actions B the in navy of construction accelerated Russian the during fleet Baltic a priority be issue. fleet to appeared Finnish the of defense the Therefore Ce of alliance the with Russia of collision a that demonstrated monarchy Habsburg the by Herzegovina and Bosnia considerations was situation this in factor important an Firstly, Finland. towards authorities the of politics the in turn restricting the allow This Duma. third right the and October” of 17th of

Mikhail Paasvirta, (Moscow,2007), There were two important circumstances that could be the reasons for the new new the for reasons the be could that circumstances important two were There Russian the of anxiety the causing circumstance important an Secondly,

Taube

Finland d. This fact was even more crucial because of Finland’s close location to location close Finland’s of because crucial more even was fact This d. , Fi

“ among Russian groups Russian among nnish autonomynnish in Zarnitsy

and

Europe – ”

104. 104. vospominaniia d h Soyi' gvrmn introducing government Stolypin's the ed , 201 Klinge ntral Powers would be more likely more be would Powers ntral –

203 , - - Japanese war. As a result, a new program of of program new a result, a As war. Japanese

f oeg plc. atclry te neain of annexation the Particularly, policy. foreign of Imperskaia Finliandiia Imperskaia igpristo temjrt fte et i the in seats the of majority the took parties wing a 20 .

way that

coastline from the possible attack of the German the of attack possible the from coastline

o The situation was complicated by the loss ofthe loss complicated by the was The situation

, that the Finns, who regard who Finns, the that , tragicheskoi sud’be predrevoliutsionnoi Rossii (1900 (1900 Rossii predrevoliutsionnoi sud’be tragicheskoi li ws anhd I ws erd ta the that feared, was It launched. was altic

would seem would

ne teeoe t a dcdd to decided was it therefore ense; - owga Uin n 1905 in Union Norwegian , assumed 466 466

- "democratic

470.

ht iln ws not was Finland that

in the nearest future. future. nearest the in ed the union with union the ed

." h measures the

- 1907 1907 –

CEU eTD Collection 24 zhurnaly 23 the 22 of members Russian The positions. Finnish and Russian between difference The legislation. imperial 28 March on established Russian Finland Thisproject, as was well. however, realized. not for laws the consider could Council State the that so Council of State the representative into Finland a introduce to supposed was It Council. State elective partially t of establishment i.e. institutions, supreme state Russian the of organization new the with accordance in Finland of status juridical the settle to of mi plan detailed a prepared authorities Russian the case this For Russia. against uprising scale large a of fear a provoked elite) Swedish only of hostility the in belief previous h the of notion a Such authorities. Russian the of measures the all to Finland of Duchy Grand the of population the of hostility unconditional of notion the by replaced gradually p took also revolutionary Russian underground. the and Zilliacus, of group the of particular in opposition, Besides revolutionaries. Russian pursueenough hardto work not did Finland in police local the

Jussila, RGIA Miliukov, litaryFinland. occupationof

New le New established was Solsky count by chaired commission a 1906 April in Already

f , the Russian police was well informed about the contacts between the Finnish the between contacts the about informed well was police Russian the , Soveta - . Velikoe Kniazhestvo Kniazhestvo Velikoe ins cmiso card y tt cnrle Ptr hrtnv was Kharitonov Peter controller state by chaired commission Finnish siiy s leel cmo t te nie ins pplto (nie the (unlike population Finnish entire the to common allegedly as ostility 1062. 1062. Vospominaniia lace in Finland, the initial notion of a traditional loyalty of the Finns was Finns the of loyalty traditional a of notion initial the Finland, in lace 22

ministrov op gislative incentives towards Finland were attempted in 1909. Another 1909. in attempted were Finland towards incentives gislative

Moreover, in the course of the revolutionary events of 1905 of events revolutionary the of course the in Moreover, . 1. . item

Rossiiskoi , . 139; “ 139; . 168. th Finliandskoe, . It had to define a range of laws that would belong to all to belong would that laws of range a define to had It . discussions in the commission opened up a significant significant a up opened commission the in discussions

imperii

voprosu

1901 714

o -

merakh 715. god

86 ( Moscow

sluchai , 2000), , 24

besporiadkov

464 464 he State Duma and the the and Duma State he –

470.

Finliandii - 1907 that 1907 ” Osobye -

CEU eTD Collection 26 25 Finland in administration and justice, legislation, the with deal to have would members, Finnish the to according part, other The policy. foreign to related questions the as well as succession, dynastic of questions the encompass would and institutions legislat imperial of competence the to subjected exclusively be would part first The parts. three into legislation entire the dividing suggested rather They legislation. the Finnish leg all the of decision the by expanded be to range this for possibility a considered they time, same the At teaching. school subjected questions the of suggestions the of range wide rather established suggestions The approvedgeneral. in commission Kharitonov's Council the discussion, the After discussion. of Council the of Chairman Pe Ministers the to presented were commission the of projects commission, the The all. of at considered not was Finns the chair of opinion the while majority, the the comprised with together who, members, Russian its of view i.e.altered theDiet. ofFinnish institutions, representative theapproval without "const a laws, special its had Finland that suggested legislation. imperial common bydefined be should autonomy self a as Finland exper "acknowledged the were Korevo, Nikolai as or, administration Bobrikov's in carriers their made whom of most commission,

Po See

proektu

his Meanwhile, the Finnish members did not deny the possibility of all of possibility the deny not did members Finnish the Meanwhile, c the by out worked recommendations the Finally,

position

pravil ter Stolypin, who redirected them to the Council of Ministers for further further for Ministers of Council the to them redirected who Stolypin, ter islation. islation.

- details

oenn poic ad osdrd ta te iis f h Finnish the of limits the that considered, and province governing poriadke

to all to :

Nikolai

- izdaniia imperial legislation, which included even the questions of questions the even included which legislation, imperial

Korevo

kasaiushikhsia - imperial state institutions, without an approval of approval an without institutions, state imperial ,

Doklad po Doklad

Finliandii

Finliandskomu voprosu Finliandskomu

ts on Finland," advocated the view of view the advocated Finland," on ts

zakono tto, wih ol nt be not could which itution," v, miso reflected ommission

112 112

The Finnish members Finnish The –

(St.Petersburg, 1910). (St.Petersburg,

113.

- imperial imperial

. These . 26

the ive

CEU eTD Collection 27 political certain a defending of terms in only significance general, in had, discussion left the with along Kadets ri andcentrist of representatives the of composed majority the on relying Stolypin, that obvious, was It debates. parliamentary of beginning the before predictable quite was Duma State representati Constitut the of the leader was side Finnish of Stolypin advocate the Peter while position, Ministers centrist state of the represented Council the of Chairman clashed. positions major to the Finnish territory. authorities of ability the limit to tried but laws, imperial Finnish the Thus, diet. members the by approved and defined forever and once be should law. the of content the of alteration t delegations, these between achieved be agreement the Should institutions. legislative Finnish and Russian from delegations of work joint a by accepted be to had decisions a foreign and needs military the beyond going Finland, and Russia of interests common to related laws in contain would institutions part third representative the Finally, laws. Finnish Finnish with the accordance by reviewed be to have would issues he decisions would be approved or rejected by the emperor, without the possibility of of possibility the without emperor, the by rejected or approved be would decisions he fis fr hs at hy rpsd seil eiltv poeue Te respective The procedure. legislative special a proposed they part this for ffairs;

Ibid . ,

117 In the discussion of discussion the In

f hrtnvs omsin eonzd h psiiiy f aig all making of possibility the recognized commission Kharitonov's of e o left of ves ght - wing parties, would be able to pass the required resolution, while thewhile requiredresolution, the pass to able be would wingparties, -

wing parties. The outcome of the “Finnish question” in the the in question” “Finnish the of outcome The parties. wing ional

this question, which followed in the State Duma State the in followed which question, this - ig ate cntttd mnrt. hrfr the Therefore minority. a constituted parties wing - eortc Party Democratic

h rne f as eae t ti procedure this to related laws of range The

Pavel Miliukov, supported by by supported Miliukov, Pavel

to apply these laws arbitrarily laws these apply to the two the -

CEU eTD Collection po povodu rechi chlena Gosudarstvennoi Dumy P.N.Miliukova 13 maia 1908 goda pri rassmotrenii rassmotrenii pri goda 1908 maia upravleniiu Finliandskomu po zaprosov 13 P.N.Miliukova Dumy Gosudarstvennoi chlena rechi povodu po defen in witnessed all of project the reflections of preparation on commission the of members Rossii "Okrainy society right 30 (1910). 29 Evropy Vestnik example 28 of 5th on meeting the on Duma State the in speech earlier his to relation in regarded interest Stplypin’s in withMiliuk discussion theoretical certain a provides the circumstance avoid latter The not issues. juridical did of he discussion expediency, state of idea the to referred which arguments, Therefore, Russia. in force” of “power formulatedlaw” inline withthe“power ideaofa havethe should thatthepriority over Finland, supre Russian the that assumption, the on people." Russian the of "interests of sake the for autonomy stance radical most the voiced Duma the during publicly articulated determined. c and principle

uh oiin f h right the of position Such The This - wing press. press. wing

stenographical

: be should 1910 May of 21st the on meeting Duma the at speech Stolypin's were which ones, only the not were Stolypin and Miliukov of positions The

how

could “Vnutrennee obozrenie” obozrenie” “Vnutrennee were 28

the 6 (1910): (1910): 6

omltd n h plmc wt frin hoeiin o lw wo a publicly had who law, of theoreticians foreign with polemics the in formulated In ould not alter the situation, as the measures towards Finland were pre were Finland towards measures the as situation, the alter not ould ce of the Finnish autonomy. See also See autonomy. Finnish the of ce

ae hm ak t n time. any at back them take discussion

most A

report

. disput "

359 359

This coherent

- of wing participants of Duma discussions relied on the heated polemics in in polemics heated the on relied discussions Duma of participants wing –

f h “ins qeto” a rpeetd n h proias See periodicals. the in represented was question” “Finnish the of newspaper

360. e the on limits the A Finnish of the

“ way , urging for an almost complete abolition of the Finnish the of abolition complete almost an for urging , Finnish eti Evropy Vestnik

(St.Petersburg, 1910). 1910). (St.Petersburg, this

was edited by M. by edited was

question position

icsin f 90 Te right The 1910. of discussion

me authority, having once given the rights to rights the given once having authority, me tlpn atog bign a uttd of multitude a bringing although Stolypin,

ov.

” (1909): 12 was 30 89 : in the State Duma see Duma State the in

E.N.Berendts, E.N.Berendts,

tlpns oiin nvrhls, was nevertheless, position, Stolypin's

presented M.Borodkin, V.D.Deitrich etc. V.D.Deitrich M.Borodkin,

768 - meil legislation. imperial

by – utonomy K finliandskomu voprosu. Stat’i voprosu. finliandskomu K

29 journal 769; 769;

Generally, it was it Generally, : “Vnutrennee obozrenie” obozrenie” “Vnutrennee

Russkie vedomosti Russkie of

Russian borderland borderland Russian - ig groups wing

Some -

the

Russian Russian of based

their , 116 116 for -

CEU eTD Collection 34 33 32 goda 1908 maia 13 31 a not are Russia and Finland between relations the that fact, a face we least, Finland. At state a in no elements of thatthereare convention, concedeam by ready to posi juridical stand above law." gentlemen, Russia, "In monarchs". the by granted denie he time same all through matters imperial 32 t decision common a be should there administration of questions common some and questions legislative common in gentlemen, however, organization, judicial and administrative particular violate to desire (" possession" obladanie sovereign and "property words the definiti the himself for left he however procedure, legal and legislation internal of and right a granted it for he secured autonomy, internal an Finland granted had I Alexander Emperor Finland. right the and Octobrists of interpellations the concerning 1908 May

Ibid Ibid Ibid i 12 5, fevralia, 15 i 5 1, Zasedanie Duma. Gosudarstvennaia upravleniiu. finliandskomu po Zaprosy In Stolypin's view, one should speak of "extending the power of the emperor in all in emperor the of power the "extending of speak should one view, Stolypin's In ., ., .,

61. 61. 60. 55 epnig o hs peh Mluo dcae: ..n sol nt i the fit not should "...one declared: Miliukov speech, this to Responding not does Russia clear, quite is viewpoint Russian "the Stolypin, to According

iikv a as rsodd o hs peh Soyi age, ht "the that argued, Stolypin speech. this to responded also had Miliukov 56.

").

31 tion of Finland to any public la public any to Finland of tion

(St. Petersburg, 1909), 47. Petersburg,1909), (St. autonomous rights of Finland regarding its internal legislation and its and legislation internal its regarding Finland of rights autonomous 34 ogether with Finland, of course with prevalence of Russia's rights." Russia's of prevalence with course of Finland, with ogether on of the relation of Finland towards the Empire and defined it by it defined and Empire the towards Finland of relation the of on d that "Russia wants to violate the autonomous rights of Finland, Finland, of rights autonomous the violate to wants "Russia that d

- meil ntttos hogot h Empire." the throughout institutions imperial

w theory and affix a affix and theory w 90

”

said Stolypin Stolypin said osvnot i derzhavnoe i sobstvennost'

public law label... I label... law public - – wing parties on on parties wing

“ force cannot cannot force

t the At tabula tabula -

CEU eTD Collection 37 36 35 institutions legislative new Council State of instead putting yet, 1899, of construction juridical a reproduces generally Finland, with matters common the discuss to way adequately autonomy.”" “state definedby a orinadequately term whatever Finland, that and rights, Finnish of violation a undoubtedly were 1899, February 3rd the of Manifesto the in Russian the by attempted actions the that conclusion, a to came Jellinek, example for as such moderate, most the them, among conservative most the and facts, the studied affairs, of state the in interested were scholars foreign many 1899 "After foreign of opinion the to referred he time same the At institutions. state all of authority the Finland to extend to measures projected the expedienceof imperial inst all bynot and government, special the by laws, special the by administered is Finland however state; Russian the of part a is but state, peculiar a not is "Finland formula: Fin of position century the rejecting theory whole a containing phrase spoken incidentally one by Ministers, of Council the of Chairman the of interpretation single a by and gentlemen, ho other; each with interrelate they do how systems; juridical two constitute Finland and "Empire laws." existing the of interpreter authentic an not is Ministers rasa

Ibid Ibid Ibid w , . . ., , ,

159 157. 154 In the remaining part of his speech Miliukov touched upon the question of of question the upon touched Miliukov speech his of part remaining the In Continuing ee n cn rt ayhn h wns ad h Cara o te oni of Council the of Chairman the and wants, he anything write can one here . -

160. 160.

itutions."

land this question cannot be resolved." Miliukov draws the following the draws Miliukov resolved." be cannot question this land wud hs nerltosi b etbihd i a oe question, open an is established, be interrelationship this would w his speech Miliukov argued, that the suggested by the government government the by suggested the that argued, Miliukov speech his

n mgt al t possesses it, call might one

oehn, hc is which something, n iikvs view, Miliukov's In

legal government

- thinkers imperial - old - : CEU eTD Collection 38 source acceptedresponsibilities, ofby it." restri power "...sovereign of axiom "an as it formulated Miliukov 1910 May of 22nd the on speech his In Russia. of parts constituent the over organs state central of power unlimited of was Russia limited not Finnish the of application of sphere the about decision arbitrary an make to institutions imperial w other In institutions. legislative Finnish border and Russian of competence a joint a to belongs such defining of issue the that considered Finland, in organization state special a of existence the about question theoretical the aside putting contrary, the on Miliukov, drawn. be should border this where define to institutions state Russian the institu all of sphere the the was competence and Finland of legislation whose internal of sphere the between in border the of establishment issue: following the of clarification to reduced to acategory all of by restricted arbitrarily be not could autonomy the with accordance in T had Finland. of it laws fundamental which competence, own his of limits the define to right the lose would Diet the that means This implementation. for obligatory be not Fi The empire. the of

rs acrig o Miliukov, to according ords, Russkie vedomosti Russkie tions. Stolypin assumed that the Russian state sovereignty provided the right for for right the provided sovereignty state Russian the that assumed Stolypin tions. The essence of the dispute between Miliukov and Stolypin could be ultimately ultimately be could Stolypin and Miliukov between dispute the of essence The

specific -

116 ( 116 imperial legislation, belonging to the competence of imperial state state imperial of competence the to belonging legislation, imperial - imperial matters.imperial law. In the interpretation of the leader of Kadets, the sovereignty the Kadets, of leader the of interpretation the In law. nnish Diet would be required to make resolutions, which would which resolutions, make to required be would Diet nnish 1910) by anfact, didnotpresuppose however, other any state. This t isl, vn n hs css we i apas h only the appears it when cases, those in even itself, cts .

usa svriny i nt inf te ih o all of right the signify not did sovereignty Russian u, iikv mhszd h ie ta te Finnish the that idea the emphasized Miliukov hus,

leveling the wider range of legislation of range wider the leveling

public

law": -

CEU eTD Collection 41 40 39 to aperson (as thatastate interpretationRussian opposed was of these intheir theories core The Laband. Paul and Jellinek Georg jurists German of works the in formulated n juridical a of theories the century 19th late the In thinkers. legal Russian on impact significant a made law public of different their and states interpretations byand Russian Fin composite of theories German considering Miliukov, representativeexisting institutions. m a of authority superior the by only laws passing allowed still empire Russian the of practicelegal the that fact the despite so be Itcould institutions. legislative Finnish of approval an without law actual an become could laws projected whe monarchy, constitutional a be could Finland Miliukov, to according state other have could state the of part constituent a that assuming thesis, this denied states, state, sovereign a of territory entire the on applicable laws, establish to possibility juridical a as rights these comprehended Stolypin Finland. regarding possession" of rights "sovereign interpretations thesame and notion ofone

Ibid. Russkie upravleniiu finliandskomu po Zaprosy - juridical construction in comparison with the state embracing it. embracing state the with comparison in construction juridical

117 (1910). 117 Due to traditional academic ties of Russia and Germany, the German theories theories German the Germany, and Russia of ties academic traditional to Due of view a such of origins the trace will I chapter this of part following the In came orators both of dispute theoretical the Thus,

vedomosti

116 (1910) 116

hl Mluo, rudn hs iw n h ter o comp of theory the in view his grounding Miliukov, while A

Concept "Non of .

, nish legal thinkers. 60

41 .

ature of state were influential. They were were They influential. were state of ature -

"sovereignty" it, as Stolypin put or, - Sovereign State" 93

onarch, bypassing the the bypassing onarch,

down

In such a way,aIn such

re none of the of none re to different different to

Russia Russia osite CEU eTD Collection razvitie idei suvereniteta i eie pravovoe znachenie pravovoe i eie suvereniteta idei razvitie Germanii publitsistov sovremennykh reasoning their 43 ( 42 was Prussia of power the Nevertheless, domination. Prussian clear a with federation grossdeutsch), (i.e. Austria of exclusion the to firstly, led, Bismarck of model the with accordance in Germany of unification formallysovereign period of their development. initial the in notions these of context historical original the understand to has one Russia, Russian the how Germa understand the of to notions the order adapted theoreticians in But context. their of out framework, ready a as notions his treated and ideas his of emergence the framing However, Jellinek. of works particular these to liberals Russian of interest extensive an provoked organization state Russian the of future the for borderlands the of status the on discussions the of significance jurists Russian the by neglected almost of was state, federative or composite part a of organization the to devoted other teaching, Jellinek's The monarch. the of will individual an from order legal state the of instrum as an acquired a meaning, special wills. individual of aggregate an as understood was latter The society. entire the of interests the expressing person," su a be could people) of community a or Moscow, 1896). Moscow,

There F . F

authors . Kokoshkin

Until the mid 1860 mid the Until

were

f h pbi (tt) a. See law. (state) public the of

did , however

not , and K

have voprosu

secondly, the remaining lands as unified formed a more centralized more aformed unified as lands remainingthe secondly, states, including the German lands of the Habsburg monarchy. The Habsburgmonarchy.The the of lands German the including states, , special

any

striving o

- works s the German confederation represented an association of of association an represented confederation German the s juridicheskoi

kleindeutsch kleindeutsch

42 (

, St to

describing

. n h Rsin iea lgl icus ti theory this discourse legal liberal Russian the In incorporate Petersburg :

Gorenberg prirode they didn’t pay much attention to the context the to attention much pay didn’t they

ni 1905 until ent allowing substantiating the independence ent substantiatingthe allowing

(Jaroslavl’,1903).

the

, 1891); 1891); , jc o lw r n needn "juridical independent an or law of bject

the project

federative gosudarstva

theories

, shlr o priua stain in situation particular a to scholar n Teoriia soiuznogo soiuznogo Teoriia N.N. Palienko, Palienko, N.N.

a raie a opsd to opposed as realized was

1907. of concepts

the i

organov

German 43

of ny h aaees of awareness the Only Suverenitet. Istoricheskoe Istoricheskoe Suverenitet.

Jellinek

gosudarstva v trudakh trudakh v gosudarstva

gosudarstvennoi jurists - made theoretical made

and

into

Laband

the

general

vlasti , but

CEU eTD Collection Teoriia union advocate America de 46 1988)., 45 Responses Experiences, Anticipations, 2005 Macmillan, Palgrave Unifications: Two Germany’s 2001 Nineteenth in Nationhood Future and Building Present, Past, Federalism, German 44 power certain wasrestricted toa s half as appeared states composite the while one, sovereign prerogatives an content, positive a with invested was sovereignty of concept the Thus, units. authority federative of the division and centre the the of between result a as instead, understood, was It vassalage. of wa it way the with comparison in differently understood was sovereignty of division the However, divided. be sovereignty could that idea the to sovereignty of indivisibility of theory the from return organscentral ofthe within competence. the range power oftheir to had andReichstag representativesto its sent Bavaria time, same the at fo Bavaria, states former the of competence the in remained part significant a quite while centre, the to delegated was state resulting sufficient not

oe eald td o te eeaie aue f h Gra em German the of nature federative the on study detailed More Such understanding of the notion of "sovereignty" was based on theoretical generalizations of Alexis Alexis of generalizations theoretical on based was "sovereignty" of notion the of understanding Such ar . A W. Carr Tocqueville )

; separate

106 106 soiuznogo Idem. . o reaction initial The

of See:

– this

r example, the king, the parliament and the court were preserved, although, preserved, were court the and parliament the king, the example, r

107. 107.

History of Germany 1815 1815 Germany of History “ Tocqueville a as considered was state federative a words, other In sphere. certain a in in his work, devoted to the analysis of the federal organization in the in organization federal the of analysis the to devoted work, his in states o dd emn Federalism German did How

concept o te omr tts o surrender to States former the for was not unitary and represented a federation, where a part of authority of part a where federation, a represented and unitary not was

gosudarstva

delegate -

was ). the members of the historical German confederation. German historical the of members the

, Georg

A 38 a

. part f legal theoreticians to these changes was an attempt to attempt an was changes these to theoreticians legal f – Democracy

40. s perceived in feudal states with their complex system complex their with states feudal in perceived s Waitz

phere of competence.phere of - etr Germany Century

their – ,

who 1985

ti nto ws once wt a e of set a with connected was notion this d (

in Palgrave sovereignty hp Unification? Shape

argued America

Lno, atmr, ebun: dad Arnold, Edward Melbourne: Baltimore, (London, 95

2002 ,

that .

( their historical rights entirely. The The entirely. rights historical their v to Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Press, University Cambridge Cambridge:

ol in

) . 2. 2. . common ;

the

Abigail 46

chapter

”

course -

pire see: Maiken Maiken see: pire sovereign entities, i.e. their i.e. entities, sovereign

pis . Beil J (eds.) J. Breuilly R., Speirs

state ( Green Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Basingstoke: Houndsmills,

8. 8. of

organs In unification

Germany ahrad. State Fatherlands.

. United States of of States United submit submit M Umbach

. 44

into Gorenberg

the Thus, in Thus,

to theto a

major

( state ed .) - ,

CEU eTD Collection 50 49 48 Jashenko, ideas. 47 new their in appeared self as just but states, as not condition empire, German the of parts became who confederation, of notion standpoint, this From the state. of notion the from sovereignty of indivisibility of theory the supported who Hanael, by was contested it particular, In viewpoint. this with agreed theoreticians German the all and Not state of notions p in the possible is it of past, the in possible separation was sovereignty generally the if became argued, sovereignty Jellinek of As indivisibility recognized. of theory Bodin's until states, historical the to reference the by proved was statement This state. of forms possible historically of one as declared was state sovereign a words, other In state. and sovereignty of concepts the of separation the Bismarck's rejected model, inpractice. was along unification the before admit could one which opportunity, latter the Germany states. sovereign of confederation a into turned and state a be to or unitary, either be could state sovereign that appeared, it as state, federative a of possibility the of denial the was this of consequence logical The one. sovereign half a and impossible logically as appeared half the understanding this to According power. subordinate or supreme any from power state the of independence the implied which term, this of meaning

Merriam Jellinek, Georg Merriam Such

h lte tid o usatae ht h Uie Sae of States United the that substantiate to tried latter The a standpoint was advocated was standpoint a In these circumstances a theoretical a circumstances these In major the contradicted however, sovereignty, of understanding an Such

Teoriia federalizma. Opyt sinteticheskoi teorii prava i gosudarstva i gosudarstva prava teorii sinteticheskoi Opyt federalizma. Teoriia

C C . . E E . . History of the Theory of Sovereignty of Theory the of History Rousseau since Sovereignty of Theory the of History Obshchee Obshchee ucheniie o gosudarstve o ucheniie

by Max Seydel, a Bavarian jurist who borrowed John Calhoun's Calhoun's John borrowed who jurist Bavarian a Seydel, Max by

- governing provinces. governing

experience of existence of a hierarchy of of hierarchy a of existence of experience (St,Petersburg, 1908), (St,Petersburg, - 48

, , 99. sovereign state appeared as simply a non a simply as appeared state sovereign way out of the conflict of definition was was definition of conflict the of out way

America was a confederation. confederation. a was America resent, as well as in future. in as well as resent,

(Kitchner, 2001), (Kitchner, the former members of the of members former the

370. Thus, Hanael was ready was Hanael Thus, (Jur’ev.1912),

n h cs of case the In

98 - sovereignt .

683 683 ceased –

684. A.S.

49 y -

CEU eTD Collection 51 exis the considered he Initially, time. the through position his changed himself Jellinek opinion. single a to come not could theory, this of adherents the Germantheoreticians, of state organization. characteristics major the preserved time same the at but sovereignty, possess not did "non of notion the conside be not could contradiction, logical a without nevertheless, which, parts, constituent its of status the denote to necessary was it state a such of possibility the substantiate to order in But centre. the agreeme mutual the on based federativestate, semi of approval need not autonomous entities themselves. did which power, central of prerogative exclusive limits the of definition the but such, as autonomy the exclude not did This authorities. local of competence the define to authority central « as framed briefly was principle admi those including state, the in authorities other all of competence the define to general; in state the representing institutions, central state. right the of favour in lands particular of rights the sacrifice to

Ibid tence of a legal order established by the state itself independently of the will of will the of independently itself state the by established order legal a of tence .

n hi atmt t dfn wa eaty ee h caatrsis f tt the state of characteristics the were exactly what define to attempts their In Laband and Jellinek its of right the wasHanael, for state, sovereign a of characteristic important An

- oeeg sae ( state" sovereign

considered

51 Kompetenz

red as sovereign states. The decision was found in found was decision The states. sovereign as red

nichtsouver

that such a concept obliterated the idea of of idea the obliterated concept a such that

– nt of its parts, rather than the coercion of coercion the than rather parts, its of nt 97 Kompetenz

ä ner itrd t sprt prs This parts. separate its nistered

Staat », i.e. the competence of the the of competence the i.e. »,

f h atnm ws the was autonomy the of , .. uh sae which state, a such i.e. ), s of the unitary German German unitary the of s - CEU eTD Collection 56 55 54 53 52 had debates these below) described be will (which ideas Jellinek's of interpretation Finnish the anotherterm used was Bulgaria,there the in evenAnd word. this of meaning true asovereignty in not was it restricted,therefore be to appeared Bulgaria over sovereignty Turkish Thus, 1878. of treaty Berlin the gra was status a such as anything; prove not did example this that however, out, pointed term. the of meaning full a in state ne characte power of branches all possessed Empire, Ottoman non of organs. legislative own their possessed tha fact the despite states, not were terminology, Austrian this Thus, to according power. provinces, superior a to subjected is but province, this to belong not does power of branches the of one as state, a be Jellinek, to according not, can centre, fro appointed power executive its of head a having but assembly, legislative power. of branches the all possess to law local its "non state. a of characteristic essential an as states other

Palienko, Palienko, Ibid Ibid Jellinek, Georg Jellinek cessary nted to Bulgaria only by the interference of European powers powers European of interference the by only Bulgaria to nted treaty itself, which defined the relations between the Ottoman Empire and and Empire Ottoman the between relations the defined which itself, treaty - . ., sovereign state" very close to the notion of a local community, which could se could which community, local a of notion the to close very state" sovereign ,

46. 43. -

oeeg sae Ti cuty tog big ne te oeegt o the of sovereignty the under being though country, This state. sovereign , Obshchee

Suverenitet to break the vassal link with a Turkish sultan in order to make Bulgaria a Bulgaria make to order in sultan Turkish a with link vassal the break to s. Later on, Jellinek came to the to came Jellinek on, Later s.

only a theoretical significance for the Russian empire, as the only only the as empire, Russian the for significance theoretical a only Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen den von Lehre Die

ucheniie ,

561. 561.

gosudarstve

55 - 350.

For example, a province possessing an elected an possessing province a example, For suzerainty. 54

h ciis f elnk icuig Russians, including Jellinek, of critics The Jellinek considered Bulgaria as an example an as Bulgaria considered Jellinek

idea, that a state, in order to be such, had had such, be to order in state, a that idea, 98

(Wien

52 However, if one would disregard would oneHowever, if , 1882), 1882), ,

But this brought the notion of notion the brought this But 40. 40. iig sae s i was it so state, a rizing

the guarantors of of guarantors the m the the m they t t CEU eTD Collection 58 57 idea the prove would which theory, Jellinek’s of interpretation an suggest to had they non a as Finland recognize not did Jellinek that however, Laband. and Jellinek of theories the to resorted theoreticians Finnish the purpose this For monarchy). Habsburg the in Hungary of Kingdom the (as Austro in Bohemia example, for (as, province autonomous tra a took which union, state this describe to instrument an ownlegislativehaving its and rights special institutions. its red be not could Finland of status the that prove to tried professors Finnish the time, same the At union. real a of terms Mec of viewpoint a to contrary assumed, professors peculiar a in them, to according was, Finland though Russia, from distinct state, special a was Finland that argued emperor. Russian the to Finland of loyalty the emphasise Fenno the of of exponents position were them of Both Hermanson. Robert and Danielson Richard Helsingfors in University Alexander the of professors the of works the in Finland in status, according toJellinek. non of status the for contender

Klinge, Klinge, Jellinek, To substantiate this standpoint they needed to find in the theory of state law as law state of theory the in find to needed theystandpoint this substantiate To "non of theory the of interpretation special A

Imperskaia Finliandiia Imperskaia Ueber Staatsfragmente Ueber The

Theory of "Non Theory of as n blne t te ru o old of group the to belonged and mans ,

360 360 (Heidelberg

- sovereign state in Russia Russia in state sovereign

– -

Sovereign S 363. union with Russia. This union, as the Helsingfors Helsingfors the as union, This Russia. with union uced to that of a province of the Russian empire empire Russian the of province a of that to uced

, 1896), 1896), ,

99 45. tates"

- helin, could not be conceived be not could helin, for for sovereign states" was developed developed was states" sovereign

the - 58

- nsitory position between an an between position nsitory Finland -

sovereign state. Therefore, state. sovereign Hun Danielson and Hermanson and Danielson Finnish C Finnish The complication was, was, complication The - gary) and a and gary) Finns, -

did not have such have not did ase who

real union real

tried to to tried

in CEU eTD Collection 59 (as settled a comprises and territory certain a with connected is state the Firstly, will I term, notion. consider the of composite Hermanson's parts complex this of understanding Jellinek's from definition his of difference the sphere o distinct a constituted but whole, unitary a into empire Russian the with merge not "non a was Finland law, domestic Russian the of standpoint Ru with together law, international the of view of point the from and, empire, Russian the of part a remained it words, other In one. sovereign a not although state, special the remainedautocratic anmonarchy. still latter the while Russia, from distinct state, a became Finland him, to according the on functioning been ( laws constitutional the recognized I Alexander view, as asse to one allowed 1809 in Borga ofDiet the I byAlexanderon provided documents and statements that the thesis the of own theoretical framework. incorrect is Finland of status the of understanding his that

Danielson Swedish provinces, became a special constitutional state in Russia. In Danielson's In Russia. in state constitutional special a became provinces, Swedish ssia it formed a single subject of international relations. However, from the the from However, relations. international of subject single a formed it ssia orist, inferred that Finland, due to the constituent acts of Alexander I, became a a became I, Alexander of acts constituent the to due Finland, that inferred orist, To understand how Hermanson defined non defined Hermanson how understand To legal a was who Hermanson, arguments, historical these from Proceeding substantiation the on works his in focused was historian, a Danielson, Richard u Hermanson "state" By f legalorder. , Soedinenie

Finliandii

ertr o Fnad we i ws pr o See. Thus, Sweden. of part a was it when Finland, of territory

Rossiiskoi

nderstands a combination of the following elements. elements. following the of combination a nderstands

59 rt that Finland, whi Finland, that rt

derzhavoiu

100

98 - .

sovereign state, and to underline underline to and state, sovereign

ch by that time was a constituted constituted a was time that by ch lois

from the perspective of his of perspective the from fundamental - sovereign state," so it did it so state," sovereign

е s ), which had which ), CEU eTD Collection 61 60 compliance in only him to belonged professors, Finnish the of view the to according l pass or issue to authority an have not did who official, Finnish a be to assumed was Finland of Duke Grand The monarch. constitutional any of power a as laws, Finnish by restricted was Finland over Russia of emperor tasks ofdefencejoint sustenance and the considered or stage international the on Finland represented he when only quality this in was but Finland, of suzerain of role a performed he emperor, Russian a as time, with accordance in Finland, of Duke Grand a monarch, constitutional a as Finland governed I Alexander theoreticians, state neighbouring a of i the of sake the for Finland administer to emperor bythe taken obligations as treatedbe could Borgaof Diet the at given I Alexander of promises the on, relied Hermanson and Danielson which events, wort is It territory. this on state separate a constituting as considered be cannot power a such province), population, local a with agreement any without occupied, an of example, (for state neighbouring society." aut constant obligations." imposing order, legal a a "constitutes which authority, by "united state a inhabitants Secondly interests." the of commonality i.e. population, nomadic) to opposed

Ibid Germanson hority "belong to a certain society and exist and society certain a to "belong hority .

This

, In other words, if power i power if words, other In Gosudarstvenno implies

ht i te iw f h Fnih hoeiin, h power the theoreticians, Finnish the of view the in that,

oetc a opsd o oeg o itrainl afis of affairs international) or foreign to opposed (as domestic - - pravovoe

nterests of the Finnish society, as opposed to the interests the to opposed as society, Finnish the of nterests Russia. Thus, from the point of view of the Finnish Finnish the of view of point the from Thus, Russia. w b hs rirr wl. h lgsaie authority, legislative The will. arbitrary his by aws

hwhile noting, that in the interpretation of historical historical of interpretation the in that noting, hwhile

polozheniie

s exercised on a certain territory for the sake of a of sake the for territory certain a on exercised s

of themilitaryof oftheempire. might the fundamental laws of Finland. At the same the At Finland. of laws fundamental the

101 Finliandii

only for the sake of the interests of this of interests the of sake the onlyfor rspoe te xsec o a state a of existence the presupposes

, 10 .

Besides, the state the Besides,

f the of CEU eTD Collection 64 63 62 prec what non ask, might constituent one Finland, of case the aRegarding power? unrestricted its state, sovereign of territory the i.e. territory, its on exercise to state sovereign on theterritorynon constituent ofthose power sovereign their that mean, not did latter the of sovereignty time, same the at but accor principle "nonpossibilitythis supposedaexistence of of power." state another to subjected not was it that required only no is it sovereign imply necessarily authority." not unrestricted does power state a of characteristic being as "sovereignty of power and subjected not "is state certain a that means sovereignty Besides, territory." certain a Hermanson way the consider to understands "sovereignty." of the notion important is to it order In construction, sovereignty. this possess understand not did itself state Finnish the while Finland, t that fact, the Hermanson abolish assumed, as not, did This Diet. the i.e. institutions, legislative Finnish the with

Ibid Ibid Ibid is . . . ding to Hermanson, could exist on the part of the territory of sovereign states, sovereign of territory the of part the on exist could Hermanson, to ding

, ,

28 23 not obliged to subject itself on itself subject to obliged not What is the nature of such restriction? In other words, what hampers this this hampers what words, other In restriction? such of nature the is What Sover

. .

other state." other ue te usa atca a a urm gvro o Rsi, possessing Russia, of governor supreme a as autocrat Russian the luded eignty, according to Hermanson, signifies "the supreme human power on on power human supreme "the signifies Hermanson, to according eignty, t necessary that the power of the state had to be unrestricted, but it is it but unrestricted, be to had state the of power the that necessary t

Further on Hermanson introduces a principal statement that statement principal a introduces Hermanson on Further

codn t Hrasn "o rcgiin f sae as state a of recognition "for Hermanson, to According

he Russian empire was sovereign on the territory of of territory the on sovereign was empire Russian he

any issue any - sovereignstates had tobeunrestricted.

102

(italics of the author the of (italics - sovereign states." Such states, sovereign states."

A reformulation of reformulation A –

T.Kh.) to the the to T.Kh.)

- CEU eTD Collection 66 65 restriction. such in involved is state other no as sovereignty, its preserving time same the at power, own words, other In status. state special its its maintaining refusing without rights, certain territory state, this grant could territory, sovereign its of part certain a a on sovereignty theory, this with accordance In state. stat the prove to Hermanson for possibility another internationalgranted treaty uncond Swedish the declared only but state, special a as Finland recognize not did Finland, in organization state a of absence the substantiate to order in to referred usually scholars applic not is construction such But treaties. international the by guaranteed is situation special because can this sustained only a be It isclear,status government. such powerand that separa a is 1878, of Berlin of Treaty the with accordance in Bulgaria, However, Bulgaria. of territory the on applied being sovereignty a with state, sovereign a is latter The Empire. Ottoman non a of creation a enable thus and states sovereign other with agreement the by territory its of part a over power its restrict voluntarily could state sovereign a treatises, these According thesources can restriction toHermanson, ofsuch be twofold. territory? its on power unrestricted an of exercising from Finland, over sovereignty

Ibid Ibid - sovereign state. Th state. sovereign . . , ,

33. 29 itioned concession of former Finnish provinces to Russia. Thus, no no Thus, Russia. to provinces Finnish former of concession itioned However, within the frames of this theoretical construction, there remained remained there construction, theoretical this of frames the within However, rest these hand, one the On

be o iln, s h Tet o Ferkhm, hc te usa legal Russian the which Fredrikshamn, of Treaty the as Finland, to able

te state, although a non a although state, te 66

n te wrs i i nt iln ta rsrcs usa ih its with Russia restricts that Finland not is it words, other In e example of such situation is the status of Bulgaria within the within Bulgaria of status the is situation such of example e Finland

rictions could be international treaties. According to treaties.Accordinginternationalto be could rictions the statusof

sovereign one, ruled by its own legislative own its by ruled one, sovereign 103

state.

us of Finland as a non a as Finland of us a sovereign state may restrict its its restrict may state sovereign a

- sovereign CEU eTD Collection 71 70 69 68 67 one alteration, excludes which their of procedure legal a comprise Finland of territory the on existing means. legal by only changed or abolished whole. the non of parts as constituent being wellstates, sovereign as citizens individual of rights the to respect in power of restriction Rechtstaat states. other by guaranteed be would restriction this inasmuch only restricted be may Bulgaria of territory the on power its Therefore, Hermanson, was to The according Ottoman Empire, they acannot significantof a constitutionallegal bebrokenwithout order. violation Finlan towards obligations certain of Russia Borga. of diet the on place taken had people Finnish the and I Alexander between obligations of exchange result a not was Hermanson, to according self Such defence. state of questions the spherewould yet ofthis competence the self for opportunity the with latter the providing Finland, in power its restrict voluntarily a could state, as sovereign Russia, But sovereignty. Russian affect would restriction such because this, non a As laws.special

Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid . . . . . , , , , , 73.

71. 34. 83. 82. The comparison with the Ottoman Empire allows clarifying this construction. construction. this clarifying allows Empire Ottoman the with comparison The

, it does not need restrictions fr restrictions need not does it , - sided changes of these laws, without the approval of the Finnish the of approval the without laws, these of changes sided

67 -

sovereign state and a p a and sovereignstate Thus, it is possible to speak only of a unilateral acceptance by acceptance unilateral a of only speak to possible is it Thus, - administration

exclude exclude om outside. The legal order implies a self a implies order legal The outside. om

within the limits of its own judicial sphere, sphere, judicial own its of limits the within - d. But once these obligations were taken, taken, were obligations these once But d. 71 f tet. e sue ta n mutual no that assumed He treaty. a of 104 etito o te usa sae power, state Russian the of restriction art of the Russian Empire it could not docould itnot Empire Russian the of art

n te wrs te udmna laws fundamental the words, other In

the sphere of international affairs international and sphere of the

But if Russia claims herself to be a be to herself claims Russia if But not a modern state, i.e. i.e. state, not amodern

Such self Such - restrictions can be can restrictions Rechtstaat 68

- -

. CEU eTD Collection 75 74 73 72 EmpireRussian 75 of version renovated a was theory Hermanson's viewpoint, his From Jellinek. for convincing not was Finland, of Duke Grand constitutional a and Empire Russian the of monarch of person the separated Finnish. essentially were power of branches sovereigna state and self int an taking thus state, a of characteristics some non a (even state a not was which formation, political a of example important an Jellinek for was Finland but directly, Jellinek unable torestrictdeliberately. power its modern a be to cease case, a such in would, I, Alexander by adopted Finland towards obligations alt Russia, way, a Such assembly. representative

Ibid Ibid Ibid Jellinek, codn o elnk h ouin fteqeto ftesau o Fnadi the in Finland of status the of question the of solution the Jellinek, to According . . ., , ,

44. 44. 43 11. o Jlie, iln ws o a non a not was Finland Jellinek, For of work the in response their found Hermanson of elaborations theoretical The

. Ueber Ueber

Mechelin's Rechtstaat

Staatsfragmente

considered within Staatsfragmente old theory about t about theory old

and would become similar to the Ottoman Empire, which is which Empire, Ottoman the to similar become would and - governing province. the monarch into two legal components components legal two into monarch the Finland as Finland …

(1896).

a different theoretical framework. - sovereign one), but at the same time preserved preserved time same the at but one), sovereign

" he union of the Finnish and the Russian states. Russian the and Finnish the of union he

Staatsfragment" 72

hs ok a nt eoe t Finland to devoted not was work This 10 73 74

- 5

oeeg sae bcue o al the all not because state, sovereign

h agmns f emno, who Hermanson, of arguments The og i my nltrly eet its reject unilaterally may it hough ermediate position between a non a between position ermediate

n autocratic an -

CEU eTD Collection 79 78 77 76 states denied is and ismingled force with the identifies which self of teaching, possibility the that absolutist so power, unrestricted old with sovereignty "an for stand Bodin, following who, constitutional of understanding their and states sovereign between relations such opposes clearly Jellinek authority. central self from approval. its by only changed be may fragment this of competence judicial a of sphere the meaning: following the invests Finland. of approval the introd be could Finland of status constitutional the into changes any that condition a contain would there order this in then Finland order, constitutional a of had Russia incorporation of moment the at if Jellinek, to According sovereignty. not would which means, legal by only it change may constitution, a having states, the it to According principle. general following the however, advocated, empire Russian sovereign the of a representative in concentrated was power of source major the where action. suprem the states these to respect neverthele this, Jellinek, to According states. non sovereign of category the into fit not did therefore, and, state a of characteristics some preserved which formations, political were These states. of "rudiments" them, calls he

Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid . . . . , ,

46 45. 76 Jellinek Jellinek

. - Jellinek recognized that Russia and Finland formed a single juridical space, juridical single a formed Finland and Russia that recognized Jellinek

governing provinces, whose sphere of legal competence is defined by the the by defined is competence legal of sphere whose provinces, governing put

Finland into a category of state fragment state of category a into Finland

Consequently, into the notion of a state fragment Jellinek fragment state a of notion the into Consequently,

e power of a sovereign state could state sovereign a of power e

This is what distinguishes them, first of all, of first them, distinguishes what is This

state fragments to the standpoint of those, of standpoint the to fragments state

106 right."

- 79

h Rsin oac. Jellinek monarch. Russian the ss, does not mean, that in in that mean, not does ss, s ( s person of the supreme supreme the of person Staatsfragmente

- take any arbitrary arbitrary any take restriction of the the of restriction uced only by by only uced etit their restrict ) or, as or, ) - CEU eTD Collection 81 pravovoe proekt zaglaviem 80 institutions constitutional of competence legal the in changes arbitrary make to latter way. sove a even as action, arbitrary could latter a as state rathe but person, a to belong legalmajor idea,andwere orderwhom the thestate for notions. inseparable leg of source a was Turkey Bulgaria to relation in that say to wrong be would it time, same the At Bulgaria. constituents, its of one to regards as state sovereign a as Empire Ottoman sovereof notion t of defence of strategy Hermanson's community. political a or person certain a to belonging as sovereignty w one monarch. a of persons) juridical different two as Duke Grand and were which emperor the recognize would fields, one if persons, juridical (or personality juridical a distinct by connected two formed they that way a such in whole si a into united were states, different two as Russia, and Finland that recognized a BothJellinek'salthough degree, lesser theory. latter Mechelin Hermanson, to the and

Jellinek, Leo 81

, Mekhelin

sostavlennyi ud ae uh uin i cmrss h rdmns f h od oin of notion old the of rudiments the comprises it union, a such name ould This is the source of restrictsourceof the is This elnk proceeded Jellinek from elaborations Finnish the of differences major note to important is It

polizhenie

zasluzhennym Obshchee ucheniie o gosudarstve ucheniie Obshchee Rechtstaat

e hne ol b only changed be al order. Such theoretical co theoretical Such order. al , K ignty closer to the idea of suzerai ofidea the to closer ignty

voprosu Finliandii russlim

, professorom i.e. such state, which possessed which state, such i.e.

soveshianiem ob e ins rgt atal led actually rights Finnish he ,

83 avtonomii rm h nto, ac notion, the from - 84. r to a state. state. a to r

lgl en. hs h excluded he Thus, means. legal y reign state may change its legal order only in a legal a in only order legal its change may state reign

N . D ion of a central authority. Itwa authority. central a of ion

( . i Helsingfors, 1909), Helsingfors,

Sergeevichem osnovnykh

352.

At the same time, he understood he time, same the At nstruction, however, contradicted however, nstruction,

107

zakonakh odn t wih oeegt did sovereignty which to cording

nty. In such a way, he considered he way,a Insuch nty. ( Berlin, 1903), 57 1903), Berlin,

an establi an Kritika o n tep o bign the bringing of attempt an to –

21; 21; Germanson

broshury - shed legal order; the the order; legal shed 59; s not allowed for theforallowed not s

80 h eeet f an of element the

Idem

, Regardless how Regardless , izdannoi Gosudarstvenno . Nepriemlemyi

a modern a Jellinek's

pod ngle ngle

etim not the -

CEU eTD Collection Uchenie 85 84 83 82 fol the and October of 17th the of Manifesto the to due Russia, when moment, the at foreground the to came professors (thejurists opponents oftheFinns) out. pointed it Rus and monarch, autocratic an for exist not did restriction such laws, Russian power) sovereign of holder self of Fin understanding of rights the of inviolability and order legal a of changing of character legal the between link a on emphasis clear wanted latter the that did Hermanson demonstrated per certain a of restriction self of idea makesthe to leads who argumentation his analysis, despot, final the a In decisions. arbitrary to opposed as principles, certain by himself restricts who a could Hermanson Thus, restricte not o point legal the From character. legal than rather successors. suc which to according principle, a by only we fragments. state of

Ibid Germanson, Jellinek, N re given re . M ., .

Korkunov 97. 97.

Finnish the of and Jellinek of approaches the of difference the clearly Most o

finliandskom Ueber Staatsfragmente Ueber

83 d in this respect, and no law bound law no and respect, this in d by Gosudarstvenno

Such idea of idea Such mostly a difference of accents, rather than a difference a than rather accents, of difference a mostly

, the Russian monarch, so that so monarch, Russian the

Finliandskoe not speak of self of speak not

gosudarstve

In Herma In to become a modern modern a become to - etito o Rsi a a self a as Russia of restriction ppeal here only to the traditional notion of a good monarch, good a of notion traditional the to only here ppeal - son, but not of an abstract legal order. O order. legal abstract an of not but son,

pravovoe polozhenie polozhenie pravovoe

allegiance to a to allegiance . Velikoe 84 ,

From the legal point of view, however, according to theto according however, view, of point legal the From ( nson's interpretation it appeared that the Finnish rights Finnish the that appeared it interpretation nson's – St

10. . Petersburg -

restraint of a mona a of restraint lowing acts of the state power, got under way of a of way under got power, state the of acts lowing

Kniazhestvo

ad wie emno' ter admited theory Hermanson's while land,

, 1893) , Rechtstaat solemnly proclaimed promise had promise proclaimed solemnly

Finliandii

108

inviolability of these rights wa rights these of inviolability poie bound promise h (

St him to keep allegiance to his promises. his to allegiance keep to him ,

eesug 1890), Petersburg. 31. 31. 85 f view, the autocratic monarch wa monarch autocratic the view, f

, - . However, Jellinek made Jellinek However, . 84 etito o is oac (s a (as monarch its of restriction rch, but of Russia; this implied this Russia; of but rch,

h mnrh n his and monarch the

327 327 f course, this idea idea this course, f – in principles, as principles, in

328; F s granted s

a moral, a .

a more more a Jelenev

sian an s - , CEU eTD Collection In the following part I will consider whether Russian liberal jurists managed to use use to managed jurists liberal Russian whether consider will I part following the In circumstances.new the in Finland status of constitutional special a substantiatingof of sov of understanding monarchical of arbitrariness theRussianstate order. in elements the remained there established, not was mechanism this long As laws. local imperial the Russian the in of authority changes supreme the by of (initiated legislation agreement of mechanism constitutional a provide to necessary was it principles juridical violating without order constitutional Russian cons Finnish the incorporate to order in Consequently, constitution This constitution. Finnish existing the of violation a without way, legal a in changed F the of competence the if legal become could order this self legal of elements the contain would slight order this that some opportunity remained still there however, time, same the At order. constitutional beca order constitutional Finnish the situation new the In vulnerable. quite Finland of status juridical special a made which interpretation, such admitted laws these But 1906. of laws Fundamental the with particularly order, the with comparison in power juridical lesser relatively a acquired Finland to promises old the circumstances In these institutions. constitutional of number a among one order, legal the of element integral an rather but rights, his in constitutional state,although reservations. withsome modern a to state monarchic traditional a from legally, least at transformation, gradual In such a state a monarch appeared not just as a personal in personal a as just not appeared monarch a state a such In old an of elements the containing lawyers, Finnish of theories the Unlike provided that

Finnish laws could be changed only by approval of the Diet.of the by approval changed only couldFinnish be laws ereignty, Jellinek's concept provided the possibility the provided concept Jellinek's ereignty,

109

e pr o te all the of part a me titutional order into the new new the into order titutional

institutions of the new legal new the of institutions innish legislature would be would legislature innish mie wt Finnish with empire) stance, unrestricted unrestricted stance, - restraint. That is, That restraint. - Russian Russian CEU eTD Collection 88 87 86 of theEmpireof andtheGrandDuchy." those legislativ betweenagreementthe an of mattera be must on of now fromFinland, Duchy Grand the and Empire the for common measures, further Any restored. entirely be must status, state its with Finland provides which constitution, Finnish 5th the the party thesecondcongress of on ofon Kadets,expressed adopted intheprogramme aimed at territorial disi assumed, he as which, groups, radical the isolating thus and Finns, moderate with agreement an reaching in consisted leaders Kadet future the of logic the emigration, authorities to resistance open an (Zilliacus). of politics the towards drifted who radicals, them, called Miliukov as new, and Mechelin) (Leo constitution Finnish special a for monarchic traditional the of Finns both were there congress the at Miliukov, Paul of memoirs the to According 1904. in Paris in parties oppositional Democraticthe Constitutional Congress viewat establishedthe the Party, of supported wing in1909 parliamentary during politicians debates the advocat possibilityin this

S”ezdy i konferentsii konstitutsionno i konferentsii S”ezdy Ibid. Miliukov

- In practice this politics led to the idea of a parallel legislation, which was was which legislation, parallel a of idea the to led politics this practice In Russi the of part a Finland,towards attitude political for As

11th of January 1906. In the 26th paragraph of the program i program the of paragraph 26th the In 1906. January of 11th , Vospominaniia

Russian Russian 86

f n wud rs te eor o Mluo, rte aray in already written Miliukov, of memoirs the trust would one If L iberals' ntegration of Russia. ,

168 ing constitutional rights of Finland against the attack of right right of attack the against Finland of rights constitutional ing –

169 I nterpretation Georg of Jellinek's

- .

demokraticheskoi partii demokraticheskoi

87 110

(Moscow, 1997). v. 1, 1997). (Moscow, - 1910.

orientation, standing orientation, P an liberals, forming liberals,an osition osition t suggested: "The suggested: t

192.

e organse CEU eTD Collection 91 90 libera See: University. Heidelberg in internship his Pravo gorodskikh Rossii edinstvo question. national the on party the of programe 89 in published article, his In press. in question" "Finnish the on position his explained Kokoshkin party, wasconditions it decidedtodefend ofa theidea parallel legislation. circumstances political the when imper the and Finnish the of agreement interests." common of understanding legislation of unification constitut the of development the of tasks the of one "constitutes legislation imperial the and Finnish the of unification the that legislation." Diet's Finnish the of procedure one issued: be would which content, respective of laws parallel two of means by only possible be would Finland, to applied and institutions... legislative imperial through out carried be would which an of establishing the "... that: said which party, Kadet the of group Moscow the of resolution the of form the in accepted were F to entrusted was statement detailed more p this of clarification theoretical detailed right the by initiated konstitutsionno i konferentsii S”ezdy Since the foundation of the party Fiodor Kokoshkin was dealing with elaboration of the general general the of elaboration with dealing was Kokoshkin Fiodor party the of foundation the Since Ibid V.V.Shelokhaev, “Fedor Fedorovich Kokoshkin” B.S.Itenberg, V.V.Shelokhaev (eds.) V.V.Shelokhaev B.S.Itenberg, Kokoshkin” Fedorovich “Fedor V.V.Shelokhaev, ly . No . .

(Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001), 2001), ROSSPEN, (Moscow: Along with the preparation of internal documents for a discus a for documents internal of preparation the with Along Finland, of status juridical the on discussions the of intensification The

. 40 (1905) (1905) 40 .

deiatelei Mso, 95; Idem. 1905); (Moscow,

po Kokoshkin was a was Kokoshkin

Russkie vedomosti Russkie voprosu - ig edr i 1908 in leaders wing

should not be unilaterally enforced, but "based on the joint the on "based but enforced, unilaterally be not should

natsional’nostei i detsentralizatsii upravleniia I zakonodatel’stva” zakonodatel’stva” I upravleniia detsentralizatsii i natsional’nostei - - 318.

demokraticheskoi partii demokraticheskoi

y h i the by acquainted with Georg Jellinek and attended his lectures during during lectures his attended and Jellinek Georg with acquainted Later

ol bcm mr favourable: more become would 91

“ on

Doklad

In general, it was proposed that proposed was it general, In (" See

he rogrammatic statement. The preparation of a of preparation The statement. rogrammatic Russian Bulletin Russian a legislations ial mperial legislation, the other other the legislation, mperial oa odr f h Rsin stat Russian the of order ional all

maintained e his dor Kokoshkin. dor 111

- - 90 state legislation in that form or another, or form that in legislation state

organizatsionnogo 99 stimulated 1909,

works

h Mso gop lo underlined also group Moscow The : ,

v.2, friendly F.F.Koko

257 e postponed be ") on the 23 the on ")

89 relationship .

skin, skin,

The results of his work his of results The biuro

o eaoain f a of elaboration for Oblastnaia avtonomiia i avtonomiia Oblastnaia

s ” rd

with ezdu sion within the within sion the question of question the in the present present the in

ni te time the until January, 1910 January, - e," but such such but e,"

the within the the within zemskikh ,

Rossiiskie Rossiiskie professor

i .

CEU eTD Collection 93 92 approval institutions. legislative ofits th without organs constitutional Finnish the of competence of sphere the in changes the of part that place first the in used University, union. Heidelberg the in disciple realJellinek's was who Kokoshkin, a of terms the on Russia with connected was that Finland suggesting constitutionalists Finnish the of theory old the of version modern non a as Finland of idea Hermanson's argued, Jellinek As Mec and Hermanson’s the of resemblance practical on insisted rather but Hermanson, of one the with theory his of similarity the recognize not did Jellinek In referenceto a with Hermanson," of that theoryto his of time, closeness "practical same a recognized the himself Jellinek that at statement, Kokoshkin's But, organs. legislative its of approval the without Finland of juridi the change to impossible is it that idea the was similarity key the non a as Finland of theory the defended who Hermanson, of that and state, a as Finland recognize not did which position, Jellinek's rights." (Finland's its of inviolability the emphasised "definitely had work Jellinek's to Referring th of approvalan without Finland of status changethe to legally possible it was follows:as formulated be could Kokoshkin, accordingto question, keyThe legislation. parallel of idea his substantiate to order in theory Jellinek's to referred directly he

Jellinek, F Staatfragmente Staatfragmente . F . Kokoshkin

In general, Kokoshkin emphasized the idea of similarity in practical in similarity of idea the emphasized Kokoshkin general, In

Ueber Ueber

, “ , Staatsfragmente Nemetskie (in a footnote), where the book of Hermanson is directly mentioned, (in awhereofHermanson directly footnote), is thebook doctrine

professora ,

44. 44. Ueber

of his professor, which underlined illegitimacy of of illegitimacy underlined which professor, his of

peterburgskie Staatsfragmente,

112 - sovereign state. Probably, he meant that meant he Probably, state. sovereign

chinovniki

Staatsfragmente

oohi woe ta Jellinek that wrote, Kokoshkin ” Russkie - sovereign state was a a was state sovereign -

vedomosti . Kh. T. ,

is not is helin’s theories. helin’s

cal competence competence cal 93 autonomous )

quitecorrect. Nonetheles 18. 18. (1910) terms of terms e Diet?e .

s, e CEU eTD Collection ( 96 95 94 ideareal ofa between union Finl to belonged Erich that note, to important is It Empire. Russian the in Finland of position special a substantiate to atte Erich's rejects Kistiakovsky review (« jurists" foreign положение of works the in Finland of status journal Rev ("Critical his in published Kistiakovsky Duma, State the in Finland on discussions public the of beginning the before 1909, April in Already competence ofthe central be should legislation of sphere criminal and social public, belongingto developmentcultural ofall, questionsof first for include, should him, provinces, autonomous the of legislation local The empire. Russian the of provinces Kis proposed version King the for autonomy ofidea the aboutunsympathetic quite was and movement national Ukrainian the of representatives the with connected closely party. Kadet the of activity the in part take not did he movement, liberal the to belonged undoubtedly Kistiakovsky Although complex. St

Bogdan Kistiakovsky, “Oblastnaia avtonomiia i eie predely” predely” i eie avtonomiia “Oblastnaia Kistiakovsky, Bogdan Heuman,Kistiakovsky, R . Petersburg tiakovsky rather insisted on a juridical equivalent equivalent juridical a on insisted rather tiakovsky . Erich As regards the "Finnish question," Kistiakovsky took a special position as well. as position special a took Kistiakovsky question," "Finnish the regards As more was Kistiakovsky, Bogdan disciple, Jellinek's another of position The

, Gosudarstvenno

, 1908) , Финляндии e" a eiw n h wr o Rcad rc "h sae n juridical and state "The Erich Richard of work the on review a iew") .

y h dpte fo te oih oo n h St the in Koło Polish the from deputies the by The Struggle for National and Const and National for Struggle The -

pravovoe state legislative institutions. в

the освещении

traditional school among the Finns and advocated the the advocated and Finns the among school traditional and and Russia. and

polozhenie

mpts to rely on the authority of foreign jurists jurists foreign of authority the on rely to mpts

иностранных

Finliandii 113

itutional Rights, itutional Moskovsky ezhenedel’nik Moskovsky

95 94 v f

or the status the or

osveshchenii Or

юристов Государственно gnly Ksikvk was Kistiakovsky iginally, rtceke Obozrenie Kriticheskoe dom of Poland in thein Poland of dom

» (1908)). In this this In (1908)). »

inostrannykh . of all the national the all of

, while theissues , while handed over handed

4 4 (1907) t Duma. ate - правовое

juristov .

to to

CEU eTD Collection 98 inostrannykh 97 objectingwhile details, into legisl Russian to left be should decision last the Russia, and Finland of organs legislative the of conflict a of case the in that particularly, Russia, for organization constitutional regarding ideas Kistiakovsky' in conversation, this journal the in published teacher, German his to obituary his in conversation this mentioned disciple Russian R of organization constitutional competence organs.Finnish constitutional ofthe the define to prerogative a have finally state Russian the of organs constitutional the constitution." Russian the in lie should constitution Finnish the of foothold "a view, his In monarch. Russian the of person the through only Empire the of parts both the of connection the perceive thos of position the criticises Kistiakovsky well. as institutions legislative view, his in which, monarch, undoubtedly the of prerogatives legislative the that desirable woul Kistiakovsky that clear, becomes it review the of text following constitution." Finnish the of violation the without Empire, the of parts constituti both the between connection juridical and political enforcethe necessaryto considerit Russian those of "position the than significance political greatera acquired has and authoritiesRussian the of politics repressive the responseto

Ibid B ogdan . ,

76. 76. Kistiakovsky defended his interpretation of the idea of a desirable desirable a of idea the of interpretation his defended Kistiakovsky a as emerged Finns the of position a such that regret, with noted Kistiakovsky

Kistiakovsky

juristov apply to apply . SPb “ , ative institutions. According to Kistiakovsky, Jellinek did not go not did Jellinek Kistiakovsky, to According institutions. ative

., 1908” 1908” .,

the territory of Finland, would be shared with the new Russian Russian new the with shared be would Finland, of territory the 98 R

. Russkaia Mysl’ Russkaia n rcie ti ie ld itaosy to Kistiakovsky led idea this practice, In Erich

to Kriticheskoe .

his ideas, but at the same time, he persistentlyhe defended time, thesame at but ideas, his Gosudarstvenno

si i hs rvt cnesto wt Jlie. The Jellinek. with conversation private his in ussia s rendering, was that the latter told the professor his professorhis the told latter the that was rendering, s

obozrenie ("Russian Thought") in 1912. The essence of of essence The 1912. in Thought") ("Russian

- 114 pravovoe

, 1909, , 1909,

polozhenie vol . IV.,

Finliandii

h saeet that statement the

nlss who onalists, cnie it consider d v e Finns, who Finns,e

osveshchenii

rm the From

CEU eTD Collection 100 99 l Russian and Finnish the between conflict irreconcilable of case the in be policy the should what non question: main the of solution no with as left position a such Nevertheless, Finland of idea the of advocates pre to returning of idea (the Finland of constitution traditional the of exponents the of position the with both accordance in was which legislation, parallel a of idea the of defence the implied this practice the moment the of status constitutional a of question the of solution final the postponed Duma, State the in right the andgovernment the with confrontationheated a in position their organsFinland by ofand means, Russia legal constitutional the between tensions possible solving allow would which order, an accents. in upon reflected politics, difference practical current of a considerations by as limited not was perceived who Kistiakovsky, be can dissimilarity of view The the from Kokoshkin. particular, in and, party, Kadet the by defended line, the from political standpoint. a from least at then legal, a from not if desirable, be would agreement an such that a the without done be could Finland of organization state the in change "no that view original his egislative institutions.

S ogdan ” ezdy By contrast, the Kadets, who were primarily concerned with elaboration of of elaboration with concerned primarily were who Kadets, the contrast, By significan diverge not did Kistiakovsky of position the speaking, Strictly

Kistiakovsky i Finland in the Russian Empire for the uncertain future. They believed believed They future. uncertain the for Empire Russian the in Finland

konferentsii pproval of the Finnish Diet."theFinnishof pproval

the future constitutional organization of Russia. His Russia. of organization constitutional future the

conditions ,

konstitutsionno

Georg

Jellinek

ee o ripe not were

kak demokraticheskoi -

Bobrikov conditions) and with the position the with and conditions) Bobrikov myslitel

’

o a ar ouin f hs question. this of solution fair a for Finally, Kistiakovsky had to acknowledge,to Kistiakovsky Finally, had i 115

chelovek provided -

oeeg sae Hrasn t al.). et (Hermanson state sovereign

partii

, v. 2., v. 2., , ( Moscow, 1911), Moscow,

in the constitution. in the constitution. 257.

10. envisioned

- wing parties wing

that at that of the the of

100 such tly tly

In CEU eTD Collection defended the idea of preservation of the Finnish constitutional order constitutional Finnish the of preservation of idea the defended thecompetencetheycould limit the Finnish legislative of organs. his and bord Stolypin the establish should to supporters, according Empire, the of organs legislative The should legislation. Finland of laws local the that followed establ order, new the into field juridical Finnish the of inclusion the required Russia of interests state that idea the on position their based him supporting politicians the and Stolypin Peter hand, ques "Finnish the on polemics with the Finnish groups. alliance the with agreement in more much was Kadets the by suggested legislation, the through states both the of connection the i.e. position,monarchical traditional the of advocates Finnish the of moderatepart the with leadership Kadets the of agreement the on based concerns, tactical various of because expre fully not was principle, clear the on based position, modern a for self the on Jellinek of theory The co the defending th deputies, centrist Leaving aside the details of the dispute, the situation in the Duma during the during Duma the in situation the dispute, the of details the aside Leaving right of majority the by dominated was Duma State the Because Conclusion him, supporting politicians, liberal the and Miliukov hand, other the On Rechtstaat nstitutional rights of Finland through Finland of rights nstitutional

e strongest argument for Kadets for argument strongest e

ished in Russia by the Fundamental Laws of 1906. From this this From 1906. ofLaws Fundamental bythe Russia in ished

suggested the potential for such a line of defence. This This defence. of line a such for potential the suggested tion" can be described in the following way. On the one one the On way. following the in described be can tion" - restriction of authority as a principle characteristic principle a as authority of restriction ers of their own competence and, consequently, and, competence own their of ers

116

dynastic ruler. The idea of a parallel a of idea The ruler. dynastic

would naturally take the form of form the take naturally would e uodntd to subordinated be

the id the ssed. This was, in particular, in was, This ssed. ea of sovereignty of law. of sovereignty of ea

. It was supposed was It . all - ig and wing - imperial CEU eTD Collection "sovereignty" of notion the Thus, future. in emerge to have would which law, a of "sovereignty" the to rather but existed, already that law the of not "sovereignty" the to appeal to emergin the a of model a fit hardly could state Russian the liberals, of majority not was order, legal established the from pers a to not referring as theories, these of characteristic sovereignty, of notion The conditions. Russian the to law state of theories German the adapt to attempting while confronted, had thinkers conse a was groups the decision for ofquestion anfuture. this indefinite postponed they Instead Russia. in order constitutional new the to correspond would stat juridical regarding project particular any suggest to able not Constitutional the of leaders the time, same the At monarchy. traditional the of frames the within status special its guaranteed prom had which they Finland, i.e. order,” “old an of elements the of advocates as the of Instead appeared Kadets the result, done. a As priority. the took ones tactical the concerns, principal not was this However, law. of sovereignty of idea the with which"Finnish question", of the ai.e. tosuggestsolution such principle, on based position a proclaim to option only the only had they situation this In practice. in Finland of rights constitutional the of violation the prevent not could left the and Kadets that however, was, problem The future. in conflict any without order constitutional Russian the into laws Finnish specific the including allowing mechanism, a find to necessary was it that Such a weakness of the Kadets’ position in their dispute with the right the with dispute their in position Kadets’ the of weakness a Such

g elements of constitutionalism. The leaders of the Kadets, therefore, had had therefore, Kadets, the of leaders The constitutionalism. of elements g

in application to "law" acquired a paradoxical meaning, as it referred to to referred it as meaning, paradoxical a acquired "law" to application in une f bodr rbe, ih hc te usa legal Russian the which with problem, broader a of quence on or a group of people, but rather to a state as such, inalienable such, as state a to rather but people, of group a or on - wing deputies, being a minori a being deputies, wing systematically

117

applicable in Russia. For the the For Russia. in applicable

- would be in accordance in would be Democratic party were party Democratic us of Finland, which Finland, of us td psto of position a oted Rechtstaat ty in the Duma, the in ty , despite , - wing CEU eTD Collection il f h pol. u utl hs isiuin wr cetd te decis the created, were constitutional statusofFinland had tobepostponed. institutions these until But people. the of will the assumed,liberals as express, hadwhichto institutions, legislativefuture the of that action arbitrary another to but order, legal existing supr an to not the opposed was authority of rule arbitrary the Thus, assembly. constituent a of role a perform to have would they view, liberals’ in as, law existing an by themselves restrict to have not did future, the for liberals the by projected were which organs, legislative The supreme aan authoritycharacteristic inalienable asin self on law of theoreticians German the of theory the time, same the ha which institutions, legislative the of will the by substituted was law" of "sovereignty of principle the that out turned it practice In reality. in exist not did which something, d to establish a new law as soon as favourable political conditions would come. At At come. would conditions political favourable as soon as law new a establish to d

118

Rechtstaat

was actuallywas ignor - restriction of the of restriction o o a on ion eme eme ed. ed. -

CEU eTD Collection 1 disintegrating Russia.” right extreme more the and more the with polemics their by explained be can question Polish the regarding party Kadet the of tactics the in elements Many party. Octobrist the of core a became eventually which Guchkov, by led group the of resignation the and constitutionalists Russian of agenda the on question the against strugglefirst the in demonstrated was it As government. their in allies Polish find to attempt their in liberals Russian v the characterizes which observation, important an contains it reject to had Democrats National the and run, long the in party National of leader the

Roman Dmowski, Dmowski, Roman nationalism and suppress the liberal strivings. Wishing the victory to the Russian Russian the to victory the Wishing strivings. liberal Russian the the provoke can wait takea to tried suppress they movement, they constitutionalist question, Polish and the raising bynationalism that realized, Poles the the assisted 1863 have would and bureaucracy th From government. own the of side the on elements its nationalist Russian of transition against people Russian the of struggle the t If Russian people. the and government the between struggle the by resolved be should organization state against actions protest of organization at Although the wait the Although 1908 in published Question,” Polish the and Russia, “Germany, book the In

the beginning of the revolutionthe beginning of1905 Political elements, who repre who elements, Political hey had come into the forefront, the Poles would have deprived it of a character of character a of it deprived have would Poles the forefront, the into come had hey Contest Germaniia, Rossiia i pol’skii vopros i pol’skii Rossiia Germaniia, - eort Rmn mwk dsrbd h bhvo o his of behavior the described Dmowski Roman Democrats - and The “Po ing - ig ocs wo cue te aes of Kadets the accused who forces, wing - see tactics, described by Dmowski, did not justify itself justify not did Dmowski, by described tactics, see

the Meaning ofAutonomy the Meaning sented the Polish national strivings… did not rush… with with rush… not did strivings… national Polish the sented Chapter Chapter 3. the government. They understood, that the question of of question the that understood, They government. the

lish Question”: lish

119 - and

- (St.Petersbur

1907 inthe following1907 way: chapter

- see atti see

caused , an attempt to place the Polish Polish the place to attempt an , tude as long as it was possible. as it as long tude g,1909),

split in this movement this in split , leal psto of position ulnerable

t 126 he quotation above above quotation he moderate liberals liberals moderate -

127 e experience of of experience e

. causing

1 “

the

CEU eTD Collection Kokoshkin, “ Kokoshkin, 2 ko Polish the of majority the constituted who Democrats, National whole. as Russia for play to had it that role the and autonomy of notion different a quite from proceeded problem. the of part only were delegation Polish the of claims overrated and pride national keen yet autonomy, provincial of model Kadet’s the beyond far went claims Polish defend to Kadets the help not did movement national Polish complexity ofjuridicalquestions. blaming politicians, wing criticis the to respond to Kadets the enabled center the and borderlands the both for beneficial mutually be would autonomy that idea The population. of Polish conscience legal and culture Polish of maturity of notion the to connected was which for borderland, only borderland a of population the the of secession and autonomy a was there borderlands any without centralization strict the between that believed Kadets the Thus, power. executive the of unity the by ensured be to had same the At needs. local the regarding laws own their issue which in decentralization, of theory general statehood. Russian the of strengthening the contribute but disintegration, Russia’s to lead not would autonomy

Peter Peter ł o, proceeded from the assumption of the peoples as living organisms, who were i were who organisms, living as peoples the of assumption the from proceeded o, ogrkv “ Dolgorukov, This chapter aims to demonstrate that the position of the representatives of the the of representatives the of position the that demonstrate to aims chapter This with Poland providing that argued Kadets the position their defend to order In

h Pls prnr, hm h Kdt hd o el ih n h D the in with deal to had Kadets the whom partners, Polish The Doklad organizatsionnogo biuro organizatsionnogo Doklad Natsi nlni ors konstitutsiia” i vopros onal'nyi n

inter

they h latter the mediate position, equally benefici equally position, mediate . T .

were willing to provide to willing were

he Kadets regarded the Kingdom of Poland of Kingdom the regarded Kadets he

…,” …,” of incompetence and inability to fathom the the fathom to inability and incompetence of 3322

the borderlands the 120 .

Osvobozhdenie autonomy in such a sense. a such in autonomy 2 , on the contrary, it would would it contrary, the on ,

time, the unity of the state state the of unity the time, hs ruet itd the fitted argument This were to enjoy the right to right the enjoy to were

9 (1904 59

al both to Russia and and Russia to both al their approach. The The approach. their , 147 ), m of the of m - 4; Fedor 148;

as right uma, the the It n - CEU eTD Collection equality Poles. ofthe civic of notion the to even but autonomy, of idea the onlyto not hostile be appearedto a end, the In claims. wh majority, a faced their Duma third the in delegation reduce Polish diminished considerably finally would Poles the that vain in hoping wait a accepted Kadets The deputies. Russian the among autonomy discussion a provoke to even failed and indifference, faced Dumas, two first the in representatives Polish the result, a As Russia. from separation their towards step first the be would Poles a that prove to tried who those of position the the bolstered Duma in claims Polish the contrary, the On decentralization. Russian of the means by of statehood strengthening of idea the contradict not did autonomy Polish the the of arguments the question into called Poles the of Constitutional the in its government the to assistance their for return in autonomy acquiring on counted rather but parties, political Russian among allies for look not did they Therefore population. the accept would anarchy” by “weakened Polish Russia, that the considered Democrats and National peoples. Russian the for both beneficial equally be would which position, middle a of possibility the excluded theory a Such existence. for struggle mutual a strugglewith the “forcesanarchy.” of hs eair f h Pls National Polish the of behavior This

r lis f hy ol rl o sldrt ad eoue il f h Polish the of will resolute and solidarity on rely would they if claims ir - Democratic party vulnerable to attacks from the right. The position position The right. the from attacks to vulnerable party Democratic

ept a infcn nme o potential of number significant a despite

121 - Democrats made the representatives of of representatives the made Democrats

Kadets, who tried to prove that that prove to tried who Kadets, ny concessions to the to concessions ny sympathizers of of sympathizers - and - see tactics, tactics, see ich ich CEU eTD Collection (St.Petersburg: “Obshchestvennaia pol’za,” pol’za,” “Obshchestvennaia (St.Petersburg: 4 Dissertation: 3 a gave Revolutionaries Socialist while movement, labor the towards oriented was parties. a into it transform to sought constitutional state. they when even empire, Russian the of integrity o points any allow production of means the of socialization as European such of socialists, ideas general the with republic democratic a as Poland independent i uprising the the by socialist 1892 of groups several of merger in founded was It Poland. of Kingdom the of spectrum political the of groupgreatly this differed thecomposition ofthe from the in insignificant was forces, political Russian with collaboration of possibility the recognized which “ugoda,” of group Endecja Poland of Kingdom the in parties influential most the century, twentieth the of beginning the with. cooperate could they groups regarding themselves

Martov L., Maslov P., Potresov A. Potresov P., Maslov L., Martov ln Afe Janus, Alfred Glenn

The found liberals Russian the which in situation, the understand to order In

Links between PPS and LinksPPS between h Pls scait, oee, a fw oncin wt Rsin socialist Russian with connections few had however, socialists, Polish The ad h Pls Scait at ( Party Socialist Polish the and ) ee the were

Ohio State University, 1971), University, State Ohio Polish Socialist Party was the most influential group on the left wing of of wing left the on group influential most the was Party Socialist Polish n Łódź f contact with Russian liberals, who advocated the idea of territorial territorial of idea the advocated who liberals, Russian with contact f

Polish Parties and the Question of Autonomy of PolishQuestion Parties the and

h Pls Ko Polish The . 3 Natio

The ideology of this party combined the slogan of restoration of of restoration of slogan the combined party this of ideology The the “Polish question,” it is important to consider the political political the consider to important is it question,” “Polish the nal - eort ( Democrats Obshchestvennoe dvizhenie v Rossii v nachale XX veka. veka. XX nachale v Rossii v dvizhenie Obshchestvennoe Socialist

ł , h Rsin ua n te usin f Autonomy of Question the and Duma Russian the o,

Whom could they perceive as a potential ally? potential a as perceive they could Whom 32 1909

orientation that survived that orientation .

- - Kingdom. Besides, Kingdom. 1914), Revolutionaryw Party

osa ata Socjalistyczna, Partia Polska toncw Narodowo Stronnictwo 122

242

Russian liberals. liberals.Russian the political the . 4 after the suppression of of suppression the after

hs dooy i not did ideology This ere weak because PPS becausePPS weak ere

- Demokratyczne, composition

PPS ). The The ).

Vol. 3. Vol.

(PhD

CEU eTD Collection 108. 5 numerous established had organization the time that By Galicia. to moved League partitions, by Polish united the all in organizations illegal of network a create to attempted by 1886 in Genève in founded League Polish the from originated party The Kingdom. the in spectrum political the of wing right the within Social Russian with Lewica lewica 1905 of Revolution the of course the go evolutio the regarding to details into here deeper place no is There uprising. military of means by achieve to planned it socialist republic. au an as Poland Congress future the envisioned Social Russian of ally major a as itself positioned and internationalism socialist of principles the breaking for PPS criticized merger ( Marchlewski Lithuania Julian and Luxemburg, Poland of Kingdom the of Party Democratic Russian and Social PPS between relationship The question. agrarian to priority greater

Janus,

The Polish Ko Polish The eort were Democrats

The National The The

te on gnrto) n te eouinr fcin te l generation). old (the faction revolutionary the and generation) young (the between sought convergence with SDKPiL, recognizing the necessity to collaborate collaborate to necessity the recognizing SDKPiL, with convergence sought

Russia omn ainl rga. n 87 te raiig etr f h Polish the of center organizing the 1897, In program. national common Polish Socialist Party pursued the national independence of Poland, which which Poland, of independence national the pursued Party Socialist Polish

a faction of PPS and the So the and PPS of faction a n state 5

ł o, the Russian Dum Russian the o, - - Democrats and supporting the slogan of th of slogan the supporting and Democrats Democratic Party was the most influential political force political influential most the was Party Democratic .

opiae bcue f h eitne f sprt Social separate a of existence the of because complicated

Ti pry a fudd n 90 s rsl o a of result a as 1900 in founded was party This . a,

32; 1907 PPS s PPS 1907 - Democrats in Poland and Lithuania. This party party This Lithuania. and Poland in Democrats

Liliana Riga, Riga, Liliana n of the party. Enough is Enough party. the of n

123 cia

- Democrats from Lithuania. from Democrats plit into two factions two into plit ooos eulc ihn Russian within republic tonomous ymn Miłkowski Zygmunt T he Bolsheviks and the Russian Empire Russian the and Bolsheviks he e autonomy of Poland Poland of autonomy e SD to KPiL mention that in that mention – . The League League The .

the so the of ) SDKPiL SDKPiL -

o called called n the n Rosa Rosa - , CEU eTD Collection 10 O (Warszawa: 9 8 2008) 1864 rozdrożach, na Inteligencja Poland 7 170 1974), ofColorado, University Dissertation: (PhD 6 self collective, is autonomous. ideas and conscious of ethic while dogmatic, and sensitive, personal, individualistic, is former The ideas. of ethic the and ideals of ethic the opposes Balicki Balic illegally Poland. deliveredRussian into as well Pop Jan and Dmowski ideologues two other The Party. Democratic National the of predecessor League National the joined he before groups, socialist several of member a ideological contou idea. national the around layers social the all of unification on based be should state the that creation for stood Democrats National future the socialists, the to Similarly socialists. and Democrats “ of discourse the beyond go not did empires. three the all in population of groups particular to oriented associations autonomous

Teresa Teresa Porter, Brian Freeman Edward William

Zygmunt Balicki, “Egoism narodowy wobec etiki” In: Idem, Idem, In: etiki” wobec narodowy “Egoism Balicki, Zygmunt Ibid., 7 , 118 , i n i bohr “ainl gim gis Ehc” (1893). Ethics” against Egoism “National brochure his in ki

346

Kulak,J General traits of the ideology of National Democrats were formulated by by formulated were Democrats National of ideology the of traits General clearer acquired had Party Democratic National the 1890s, early the By

Nw ok Ofr: O Oxford: York, (New many other editions (intended for particular groups of population), which were were which population), of groups particular for(intended editions other many 6 -

120. 120. - The majori The 347 środek Myśli Politycz Myśli środek When Nationalism Began to Hate: Imagining Imagining Hate: to Began Nationalism When .

Pop rs. One of its major ideologues was Zygmunt Balicki, who had been ZygmuntBalicki, hadwas been ideologues who ofitsmajor One rs. of an independent Polish Polish independent an of ł awski ty of scholars agree agree scholars of ty , ł awski edit awski The National Democratic Movement in the Kingdom of Poland of Kingdom the in Movement Democratic National The –

biografia polityczna (Wroc politycznabiografia 10 fr Uiest Pes 2000), Press, University xford

- According to the author, “the ethic of idea of ethic “the author, the to According nej 1918

, 2008) , ed the journal the ed

(Warszawa: Instytut Historii PAN,Wydawnictwo Neriton, Neriton, PAN,Wydawnictwo Historii Instytut (Warszawa: niepokorny

that the that

state. Unlike state. 124 - 171.

, ” which characterized future National National future characterized which ”

Przegl

initial program of the Polish League Polish the of program initial ł aw, Modern Politics in the Nineteenth Century Century Nineteenth the in Politics Modern 1994), ąd Wszechpolski ąd

the socialists, they assumed assumed they socialists, the 213

273 almnaim Wbr pism Wybor Parlamentarizm. - 215 - 308. ;

Magdalena Micińska, Micińska, Magdalena 9

n hs article, this In

ls aims, if not if aims, ls in Krakow as as Krakow in , 1886 , –

Roman Roman – -

1903 1903 the the -

CEU eTD Collection 14 13 12 11 philosophy and polemic its withrepresentatives socialist camp: of However, thepassage Balicki exactly next what indicated hadinmind: about. speaking was he group particular what specify not did he but group, social social happiness.” accomplishing and it, to good doing to, belong we group a of individuality the raising of precept the fore to comes there chance, by met we whom everybody to indiv common the is principle major more or less aprior the of condition the approachthey until individuals at

Ibid., 361 Ibid., 355. Ibid., 352. Ibid., Ibid., immediate accomplishment of perfection, than at the most possible possible most the at than perfection, of accomplishment immediate accord that corresponds to the highest social individuality, which is nation. It envelops all all envelops self is It conditions nation. normal is in which and life individuality, one’s social of highest aspects the to corresponds that accord international principles has a greater weight, than the commonality of traditions and national national and traditions of frie of commonality a commonality the interests; the which than for weight, greater party, a the has people; principles own international their of classes other with than rather nation. ofthe against the interests is directed latter life t its only not live override to and people his of existence the to had only it into whi and birth, by belongs person a which to society, oin f efcin eod f n sbetv etmto o the of estimation subjective any of devoid perfection of notion idual belongs idual 347 The further development of this idea clarifies the political orientation of this of orientation political the clarifies idea this of development further The ide of ethic the discussed Balicki Earlier ideals of ethic The

… . - Everything mentioned above about autonomous morality becomes only a only becomes morality autonomous about above mentioned Everything oil lse, hc wud el s feel would which classes, Social

Social ethic seeks to enable everyone to feel that he is a member of his people. One not One people. his of member a is he that feel to everyone enable to seeks ethic Social 362. 13 identify

dy ice wih salse rglr eain ad ie wt te ice o a of circles the with lives and relations regular establishes which circle, ndly .” he egoism of autonomous groups, groups, autonomous of egoism he

i himself with the national interest, but also to relate all his social existence to to existence social his all relate to also but interest, national withthe himself .” 12 11

“Instead of the of “Instead

Balicki opposed to opposed Balicki

good of a particular society, to which a particular particular a which to society, particular a of good

precept, olidarity with similar classes of the other people, people, other the of classes similar with olidarity …

14 125 tia dmns f ainl gim have egoism national of demands Ethical

ch an individual does not choose, but is born born but is not choose, does individual an ch base the ethic of ideas, or social ethics. “It ethics. social or ideas, of ethic the absolute absolute but also their altruism, [esp altruism, their also but

- as, based on belonging to a certain certain a to belonging on based as, ufcet Bsds nto] s h only the is [nation] Besides sufficient. d on sensitive altruism, sensitive on d perfection.

At convergence

social

the same time, time, same the ecially] if the the if ecially]

sound of the the of sound to do good do to

ut be must

of of s CEU eTD Collection (1903): (1903): 16 15 it such as and word, the of sense true the in people ( independence of deprived is it though even peoples; which interests, common its has unity, a its of feeling has division, political its despite people, Polish “the that argued which aim this n ( independent an existence political of forms highest the “in for future necessary better be a would acquiring that people Polish the in qualities such of development empi Russian the within party the of aim the that declared program the the of program the in expressed was position hostile. as perceived was whole as nation Russian the because parties, Russian pa and nations other of parties the with cooperating from Democrats altogethergoesagainst theinterests ofaclasses ofall “hostile” the nation. clas different of solidarity of principle the by abide to had one Instead, morality. social of norms the against be to declared is borders national above solidarity class Therefore, nation. the of interests the to subordinated be should of forms other any that follows this From Balicki. for importance ational independence.

“Program stronnictwa Demokratyczno stronnictwa “Program 363. Ibid., egoism of their al oftheir egoism intention their of irrespective morality, social of view of point the from people, own its of connections internal the breaking society, hostile 724 National the prevented egoism national of principle the that noteworthy, is It nation a that idea The

There followed a paragraph about general principles of accomplishment of of accomplishment of principles general about paragraph a followed There .

truism above the altruism that obliges them for the sake of thefor sake them thatobliges the altruism truismabove .” 16

Despite a certain vagueness of the phrase, phrase, the of vagueness certain a Despite

is - Narodowego w zaborze rosyjskim” zaborze w Narodowego

h high the

126 s fr o sca lf ws of was life social of form est party in 1903. The introductory The 1903. in party

needs a collective a needs differ from the from differ niezale ses inside one nation, which nation, one inside ses -

all deserve strict criticism criticism strict deserve all żności), s, because they put the the put they because s, Przegl

national egoism. national

t clearly it

social association association social interests of other of interests ą

d Wszechpolski d existence as an an as existence it is it rticularly the the rticularly samoistnego

re was the the was re a

political political implied implied

Such a Such part of of part 15 major major

10 ) CEU eTD Collection 19 18 17 Austria and Germany as such states, constitutional the In partitions. the of each in conditions of aim the achieve towards way the on stage independence thetext. isabsent in mediate a as autonomy of understanding alternative consid into take to nation the urges it because development, national the hampers that something as regarded was autonomy formula this In independence. to alternative serious a Poland divided that empires following way: an creationof aim political beshould overcome. or sooner which circumstance, accidental an be to supposed was independence of absence The nation. political a was people Polish the that fact the from inferred independent

Ibid. Ibid., Ibid. strivings. peop its aimof major the independence] such [of accomplishment the make The should but independence, impossible. life national also… but action…, political of freedom the binds only not political and cultural theeff diminishes independent an with to Belonging it from provide it prevent and unconditionally may that denationalization existence political of form only the is state national

727 - At the same time, the program suggested, that particular choice of the means to to means ofthe choice thatparticular program suggested, the time, At thesame the of authors the Thus, p the of goals the to devoted paragraph special A

Hungary, the political struggle could be pursued with legal methods, while in while methods, legal with pursued be could struggle political the Hungary, . For a people, which people, a For

( … samoistne

independent independent a

oeg state foreign is the accomplishment of independence independence of accomplishment the is ectiveness of its cultural work cultural ofits ectiveness

the party depended on opportunities provided by specific specific by provided opportunities on depended party the ) state.”

(

has a living feeling of unity and distinctiveness of its interests, the the interests, its of distinctiveness and unity of feeling living a has samoistnego iie te oiia fre o te epe lwr te au and value the lowers people, the of forces political the divides program did not consider autonomy within any of the of any within autonomy consider not did program

e o ol cno rpdae it repudiate cannot only not le hs te ead o indepen for demand the Thus,

eration the conditions of a foreign state. An An state. foreign a of conditions the eration )

Polish state.” Polish . E

127 ven if it relies on the principle of autonomy, autonomy, of principle the on it relies if ven

makes the whole development of the of development whole the makes 18

arty declared that “the major major “the that declared arty This idea was clarified in thein clarified wasidea This ( niepodleg s pursuit for political political for pursuit s et ttho was statehood dent łości development )

and the the and later it .

CEU eTD Collection 20 Wszechpolski Pop Jan leaders party’s the of one of article The Democrats. National the of position the of evolution the on focus will I of Congress the of Septem in Paris detailsgroups in opposition The camps. liberal and revolutionary Russian the of question. we advantageRussia’s takeof to that idea, the to DemocratsNational the drovecountry the inside complete independence. an as autonomy of immediate idea the adopt and an aim political as independence complete of the slogan make the could drop framework Democrats legal National a within struggle political the of possibilities O goal. final the no achieve to offer means and followers, for radical struggle more the the alienate in only sense would no This independence. had autonomy of pursuit illegally, act only could they way the nation, self of opportunity the states constitutional the in that admitted thereby Democrats National t conditions Russian the

Ibid.,

- 737 government could facilitate the accomplishment of the final aims of the Polish the of aims final the of accomplishment the facilitate could government Russia’s military defeats in the war with Japan and mounting political tensions political mounting and Japan with war the in defeats military Russia’s

” .

This tactics required coordination of their actions with the representatives representatives the with actions their of coordination required tactics This

for the 1904 offers a good offersa st 1904 for the saw them. By contrast, in Russia, where the National Democrats National the where Russia, in contrast, By them. saw he party had to create an “illegal secret organization.” secret “illegal an create to had party he

akness and demand certain concessions in the “Polishthe in certainconcessions demand and akness l Rsi’ tasomto it a tt wt the with state a into transformation Russia’s nly ber 1904 were described in described were 1904 ber

ł wk i te eebr su of issue December the in awski arting point. arting point.

128

intermediate stage on the way to to way the on stage intermediate

the the moment the first

chapter. Here Here chapter.

Przegląd Przegląd was ripe was 20

The CEU eTD Collection 24 23 22 21 century eighteenth the during Poland and Sweden with wars the of course the in Only establish trad legal not and cultural could distinctive their lands have would those that regions of autonomous inhabitants the civilization, of stage lower their of Because lands. populated thinly vast of colonization of result a as emerged traditions, and rights special language. and respect culture of those especially as well as compromises, mutual find and negotiate to ability an required which ties, stronger by together drawn were on later dynas common by United traditions. religious compos were states European the view, his In statehood. Russian the of development of conditions progressive isconsidered it circles,where reaction. tobeequivalent to liberal in especially thinking, of way Russian the beyond is relationships political on based clichés European Western doctrines.rationalistic simplified the with operated views, its of originality movements, t about Speaking Russia. in developments the of meaning the readers Polish the to explaining at aimed author, its to according article, The references. indirect only received and there discussed Decentralization.”

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. Ibid., Pop Jan

899 898 Pop Pop of title The Jan of Popławski:Indefinite theStatus of Visions Poland

ł awski, “Kryzysawski, . .

ł wk epan te euirt o Russian of peculiarity the explains awski

Pop d f eea prs which parts, several of ed ł awski argued that Russian intelligentsia, even when it claimed the the claimed it when even intelligentsia, Russian that argued awski 21

h rltosis ewe Pln ad usa s uh ee not were such as Russia and Poland between relationships The państwowy wdecentraliyacya a Rosyi państwowy ł awski’s article was “The Crisis of the State in Russia and and Russia in State the of Crisis “The was article awski’s he evolution of Russian revolutionary and constitutional constitutional and revolutionary Russian of evolution he

“ A

n organic and historically natural view on socio on historicallyview natural organicand n 24

The Russian state, according state, Russian The aid n ail clua, ttho, and statehood, cultural, racial, in varied 129

y n cmo int common and ty

” Przegl

thinking by the historical historical the by thinking ą d Wszechpolski

rss these erests, ” 23

to Pop to

(1904) ł awski, itions. itions.

parts parts .

- - CEU eTD Collection 28 27 26 of view the In25 institutions. legislative their with districts autonomous 12 or 10 former Dragomanov, Mikhail Russia project, this of to According University. Kiev of professor project the revisited they particular, In itself. society to i.e. government, localof institutions the to authority state of delegatepart to bureaucracy. enlightened of circles the in fashionable missing. States United Pop For ineffective. be to proved had centralization complete of system the that realize intelligentsia. Russian the of thinking political the author, Helsingfors Orenburg, and Warsaw as regions such in bureaucracyRussian model. the tofollow German began methods, whichtraditionally Russia governing used for territories. its Pop which territories, gain Russia did

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. distinctiveness of their national and social relations. social and national oftheir distinctiveness and gradually administrat least at been or legal, and had political certain unification a enjoyed and recently which territories, centralization conquered to of applied unconditionally system a officials, the of interests ł ł wk, hs cvlzd odrad cud o b amnsee b centralis by administered be not could borderlands civilized those awski, wk, h sse o dcnrlzto i Rsi cud olw h mdl f the of model the follow could Russia in decentralization of system the awski,

903 901 900 codn t Pop to According Pop post the because complicated, was development further However,

28 . . -

For the sake of the interests of the state and the dom the and state the of interests the of sake the For

904 ł awski sought to prove that similar institutions could not function correctly correctly function not could institutions similar that prove to sought awski oe were Poles , where , .

cultural and natural b natural and cultural

wr o ti, u sc ves ol nt eert it the into penetrate not could views such but this, of aware ive, autonomy, which owed to their higher culture and outstanding outstanding and culture higher their to owed which autonomy, ive, ł awski, the slogan of decentralization recently became became recently decentralization of slogan the awski,

possessed their possessed

orders between the territories territories the between orders

130 27

ny eety i Rsin begin Russians did recently Only

own culture and individuality. and culture own inant nationality, but more in the the in more but nationality, inant The liberal The

and Tiflis. According to the the to According Tiflis. and

had to be divided into into divided be to had

bureaucrats tended tended bureaucrats 26

were likewi were - Petrine Petrine 25

For

se to to t CEU eTD Collection 32 31 30 29 Russia. for suitable was arrangement asymmetric of sort what specify not did he time, same the at but, federation, symmetric a of idea Dragomanov’s rejected He federalization. ot as status same the have not could Lithuania) (and Poland that asserted only He Russia. constitutional in into the Russian transformation Russia’s of consequences and decentralization without state the constitutional about them warn to order Pop Finally, be would but forces, social awaken could latter The centralism.” “constitutional of dangers provinces. Russian Little the to referred thought, he same, not would and Russia for desirable Pop provinces onlygradualresult development. and as ofvoluntary a historical Pop whereas above, from established provinces.” Sea Black the or region Volga the as autonomy of degree same the enjoy to had Lithuania particular of distinctiveness cultural Pop

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. Ibid., ł awski, “the weak point of this project… consisted in neglecting the historical and historical the neglecting in consisted project… this of point weak “the awski,

909 908 905 Thus,

Comparing specific peculiarities of the mentioned Volga and Black Sea Sea Black and Volga mentioned the of peculiarities specific Comparing

. . . unable to coordinate and org and coordinate to unable

- Polish relations. Polish ł wk idctd ht h atce a itne fr h Pls raes in readers Polish the for intended was article the that indicated awski one can see that Pop that see can one ł awski concluded that certain degree of decentralization would be be would decentralization of degree certain that concluded awski 29

eie, rgmnvs rjc peupsd federation, a presupposed project Dragomanov’s Besides, e rgos n usa i te atr were latter the if Russia, in regions her 32

ł awski left aside the question of the status of Poland Poland of status the of question the aside left awski threaten the unity of the state and the people. The The people. the and state the of unity the threaten

ł regions awski considered that federation could eme could federation that considered awski anize them, and thus could result in anarchy. in result could thus and them, anize

131 A a eut th result, a As .

the impact of such transformation on on transformation such of impact the Pop e Polish Kingdom and and Kingdom Polish e 30 o follow to ł awski warned awski

the path of of path the

of the the of rge rge 31

CEU eTD Collection 35 34 reproduced partially which resolution, 33 a issued meeting the Finally, assembly. oper Warsaw protestations the on thefirst day oftheBalicki meeting (by himself). meeting. this of aims According to real the of achievement the impeded only and destructive ortoone associates.him ofhisclose o one wasand meeting in Progressive articleexpressed published intheanonymous of Democracy,” “TheDebut first the in details

RGASPI. Ibid., post “Debiut to blush with shame. withblush to ent the and turned Zabrany This assembly act formula… with constituent together their and, path preliminary wrong about absolutely like bargaining something heated in in engaged participating were they believed ballot.” constitution, the own by its Warsaw on in based issued organization, political and legislative autonomous an becomes state navy, and army of unity i all and affairs foreign of commonality the state, reld Wszechpolski Przegląd

293 The formula in question b question in formula The was Democrats Progressive the of activity the that argued author The Russian the of course The w proceedings, the to according meeting, the at discussion The 35

. ) offered to the Russians such an image of Polish society ofPolish image an such the Russians to offered ) f. 279. op. 1. item.39. p 1. item.39. op. f.279. Recognizing the unity of central state authority, namely the form of organization of the of organization of form the namely authority, state central of unity the Recognizing …

the Progressive Democrats, who had the formula, but lacked real political thinking, thinking, political real lacked but formula, the had who Democrats, Progressive the ę

powej demokracyi” powej ated the author, the author, of Russian participants, who insisted that the legislative assembly in in assembly legislative the that insisted who participants, Russian of

chapter. chapter. ihn h faeok salse b te empire the by established framework the within 34

f the editors the f

The Deal with DealThe with oih osiun asml, lce b uiesl eul ad secret and equal, universal, by elected assembly, constituent Polish The reaction of the National Democrats to this meeting was meeting this to Democrats National the of reaction The n a 1905. May in - wide budget and loan and budget wide . . 4 Przegl .

elonged to Wacław Sieroszewski, and was suggested suggested was and Sieroszewski, Wacław to elonged

- of the journal, the of ą oih etn i Arl 95 was 1905 April in meeting Polish

d Wszechpolski d

t ions of the radicals from Conquered from radicals the of ions he 33

nternational, political and trade agreements, the the agreements, trade and political nternational,

ic Blci ok n cie at n the in part active an took Balicki Since Wrong Partner 132

–

we demand that the Kingdom of Poland Poland of Kingdom the that demand we 5 one can attribute the article either to to either article the attribute canone

(1905) It offered: . , that ,

other Polish delegates had had delegates Polish other

r dsuso on discussion ire - ie constituent wide

considered in in considered as reduced to to reduced as Lands ( Lands Kraj Kraj CEU eTD Collection 39 38 37 36 Kingdom beRussian convened had ofPoland afterthe to earlier published innewspaper National the of program the presented he meeting the of session the second the proceedings,during to According discussion. the of course the with unsatisfied apparently was he and Urkaine Lithuania in Poles the of rights cultural of equality the regarding supplement the resolution, the to addition In Mich). (Mr. voice one against of the meaningautonomy of anall until the of definition detailed a “postpone to decided was it end, the In Parliament.” “state of and unity” principle the affirmed resolution the time same the At confession.” and nationality of irrespective ballot, secret and direct, equal, universal, by elected diet, arrangeme “autonomous S

ieroszewski’s formula. I formula. ieroszewski’s Ibid. f RGASPI. “ gazete v vopros Pol’skii Ibid of such a reform should be entrusted to people, who are aware of local conditions, have the the have conditions, local of aware are who people, ofthe credit to entrusted be should reform a such of national legisla include] would [and tradition, . . p.

Although it follows from the proceedings that Balicki voted for this resolution resolution this for voted Balicki that proceedings the from follows it Although majority a by adopted was resolution this proceedings, the to According the of assembly constituent the that declared Balicki speech his of end the At

- 19.

Rus. Rus. Democrats regarding the autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland, which was was which Poland, of Kingdom the of autonomy the regarding Democrats

education [supported by] a separate budget for the Kingdom of Poland. The elaboration elaboration The Poland. of Kingdom the for budget separate a by] [supported education an inner arrangement [that would] conform to particular local conditions and historical historical and conditions local particular to conform would] [that arrangement inner an

. 2 insisted on th on insisted

79. op. 1. itemop. 79. Polish society and are empowered by election to implement this task. implement this to empoweredelection by are and society Polish

Rus’” nt of the Kingdom of Poland,” which would have a “distinct a have would which Poland,” of Kingdom the of nt e “representation [of [of “representation e 39. n this resolution this n

p. (St.Petersburg: Izdanie gazety “Rus’”, 1905) v. 1. VII v. 1. p. “Rus’”,1905) gazety Izdanie (St.Petersburg:

13 Rus

’ in amnsrtv sse, cour system, administrative tion, . 37

The program demandedThe program - round examination examination round

the deputies recognized the necessity of an an of necessity the recognized deputies the

133 t

he Kingdom of Poland] in the Russian Russian the in Poland] of Kingdom he

- wide constituent assembly. of question.” this :

s n jdctr, and judicature, and ts participants passed participants 38

limits

39 a

CEU eTD Collection 42 41 somewhat own, 40 their adopt to demand indecent their with intervened Democrats point, this at And subject. this on discussion the began and resolution author, contradictSieroszewski’sformula. didnot p party, the of program the Wszechpolski and claims no making autonomy of subject the to questions secondary from discussion the of rest the “turn to asked they time, same the At them. on position official an out work to suggested o discussion the postpone to Democrats Progressive adoption preferable to Balicki’sfound reasonMiliukov Forthis institutions. autonomous R the of competence the recognized it that was formula Sieroszewski’s from program this of difference main The Poland. of Kingdom the of distinctiveness political of form certain presupposed clearly it but

Ibid. Ibid. demokracyi… postępowej “Debiut p Ibid. participants that they would leave the meeting if it does not accept their program. their not accept if meeting it does the would leave they that participants on insisted autonomy, on declaration general the from digress to first the were Democrats… Progressive meeting The nothing. with end the to have would and passed there be could result, resolution no a that was Russians As the among meeting. opinion dominant the of t purpose clarify would that the arguments the for space nor and time no remained Poland, in affairs of state contemporary

. 16. . In response, the representatives of the National Democrats asked the the asked Democrats National the of representatives the response, In how is This Nat the of program The mo this “From

of Half of the meeting was spent in unpleasant discussion on what was neither the the neither was what on discussion unpleasant in spent was meeting the of Half

the resolution:

the formula offormula Sieroszewski the , the representative of the National Democrats read the declaration and and declaration the read Democrats National the of representative the , reld Wszechpolski Przegląd ment on, the meeting recognized the possibility of passing a a passing of possibility the recognized meeting the on, ment

resolutions.”

ublished in the newspaper newspaper the in ublished ,” ional Democrats did not mention the word autonomy, autonomy, word the mention not did Democrats ional

294 .

ussian

. n h sm vi, acc vein, same the In purely partisan postulates and declared to all the the all to declared and postulates partisan purely 40 -

wide constituent assembly over the Polish Polish the over assembly constituent wide

134

portrayed the events preceding the the preceding events the portrayed

Rus te iiie ujcs and subjects, divisive the f ’ .

he demands for autonomy. A autonomy. for demands he The latter, according to the the to according latter, The rig to ording program to be more be to program 41 the

Progressive Przegląd , CEU eTD Collection 46 45 44 the of opinion the 43 in not, was autonomy Polish of idea the accept to ready were Russians the that fact The movement. liberal Russian the of representatives the with tha of thePoles.” maturity political the about impression unflattering an quite created which accept, not among strengthen to everything did Progressists our However, movement. constitutionalist and Russian the effectively more contribute to possible successful been have would it assembly… constituent Polish the of supremacy the about discussions “futile the for not were it if v proceedings the in reflected not was (which resolution resultant the for vote to refused Democrats National the of representatives t consonant be would that formula the but general, in everyone suit would that formula Democrats] all to contrary insist, to tried latter… the However, autonomy. political of ground the on standing as Democrats, Progressive of opinion resolu the of version modified o the interests of their own party. “Having taken a firm position on this question, the question, this on position firm a taken “Having party. own their of interests the o oted instead… solely for the sake of their own position.” own their of sake the for solely instead… oted

Ibid. Ibid., Ibid. Ibid., t the National Democrats did not consider themselves bound by any agreements agreements any by bound themselves consider not did Democrats National the t

296 295 This reaction to the resolution of themeeting resolution This reaction tothe the pass to just not strove Democrats Progressive the that argued author The

. . ly to w to ly

did not implydid not political autonomy.” the 46

Nationa orking out common position with position common out orking

the Russians the reaction against what they did not want and could could and want not did they what against reaction the Russians the Dmcas pbihd in published Democrats, l tion.”

“Amidst chaotic disputes Miliukov opposed the opposed Miliukov disputes chaotic “Amidst

evidence, tha evidence,

135 44

–

.h) Te rgesv Democrats Progressive The T.Kh.).

the outstanding representatives of of representatives outstanding the –

practically a disavowal practically Rus’ t the t 45 ,

position position According to the author, the to According to the position of the the of position the to [of the National National the [of –

meant meant CEU eTD Collection (1905) 48 47 the reform to Russia, in develop or improve to nothing is “[there] that conclusion Russia the between opposition Wszechpolski th of position the understand to order in However, might discussions. further autonomy for ground of common a ideabecome the that partners Russian their with agreed Democrats, Wsz partner Russianapartner, liberals, for who couldagreement. easily break the demonstrated This unpublished. meeting the of proceedings the keep to agreement the broke also who Democrats, Progressive the of intrigues the of result the view, their in was, meeting the at passed resolution agreeme any strike to plan not did they matter. this on opinion Russian the learn to and question” Democrats National re certain as reached Russians, the had with agreement who Democrats, Progressive the viewed and people Polish the of ambassadors be to themselves imagined They extent. its reduce or autonomy Democ National

tB “ St.B. Ibid., echpolski, .

292 Despite the generally negative tone of description of the meeting in meeting the of description of tone negative generally the Despite the on focused was St.B. initials the by signed article, the of author The ąei d atnmi Królestwa autonomii do Dąźenie .

, which appeared the soonafter , which meeting inMay

AutonomyProgram the in of h rpeettvs f h Pls dlgto, nldn te National the including delegation, Polish the of representatives the as te esn o bno ter w atmt t acmls the accomplish to attempts own their abandon to reason the rats, e Polish side, it is important to consider another article in article another consider to important is it side, Polish e only sought to inform the Russians of their vision of the “Polish “Polish the of vision their of Russians the inform to sought only n

and the Polish political traditions and came to the the to came and traditions political Polish the and ,

rsnig o n, xet hi on party. own their except one, no presenting

g źól i osay ogólne podstawy i źródla ego

nt with the Russians, at least officially. The The officially. least at Russians, the with nt that the National Democrats were an uneasy uneasy an were Democrats National the that

136

the

National Democrats 47

. According to the author, the to According 48 ”

Przegl ą Wszechpolski d

Przegląd Przegląd The The

CEU eTD Collection 51 50 49 needs, because but – prisoner the If altogether. cage without do to better much be would it but one, narrow prefera more be would size bigger a of cage the Naturally, organism. the the cage the of size the bigger The represented nation Polish nation. Polish the the of character with incompatible was statehood this of essence the since statehood, Russian the from separation of degree possible greatest the to tendency a as way, negative has becomea nation tre towards striving the Russia… in statehood of crisis the of beginning the “…with further: And Europe.” in nations civilized among position our threatens but people, our for disastrous only not is rule far freedoms ofindividual” in formed been had which society, a over unthinkable,… is individual of rights the to respect the which for and bureaucracy, been had which people a of domination entirely.” it destroy to necessary is it order; social

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. Ibid., nation the Polish nds of Polish political thought. political Polish of nds

286 278

The author further argufurther author The t s la fo te uhrs esnn ta he that reasoning author’s the from clear is It . .

of the historicalof circumstances the – -

wide program.” wide agrees with the cage of a bigger size, it is not to satisfy its natural natural tosatisfyits isnot it size, a bigger cage of the with agrees 50

a living organism put into the cage of a foreign statehood. statehood. foreign a of cage the into put organism living a the autonomy of the Kingdom emerges among various various among emerges Kingdom the of autonomy the ed that, “ that, ed From the reasoning of the author it followed followed it author the of reasoning the From

It is possible to say, that the program of autonomy autonomy of program the that say, to possible is It

wider possibilities it provided it possibilities wider 51

continued subjection continued

omd n h taiin o aslts and absolutism of traditions the in formed

137

ecig traditions reaching 49

h ato dcid “ the “… decried: author The understood

of Poland to the Russian the to Poland of

for a normal life of life normal a for

autonomy in a a in autonomy of rights and and rights of ble, than a a than ble, that the that CEU eTD Collection 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 advocated total separationof judicialpowers. the and administrative Furthermore officials. Russian the and diet Polish the of decision mutual a by defined amount the in expenditure, statewide cover to payment certain a treasury taxation. of system rely would which budget, separate its needed Poland of Kingdom the Warsaw.” in diet the should legislation this of author and society, entire the certa for except character.” economic legislation, own its have not did it because Galicia, impossible. being time autonomy. him, According to constitut the Poles.” the of hands be to had it him, For

Ibid., Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid Ibid., Ibid. secure us the greatestpolitic the us secure would that organization an such pursue must we now Consequently, view. of point civilizational influenced autonomous people the degree the to proportionate was people our of progress ministries. Russian administr the from independent various completely be of and diet the officials to responsible The be should departments institutions. administrative of language the be should ., ., 289.

290 288 The author believed that the restoration of the constitution of 1815 was for the the for was 1815 of constitution the of restoration the that believed author The nex the In

. - All government should be formed from the representatives of the region, and Polish Polish and region, the of representatives the from formed be should government All …

289 58 history knows that during the Russian domination over Poland the civilizational civilizational the Poland over domination Russian the during that knows history ion of 1815 as a historical model, which was a precedent of a desired desired a of precedent a was which model, historical a as 1815 of ion

. separation of the region was always preferable, not only from national, but also also but national, from only not preferable, always was region the of separation

t part of the article the author de author the article the of part t 57 52

55 autonomy At the same time, the Kingdom would contribute to the Russian the to contribute would Kingdom the time, same the At

The author referred author The

In his view, legislation had to be “the expression of the will of will the of expression “the be to had legislation view, his In 54

t h sm tm, e eetd h mdl f h Austrian the of model the rejected he time, same the At al separation [from th separation al

, based on placing legislation and administration in the in administration and legislation placing on based ,

to the status of Poland in accordance with accordance in Poland of status the to e 138 Russian government]. Russian

scribed

desired extent of autonomy. of extent desired 53

the government; government; on a distinct distinct a on in “laws of of “laws in , the author the , 56

Besides, ative ative CEU eTD Collection 60 59 with dispute a In Russia. and Finland between relationship the about wrote Jellinek a of model the to analogy closest the as Croatia and Stefan St. of Crown the between relationship the than rather union interstate an for claim advancinga constitutional monarch ofFinland. a as emperor Russian the of understanding Finnish the to comparable thereby was governor legi local of competence the within be to had issues other All customs. and defense, affairs, foreign of questions the to reduced was questions statewide of sphere The empire. Russian the with relationship their rathera pre regarded as independence, civilization.” of progress general in participation its and nation the of life normal enable would that conditions, the rather but ideal, national Polish the expressing postulates the formulate take ofpurely part questions. intheRussian discussion not would delegation Polish the time, same the At parliament. Russian the of session Such dec mutual demanding as recognized “indisputably those except questions,

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.

usin had questions 291 autonomy ofproject This article The all include to had diet the of competence the author, the to According

rm h poin the From - general .

60 autonomy was not the final goal of the Polish representatives. It was was It representatives. Polish the of goal final the not was autonomy tnm desir utonomy

This

had to depend on the will of the Polish people. Proposed autonomy Proposed people. Polish the of will the on depend to had concluded

to be solved by sending a delegation of the Polish diet to the the to diet Polish the of delegation a sending by solved be to ttmn mks la ta, nie h ide the unlike that, clear makes statement - o view of t condition for ofnation. further thePolish condition development

ih h floig ttmn: I i nt n tep to attempt an not is “It statement: following the with d y h Pls Te uhrs formula author’s The Poles. the by ed

looks simi looks

f Kokoshkin’s of

lar to the formula that the Finns pursued in pursued Finns the that formulathe to lar slative institutions. Even the authority of of authority the Even institutions. slative 139

autonomy

classification, the Poles were were Poles the classification, 59

. The author considered considered author The o complete of a

recall

s, what what s, ision.” ision.” CEU eTD Collection 64 63 62 (1905). 7 61 military the and political the both considering me by liberation that evident was it author, the to According PPS). meant he (obviously, uprising armed of means by independence sought who parties, revolutionary of ideas the to Democrats “ the unlike partition.” Russian the in Party Democratic National the of strategy political mercy.” on but program law, on their not “relied author, the to According authorities. Russian with vivendi modus ideal. initial party’s the was independence national that argued author the party, Democrats juridical Aleksander Poland of and Russia between estimation relationship the put to positive attempts Wielopolski’s a gave which introduction, historical long a Po Po of Kingdom the between relationship fragment Hungary. within w Finland that argued Jellinek union, personal a as Finlandand Russia between connection the regarded who Mechelin, Leo

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Pop Jan pł awski, published in published awski, 62

380 379 378

One can find a more detailed argumentation of the adopted vision of the the of vision adopted the of argumentation detailed more a find can One

He further wrote about the movement of “ of movement the about wrote further He

ł awski, “Stosunek prawno “Stosunek awski, rud I a eiw f mrec ad al dvlpet f h National the of development early and emergence of review a In ground. . . .

ugodowcy Juridical ofthe Autonomy Grounding Kingdom ofthe Polish ans of armed uprising had been and still remained impossible, impossible, remained still and been had uprising armed of ans ,” the author opposed the political program of the National National the of program political the opposed author the ,” Przegląd Wszechpolski Przegląd

- polityczny Krolestwa Polskiego do Rosyi” Rosyi” do Polskiego Krolestwa polityczny

o “h tm hs oe o omlt a real a formulate to come has time “the Now s a as

ad n Rsi in Russia and land 140 Staatsfragment

in July 1905. July in

odtos particularly conditions, ugodowcy , just as Croatia was a a was Croatia as just , 61 ,” who wanted to find a find to wanted who ,”

The article began with began article The

Przegl h atce o article the ą

d Wszechpolski d the state of of state the on a on

64 f Jan Jan f

firm Not -

CEU eTD Collection 66 65 Conquered the of moderating demands. Polish con even not does author The people. Polish the to concessions make to anarchy,” by “weakened government, the force would That Democrats. National the of program the around F beyond. and circles Pop opposition Russian the of part the on autonomy Polish of idea the to sympathy the mentioned only He it. with collaborating of possibilities Popławski the of view his on relied position role.” historical its as well as significance, social i element Kingdom the of particularity political following reasoning ofPo of mercy the on depending Therefore, armament.

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., Po [particularly] if our society is capable of decisive and solidary politics r politics solidary ofand decisive capable societyis if our [particularly] strong, too be not would autonomy] [to government Russian the of opposition the state, Russian implementa its of extant the concern disputes the Poland; of Kingdom the for autonomy certain of necessity ł wk, n re t acmls te i, h Pls pol wud ae o unite to have would people Polish the aim, the accomplish to order in awski, land and the question of the Conquered the of question the and land

381. Pop Po Accordingto Kingdom the of question the between difference the addressed also author The n the Conquered the n …

argued that ł awski left aside the position of the Russian liberal movement and and movement liberal Russian the of position the aside left awski h Rsin ulc pno, n nt ny ice o opsto, eonzd the recognized opposition, of circles only not and opinion, public Russian the tion rather than the principle. At the same time, given the growth of anarchy in the the in anarchy of growth the given time, same the At principle. the than rather tion ie te da f ann spot f h Rsin ulc pno by opinion public Russian the of support gaining of idea the sider

Lands with the Kingdom of Poland would provoke a harsh reaction of of reaction harsh a provoke would Poland of Kingdom the with Lands

the the pł awski, t awski, pł

National Democrats decided to find the third way between between way third the find to decided Democrats National Lands that Lands government and the armed struggle for independence. for struggle armed the and government awski

he aim of aim he explored the

urn sae f far i te Ru the in affairs of state current

would correspond to its numerical, cultural and cultural numerical, its to correspond would of Poland and Poland

the movement would have to be to have would movement the 141

Lands. In his In Lands.

third wayacievethird means and to the it.

Regarding the means, the Regarding

the national rights of the Polish the of rights national the vi ew, the claim of uniting of claim the ew, egarding this question. this egarding ssian empire. empire. ssian Popławski Popławski “legal and and “legal 66

The The or or

CEU eTD Collection perpetuity. His Imperial Majesty reserves to himself to give to this State, enjoying a distinct distinct a enjoying State, this to give to himself to shall he which reserves improvement interior the Administration, Majesty Imperial His perpetuity. majest his by possessed be and constitution, Warsaw of duchy 69 68 67 real union, orthe unionoftwostates. a as Poland and Russia between relationship the defined congress the of acts status the on treaty this byandVienna theTreaty acquired of of thesanction international law. and legal the restoring suggested he Therefore, arrangements. legal certain on rely they if only appropriatein the currentfor the Poles politicalsituation. autonomy. of issue the in with the Kingdo provinces these of connection closer a accomplish to possible be would it stronger, becomes Lands the in element Polish the If state. Russian the within particularity national provided culture their provinces, these in minority Pop to According people. Russian the

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. Ibid., rud W ko fr ue ht a i ol a acin f oc. e w sol as recall also should we Yet force. su a of intolaw.’” force its transform ‘even sanction that a ago only long is said who law Rousseau that sure for legal a know on question We this put ground. only can we Therefore ours. of opposite is which interest, own its H interest. national our is state Russian

382 384. The The 384. The rest of the article provided an interpretation of the rather vague clauses of of clauses vague rather the of interpretation an provided article the of rest The Pop in Thus, force motion major a as opinion public solidary a on relied author the Finally,

lmns Teeoe te Conquered the Therefore, elements. . political relationship between Poland and Russia that had been established been had that Russia and Poland between relationship political …

the only criterion for us (the Poles Poles (the us for criterion only the article I of the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna has the following phrasing: “The “The phrasing: following the has Vienna of Congress the of Act Final the of I article … m. is united to the Russian empire, to which it shall be irrevocably attached by its its by attached irrevocably be shall it which to empire, Russian the to united is 67 ł

awski’s view, Poland as a weaker side can enforce its arguments arguments its enforce can side weaker a as Poland view, awski’s of Poland in the Russian partition. In the author’s view, the the view, author’s the In partition. Russian the in Poland of At the same time, he sought to define a claim that would be be would that claim a define to sought he time, same the At 68

owever, Russia does not respect not does Russia owever, y the Emperor of all the all of Emperor the y

ł awski, although the Polish Polish the although awski, perior force is not strong enough if it does not not does it if enough strong not is force perior –

T.Kh) in the question of our relationship to the to relationship our of question the in T.Kh) 142

ad sol hv lgl n political and legal have should Lands judge proper. He shall assume with his other other his with assume shall He proper. judge

to it a natural advantage over other other over advantage natural a it to Russia According toPop

, his heirs and successors in in successors and heirs his , this interest, since it has it since interest, this

epe we people ł awski, re

a CEU eTD Collection 72 71 70 1814 Papers. State In: Vienna” of Congress the of Act Final the of Treaty General “The possessions.” Ki Czar, of that titles w as people Russian the and state the of interest the by demands [Polish] “substantiate Pop e use to have we possible, of sphere the by will our restrict we If… it. for sanction and any require not did life independent for right suspendedof anda 1809thathad for longafterwards.” revised also been time, could Pop significance, historical obligations, Asto follow. thattheacts totheargument had whichhad onlya it of1815 from Pop for agreement. independence, the of Poland of depriving subject However, the not were Poles the because significance, juridical any have not did uprisings) two the as, (such treaty of conclusion the after Poles the rather law, international the of sanction the had relationship The contract… the break to right the has sides the of one where agreement, bilateral a nor back, taken be may which autonomy], [of verything that may facilitate the achievement of our goal.” our of achievement the facilitate may that verything

ell as commonality of their interests with [the interests of the Poles].” Poles].” the of interests [the with interests their of commonality as ell Ibid., Ibid., Jan ł awski dismissed as “insincere,” “ineffective and humiliating” any attempts to to attempts any humiliating” and “ineffective “insincere,” as dismissed awski

Pop

not be lost with time as was clear from the example the from clear was as time with lost be not the perspective of international law, since Russia had accepted certain certain accepted had Russia since law, international of perspective the 386 385 The reference to historical legal acts was another way of saying that the Polish Polish the that saying of way another was acts legal historical to reference The to According

ł awski, . .

“Stosunekprawno — 1815 ng of Poland, agreeably to the form established for the titles attached to his other other his to attached titles the for established form the to agreeably Poland, of ng Pop

(London: James Ridgway (London: James than of than ł awski ł awski wrote that they had a certain ideal value. This value This value. ideal certain a had they that wrote awski - polityczny…”:

the Russian state law.” state Russian the this

was neither “the relationship of a unilateral gr unilateral a of relationship “the neither was

384 and Sons, Piccadilly, Sons, Piccadilly, and 143 .

sanction: “ sanction:

70 ł

awski, was an unlawful act, act, unlawful an was awski,

Considered so, the action the so, Considered Our of the of 72

1839) v. 2., 1839) At the end of the article the of end the At will is both the ground the both is will

Finish “constitution Finish British and Foreign Foreign and British

11 .

There There

s of s ant ant

CEU eTD Collection 73 This tolerance. religious of beginnings the announced 1905 17, April of decree The well. as population Polish the of interests the national concerned changes These of movements. demands the to concessions partial make to had government Russian Poland of Kingdom the of autonomy the Russian the and take back it institutions inany time. autonomous to authority grant could which empire, Russian the for only statehood the recognized concept latter The autonomy. provincial of notion the beyond well separ a of recognition the presupposed autonomy by united states, two of idea the implied actually for autonomy, possible widest of slogan the Thus, precedent. Pop for consisted, adopt only to the strategy confrontation, sum zero this in Poles the of weakness relative the given other the wins, sides andthe of one If sides. both for beneficial Russia mutually of relationship a such for look to useless is it and autonomy ofPolish tothe idea public opinion sympathy theRussian of nation Polish the of those and Russia of interests the of hostility mayfrom Poles] which[the benefit.” the remained

Ibid.

Russian state system underwent certain changes in the ti the in changes certain underwent system state Russian th from proceeds author the that noticeable, is It

- oih meetin Polish possibility “ possibility A fter to i Arl ht adopted that April in g

substantiate [Polish] strivings by law, such as it is, and is, it as such law, by strivings [Polish] substantiate

the Manife

wk, is awski,

o rgtnd y h sae f protests of scale the by Frightened 144

of Octoberof 17

the reliance on the historical legal legal historical the on reliance the ate statehood for Poland and went went and Poland for statehood ate a rlmnr areet regarding agreements preliminary el no. ae nti sense, this in Taken union. real e assumption of fundamental of assumption e th

the

oad ht ol be would that Poland me that elapsed after elapsed that me National Democrats, Democrats, National loses .

Consequently, Consequently, . Therefore, . goe the ignores the ,

CEU eTD Collection 77 X zakonodatel’stvo 76 209 (eds.) Dolbilov Mikhail Miller, Alexei in policy Russian 75 1996), 1864 Frontier, Western the on Russification and 1970 Press, Tennessee 74 strugg a for field a activity, foreign for playground a be only would author The whole. solidary single a as act and state foreign a in embassy Polish a as behave to had Duma the in delegation Polish the conditions, these In situation. political the change seriously not would parliament the that and weak be would movement constitutional of issue October State forthcomingwould po Duma State the that proclaimed and unions) political and social meetings, conscience, press, of October of Manifest the Finally, su (non the for except national instruction, the with schools private opening allowed uprising. province Western nine the in property acquire to decent” “Polish of persons for restrictions abolished 1905 Polish fo was “Rosyjska izba ogólnopanstwowa a zadania polityki polskiej” polskiej” polityki zadania a ogólnopanstwowa izba “Rosyjska

Chmielewski, Chmielewski, Edward Chmielewski, Chmielewski, Edward aiet b svrhntoai gosudarstvenn usovershenstvovanii ob Manifest - 255. - ie ua n te ak o te oih oiis” ulse i te August the in published Politics,” Polish the of Tasks the and Duma wide 174 - kana pplto in population Ukrainian llowed by mass conversions from Orthodoxy to Catholicism among mixed mixed among Catholicism to Orthodoxy from conversions mass by llowed The

75 - 175

The statute of June 6, 1905, and the decree of October 1, of the same year same the of 1, October of decree the and 1905, 6, June of statute The National Democrats responded to these events in the article “Russian “Russian article the in events these to responded Democrats National .

The Polish Question in the Russian State Dum State Russian the in Question Polish The Western provinces see: provinces Western - XX vv. vv. XX ), 23; ), reld Wszechpolski Przegląd h Pls Qeto i te usa Sae Duma State Russian the in Question Polish The (Moscow: Iur s, which had been introduced soon after suppressing of January of suppressing after soon introduced been had which s,

Theodore Theodore jcs fteRsinlnug,hsoyad geography. and history language, Russian the of bjects

R. Siedlce 17 idicheskaia literature, 1994), literature, idicheskaia aane kan Rsiso imperii Rossiiskoi okrainy Zapadnye Weeks, Weeks, ssess legislative authority. th Weeks, Weeks,

declared

Nation Nation n Lbi provinces. Lublin and –

Nation and State in Late Imperial Russia Imperial Late in State and Nation g prak 1 o 17 poriadka ogo 1914 . 145 77

and State in Late Imperial Russia. Nationalism Nationalism Russia. Imperial Late in State and civic freedoms in Russia (the freedom (the Russia in freedoms civic

(De Kalb: Northern I Northern Kalb: (De h ato peitd ht Russian that predicted author The

argued , avoid fragmentation into factions into fragmentation avoid , Przegl a,

23. that for the Poles “ Poles the for that

ą A more detailed analysis o analysis detailed more A k d Wszechpolski d

ibi 10 g In: g. 1905 tiabria 76 -

Russian) languages of of languages Russian)

74 (Knoxwille: University of of University (Knoxwille:

(Moscow: NLO, 2006), 2006), NLO, (Moscow: llinois University Press, Press, University llinois h dce o May of decree The

e ih other with le 8 - 10 (1905) 10 the

Rossiiskoe Rossiiskoe ,

96 Duma Duma - n the the n 108; 108; .

- CEU eTD Collection publicystycznych z lat 1898 zlat publicystycznych 81 80 (1866 lojalizmem. habsburskim a patriotizmem Trzeciakowski, 1848 Lech 1980); 1772 Press, East, Chicago Prussian of the University in The London: Conflict Nationality The Jews. and Poles Germans, 79 78 emperor. the to suggestions his pass to about was and proposal Dmowski’s accept to ready was Witte Courtenay, de Baudouin to According rights.” to had government the provide return In Poland. in revolution the against struggle its in government the to assistance and support party’s his offered He Witte. with audience t of measures the against protests prime the with meet to refused delegates The Petersburg. 11. November Russia from to separate intention the of Poles the suspected government the result, a a by As gripped strike. was general Warsaw when moment the at began Petersburg St. to trip The Dmowski, perceive representatives as theRussian asingle T during delegation foreign a as behave to going were They that important ko Polish our about opinions

hey Jan Baudouin de Courtenay, “Autonomia Polski” In: Idem. Idem. In: Polski” “Autonomia Courtenay, de Baudouin Jan wziemcow “Zjazd about details more For Ibid.,

1871) – would advance their demands, relying on the opinion of their own country, and and country, own their of opinion the on relying demands, their advance would

576

Proceeding from this idea, the Polish delegation of 22 people, people, 22 of delegation Polish the idea, this from Proceeding

1928 uooy o h Kndm f Poland of Kingdom the to autonomy ło .

(Kraków: Instytut Historii UJ, UJ, Historii (Kraków: Instytut left for a meeting with Witte hoping to neg to hoping Witte with meeting a for left

in the Austrian and the German parliaments. German the and Austrian the in

Wrzw: yancw Sjoe 2003); Sejmowe, Wydawnictwo (Warszawa: 80 the

h dlgto land bu ti dcso on decision this about learned delegation The Moskwie wobec spraw Polskich” spraw Polskich” wobec Moskwie National Democrats refused to form a coalition with other parties. parties. other with coalition a form to refused Democrats National

rights.” the Polish k Polish the n itoue te ata lw n h Kndm f Poland of Kingdom the in law martial the introduced and - 1927

( 78 Kraków

This statement reflected reflected statement This oło oło

he government. Dmowski alone decided to seek an an seek to decided alone Dmowski government. he in Austrian and German parliaments see: parliaments German and Austrian in Polacy wobec przemian ustrojowych monarchii habsburskej habsburskej monarchii ustrojowych przemian wobec Polacy :

2003). Ośrodek Myśli Politycznej Myśli Ośrodek

146 Przegląd Wszechpolski Przegląd

hostile agent.hostile

and “grant the Polish language its its language Polish the “grant and Miejcie odwagę myślenia… Wybó myślenia… odwagę Miejcie

otiate an otiate Stanisław Pijaj, Pijaj, Stanisław h pltcl rcie f the of practice political the

79 the diplomatic negotiations diplomatic the , 2007), ,

- For the Russian case it is it case Russian the For iitr xrsig their expressing minister

Pos autonomy

oi Plc w B w Polscy łowie

81 175 11 (1905), 11 it’s

However, several However, . -

1914 1914 William W. Hagen, Hagen, W. William

h wy o St. to way the Między polskim polskim Między

(Chicago and and (Chicago for Poland. Poland. for 845 .

led erlinie, erlinie, r pism pism r

by by on .

CEU eTD Collection (1905): 86 85 84 83 82 understanding ofthisagreement: contents, its specifying without autonomy, Polish of claims the confirmed constitutionalists 1905. November of meeting the during reached supposedly was which zemstvo movement, Russian constitutionalist the of representatives the with agreement the of interpretation program. their of version new a published Democrats governmentrather recognize to thanthe their autonomy. th that guarantee a demanded and delegation, Polish the Poland. in government the activists th out find to surprised” “unpleasantly was he later days

“Stanowisko stronnictwa Demokratyczno stronnictwa “Stanowisko Rossiiv 1902 dvizhenie Liberal'noe proceedings ofthe analysis Adetailed wziemcow Moskwie “Zjazd SergeiWitte, statewide assembly. statewide in Poland of Kingdom the needs common for of expenses treasury the of participation through accomplished also is unity c the of follows (further Kingdom the sphere of diet the of the competence the within of person the fulfilled through and accomplished is state monarch the with Kingdom the of unity The treasury. separate and administration Polish independent Warsaw, in diet legislative a for provides which

767 fe te oih eeain eund rm t Petersburg, St. from returned delegation Polish the After

, who , 85 .

h Pltcl uooy f h Kndm f oad eis on relies Poland of Kingdom the of autonomy Political The

h porm of program the Vospominania Vospominania

took part in the me the in part took 84 86

lhuh h mtras f h meig ugs ta R that suggest meeting the of materials the Although

The Novemberof Program (Berlin: “ ...”: 82 and through participation of the representatives of the Kingdom in in Kingdom the of representatives the of participation through and

The Russian constitutionalists were likewise watchful of watchful likewise were constitutionalists Russian The

848 the - 190

eting of constitutionalists, condemned constitutionalists, of eting Slovo,” 1922) v. 2., 1922) Slovo,” of the meeting in in the first the in in meeting ofthe 5, ainl eort polie te following the proclaimed Democrats National -

Narodowego w chwili obecnej” obecnej” chwili w Narodowego 482 - 495

mo state ommon .

147

the

143 National DemocratsNational . list of these issues issues these of list

- wide issues, excepted from the the from excepted issues, wide 83 This program gave a specific specific a gave program This e Poles would ask the Duma, Duma, the ask would Poles e at Dmowski and other Polish Polish other and Dmowski at

chapter.

Przegl the constitutional act, act, constitutional the ą – d Wszechpolski Wszechpolski d

T.Kh.)… T.Kh.)… of politics the the National National The The ussian 11 - CEU eTD Collection 88 87 political Russian of influence the Poland. organizations in out rule and anarchy Russian of expansion autonomy that believed and anarchy, from suffer to continue to acceptand ornot supportit was ofsecondary importance. ready were Kadets the Whether position. principle certain a took Democrats National parties.Russian contrary, On the anthe with agreement demands toobtain inorder ratherPolish, than realization pursue to determined were deputies Polish o possibilities the whatever Consequently, autonomy. of idea the towards latter the the of despite sympathy Kadets, the with agreement an necessary consider not did Democrats Ru did party the that emphasized, programthe of authors The Poland. ofKingdom the of outside living deputi real

Ibid., Ibid. sa pltcl vlto takes.” evolution political ssian

union. At the same time, the program presupposed the participation of the Polish Polish the of participation the presupposed program the time, same the At union.

es in the statewide legislative assembly in order to defend the rights of the Poles Poles the of rights the defend to order in legislativeassembly statewide the in es

771 t h sm time, same the At restrict to Poles the for sense no was there framework, this Within that again once see can One

not “refuse from their striving their from “refuse not ainet ih h Rsin ieas ol appear would liberals Russian the with alignment f Russian opinion. Russian 88

h atos f h porm sue ta Rsi would Russia that assumed program the of authors the

the

In other words, the ideologues of of ideologues the words, other In National Democrats National

towards autonomy, whatever the way the the way the whatever autonomy, towards 148

of their demands, relying on on relying demands, their of

understood autonomy as a a as autonomy understood

would

n h Dm, the Duma, the in help prevent the prevent help the the National their CEU eTD Collection 89 nationa Ukrainian and Lithuanian the of demands the to concession special a was which boundaries, of correction of possibility the namely, Poland, of Kingdom the for restrictions additional set version new the April, in passed formula the to Compared la the of competence the of borders the define to had institutions state Central self of meaning juridical strictly the in autonomy of vision own their follows: as formulated was resolution The April. in made Poles the to promise their confirmed thereby and autonomy Polish the about resolution a passed meeting the of participants after immediately question. national Poland of Kingdom the the to autonomy providing of regarding necessity the justified Kokoshkin program Kadets’ the of general contours the ideological outlined he where report, his delivered Kokoshkin Fedor September Zemstvo the At Kadets. the with the agreements mutual follow to chose Union Democratic Progressive the movement, constitutional

Liberal'noe dvizhenie v Rossiiv 1902 dvizhenie Liberal'noe ih o ntoaiis o clua self Poland. cultural for nationalities of neighboring empire right the and time, same Poland the At of population. local Kingdom the the between c borders national the with accordance in agreement… mutual by the provinces of the correction with empire the of of unity state possibility the of preservation of condition on ballot, secret and equal, uni of basis the on elected diet, with the unit autonomous immediately distinct a out into Poland single of Kingdom to necessary is it rights, constitutional with representation popular One can see that the liberalsthe that see canOne Russian the from aloof stayed initially Party Democratic National the If

The rights of minorities should be be should minorities rights of The h meeting… The

the establishment of the constitutional order. In the end, the the end, the In order. constitutional the of establishment the

eonzs ht olwn te salsig n all an establishing the following that recognizes The - 190

Progressive Union Democratic 5,

- rejected the formula of Sieroszewski and followed followed and Sieroszewski of formularejectedthe eemnto sol b etne t te igo of Kingdom the to extended be should determination

396 protected.

149 89 -

ie urnes f ii fedm n the and freedom civic of guarantees wide

- osiuinls meeting Constitutionalist omposition and the desire of desire the and omposition

- imperial democratic democratic imperial - government. government. versal, versal, tter. tter. in in l CEU eTD Collection 92 91 90 the for submitted be to monarch’s had diet, the by adopted laws, The budget. the approve labor program.minimal the on based lawslabor ofcode the and liberties various to devotedwas document this of section separate a time, same the At latter. the of functions the specifying without take and governor of position the mentioned project The matters. local the all ofcharge basis autonomous an on function to had which diets, local by restricted ( office elected by lead and established the administrativecommissions, hadby tobefulfilled functions by thediet all Besides, autonomy. regional of idea the to contradicted which authority, central of electedand equal ballot direct, by secret, Poland, of Kingdom articleelucidating ofthe theprogram editi major the 17 October Progressive demands Polish with additional possibilities their of for peoples. thenational oppression Poles the provide would autonomy that concerns expressed latter The movements. województwo

Ibid., Prawda Ibid . GARF 503 Sp lib Russian the of position the in development important This

h tesr hd o e eaae rm h Ru the from separate be to had treasury The

42 . ecific feature of this project this of feature ecific

- approval.In - 43 (1905): (1905): 43 . Democratic Union inside Poland. On the day of issuing of the Manifest of of Manifest the of issuing of day the On Poland. inside Union Democratic f . 579. 579. . )

and smaller territorial units, but the power of these appointees was was appointees these of power the but units, territorial smaller and op. 1. item op. remai 502 which would be adopted by the legislative assembly in Warsaw, in assembly legislative the by adopted be would which

92 case of veto, the bill could be approved by the second round of round couldbe of case the bill ofveto, approved by thesecond . ned seemingly unnoticed by the representatives of the the of representatives the by unnoticed seemingly ned

- holders. The diet had to to had diet The holders.

1842 n f h Uin te newspaper the Union, the of on

. p .1 .

party and a detailed “Project of Autonomy of the Autonomydetailed the “Projecta of of andparty

consisted in direct enumeration of the functio the of enumeration direct in consisted .” 91

150

appoint the appoint sa oe n te it a to had diet the and one ssian

heads of heads Prawda erals regarding regarding erals , 90

vo published an an published

i e vodeships - g eneral eneral ns CEU eTD Collection 28 pressy dannym po Pol’shi avtonomiia i pol’skim 96 95 94 93 the region. in domination Polish the enforce only would it that fearing autonomy, Polish of slogan Kadets’ the suspicion with viewed Poland in population Russian oriented population Polish campaign. electoral the independent an pursue not could it so members, 20 than less counted PartyDemocratic Constitutional the all, of First agreement? initial the of violations obvious latter’s the despite even Union, functions central with institutions. state repu parliamentary independent of idea the to close was autonomy National of meaning the it, In program. own their promoted Democrats, the to similarly Democrats, Progressive the Kadets, the with agreement during proclaimed formula, Sieroszewski’s the of concretization a was it way, certain a In autonomy. regional deputies inthecentralPolish parliament by elected all the to delegates The Kingdom. the ofterritory the on service military do to had Poland of Kingdom the of descendants the empire, Russian diet. the in balloting

GARF. f GARF. Ibid., Ibid., bd Se lo NJ. Drel’, N.Ja. also: See Ibid. .

503 503 96 Why did the Kadets pursue the collaboration with the Progressive Democratic Democratic Progressive the with collaboration the pursue Kadets the did Why th Generally,

position position

. 523. 523. . More successf More . -

504 the diet. The diet. the .

op. 1. item. 174. p 1. item.op. 174. f the of in general stuck to Polish parties. At the same time, constitutionally in generaltime, Atthesame parties. stucktoPolish e program, published in published program, e 93

Although the project proclaimed the proclaimed project the Although

ul in these conditions was the activity of the local branches of of branches local the of activity the was conditions these in ul Russian Kadets inside Poland was weak. The Warsaw group of the the of group Warsaw The weak. was Poland inside Kadets Raznitsa mezhdu russkin osvoboditel’nym dvizheniem i sovremennym sovremennym i dvizheniem osvoboditel’nym russkin mezhdu Raznitsa . 41 ob. ob. . 41 the meeting in April. Although they declared their their declared they Although April. in meeting the -

wide electoral law would e would law electoral wide

. 95 94

(Warsaw: Tipogra (Warsaw:

The situation was complicated because the because complicated was situation The

blic, which only coordinated some of its its of some coordinated only which blic, 151 Prawda

went far beyond the borders of borders the beyond far went - imperial parliament had to be to had parliament imperial fiia stablish the number of the the of number the stablish Okruzhnigi Shtaba, 1906), Shtaba, Okruzhnigi unity of the army in the in army the of unity

24 - - CEU eTD Collection Ko 102 101 100 99 98 97 Ru any with collaboration strategic a of possibility the parliament. British the in party Irish the of practice the from borrowed hand,” “free of principle the as tactics its defined openly its prohibited who faction Party, independent an Democratic established National the of representatives the by taken were 36) of majority The party. Kadet the of member a as district Duma first the in deputy a became law. martial the against protest in participate to refused Democrats Progressive Zemstvo meeting inNovember 1905. the at Guchkov of criticism the from autonomy Polish of idea the defend to Kadets mo calculations These Democrats. National loyal the more than a partner, obtain could Kadets the Duma, State the to elections the won latter the case In Democrats. Progressive the with similarity” “ideological their recognized parties. two the between mediator a as group Warsaw “federa a make to had state. Russian Indivisible” and “United the of slogan the proclaimed and population Russian the of rights cultural advocated which 17,” October of “Union the

Liberal'noe dvizhenie v Rossiiv 1902 dvizhenie Liberal'noe f.523…p “GARF. in: Oktiabria”” 17 “Soiuza “Programma

ł Ibid., Ibid., Janus, o polskie w Pierwszej Izbie Pa Izbie wPierwszej polskie o

However, the calculations of the Kadets proved to be unjustified. The The unjustified. be to proved Kadets the of calculations the However,

62. 63. More details about the tactics of the Polish ko Polish the of tactics the about details More 63. The Polish Ko Polish The

members . 42. . ł o, the Russian Duma Russian the o,

to participate in the activity of other other of activity the in participate to ie no” with union” tive ństwowej Rosyjskej ństwowej - 1905

Programmy politiches Programmy was Aleksander was , –

100

99 482 ,

61 te oih ko Polish “the

h ol rpeettv o ter at who party their of representative only The - . 495

the 102 .

(Warszawa: K.Kowalewski, 1907) K.Kowalewski, (Warszawa: 152 in the elections to the First State Duma State First the to elections the in

This line of action did not presuppose not did action of line This Progressive Democrats and use their their use and Democrats Progressive

ł o in Duma see: Franciszek Nowodworski, Nowodworski, Franciszek see: Duma in o

Lednicki elected from the Minsk Minsk the from elected Lednicki 98 kikh partii Rossii, Rossii, partii kikh ł of the Polish seats in Duma (34 Duma in seats Polish the of o.” ssian parties and allowed only only allowed and parties ssian

The Constitutional Democrats Constitutional The 101

parties and factions. factions. and parties h saue f h ko the of statute The tivated the core of the the of core the tivated 342 - 97 343 .

The Kadets The .

Ko ł ł o o CEU eTD Collection 105 104 103 Original state. Russian impersonal a the fulfilled Laws Moreover, Fundamental assembly. constituent a into transformation Duma’s of possibility Laws d Fundamental 1906 of in places legislature, wona inwhichthey majority. legislation. the revising of prerogative exclusive the monarch the to attributed Laws Fundamental the since assembly an such of role the perform not could Duma State The Poland. a constituent which question, the parties Polish the of agenda the from removed finally Duma), the of convocation the before days four (i.e. 1906 23, April on issued empire, Russian the of Laws Fundamental renounc not did they general were self of form a be to proved Poland Lednicki’s assuranceshis that autonomy.support of theidea ofPolish their for exchange in questions particular on them with agreements temporary for

S’’ezdy i konferentsii konstitutsipnno i konferentsii S’’ezdy konstitutsipnno i konferentsii S’’ezdy “Rossiia. Osnovnye Gosudarstvennye Zakony 23 aprelia Zakony23 Gosudarstvennye “Rossiia.Osnovnye not Contrary to initial intentions of the parties, who acquired a majority of the the of majority a acquired who parties, the of intentions initial to Contrary an face to had Kadets the result, a As

interested in the immediate solution of the question of autonomy, although in autonomy,althoughin ofof the question solution immediate the interestedin 104 the

n h ohr ad te aes refused Kadets the hand, other the On ua bt n codne ih h am o te oenet the government, the of aims the with accordance in but Duma, efined the limits of possible discussions and excluded the discussionsand excluded ofpossible efined limits the party was a significant political force in the Kingdom partya politicalforce inthe wassignificant of de ter nta intentions. initial their e

- - - demokraticheskoi partii demokraticheskoi partii demokraticheskoi jure - deception. Under such circumstances, the Kadets the circumstances, such Under deception.

ly defined as different parts of sovereign sovereign of parts different as defined ly

incorporation of Poland (and Finland) into an an into Finland) (and Poland of incorporation

105 ssembly should proclaim the autonomy of of autonomy the proclaim should ssembly

153

unmanageable

1906…,” 567. 1906…,” , v. 1., 240 v. 1., , , v

o oct te eety elected recently the boycott to . 1., 1., . 103 243

t h sm tm, the time, same the At

. -

243.

ate in partner

the Duma. Duma. CEU eTD Collection Gosudarstve 107 567. 1906…,” 106 responseMiliukov’s toit. Paul and declaration the of text the consider to necessary is it this, understand To forwarded onlywhich ko Polish Stecki, amember ofthe Jan was Poland of Kingdom the represented who commission the of member only commission the into directed be to had that materials delegation Polish the of behalf on declaration a delivered ko Polish the of leader the 30, April of session the On question. ministry Oth convicts. political of amnesty the was these of important most The demands. general their expressed deputies the where Duma, new the of intentions of declaration a of a but monarch, the to appeal an just not was Du the of version draft the out work would which commission, special a creating suggested Rodichev deputy The response. the composing to devoted were Duma the of sessions further and throne, the from speech Russia. indivisible” the of possessions

ouasvnaa ua Seorfceke tht. oy 1 Ssia . (GDSO) 1. Sessiia 1. Sozyv otchety. Stenograficheskie Duma. Gosudarstvennaia RGIA h Pls dcaain ca declaration Polish The was Duma State The

epnil t te Duma the to responsible . 2. p 2 ie. 6 p 13; p. 56. item. 2. op. 727. f. nnaia tipografiia, 1906 tipografiia, nnaia

Russian monarch Russian 106

the declaration to the commission. Why did it happen this way? way? this happen it Whydid commission. the to declaration the Polish

- 1907),

opened on April 27, 1906. The monarch delivered a a delivered monarch The 1906. 27, April on opened Declaration in theDeclaration in

sd o ecin mn te euis of deputies the among reaction no used ł o.

43 , the labor code, and the solution of the land land the of solution the and code, labor the , 107 ,

Rsia Onvy Gsdrtene aoy 3 aprelia 23 Zakony Gosudarstvennye Osnovnye “Rossiia.

. these provinces were now parts of “united and “united of parts now were provinces these

ma’s address. The purpose of the address the of purpose The address. ma’s 154

er demands included the idea of idea the included demands er First that composed that Duma . Officially, it was one of the of one was it Officially, .

ł o Jan Harusewicz Jan o

the address. The The address. the

(St.Petersburg: (St.Petersburg: the Duma, Duma, the the

CEU eTD Collection izdaniia 1857 1857 izdaniia Finland.” of Duchy Grand the and Poland of Kingdom the of thrones 110 109 108 movement.” liberation Russian the in response friendly found claims “such that and region” their of rights autonomous for up stands unanimously and fervently Poland of treaties international of force the by supported law, historical a but monarch, a of sovereignty the of people of idea sovereignty the neither logic, the this to According law. to of sovereignty reference the by Poland of Kingdom former the of autonomy possessiono distinct of as April Poland 23,1906,eliminated thea theKingdom article,which of mentioned Laws Fundamental new the that fact the that against protest the expressed declaration t of relationship the “alter not could that decrees particular by abolished was region the of autonomy the 1832. of Statute Organic the adopted admi distinctive Nicolas that argued also declaration The successors. his to legally it pass to had and Poland of Kingdom the of crown the accepted monarch the that fact of Kingdom the that argued, declaration the I Alexander of Charter Constitutional the and Vienna of Congress the of acts the on reference the With law. international the of guarantee the

Article 4 of the former Fundamental Laws: “the imperial all imperial “the Laws: Fundamental former the of 4 Article Ibid. Ibid.,

, was the source of the Polish distinct position distinct the, was Polish thesource of The declaration further proclaimed that “the whole population of the Kingdom Kingdom the of population whole “the that proclaimed further declaration The the for demand the legitimate to tried deputies Polish the that see can One The Polish

51 .

(St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Ego Imperatorskogo Vel Imperatorskogo Ego Tipografiia (St. Petersburg: itain f h rgo and region the of nistration Poland was granted an autonomous order. That was reflected by the the by reflected was That order. autonomous an granted was Poland declaration the“historical emphasized by rights” Poland, secured of he Kingdom of Poland to the Russian empire.” Russian the to Poland of Kingdom he f the monarch. Russian

108

According to the authors of the declaration, the of authors the to According

110 155

t priua ognzto, w organization,” particular its

- Russian throne i throne Russian ichestva Kantseliarii, 1857) v 1857) Kantseliarii, ichestva Svod zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, Imperii, Rossiiskoi zakonov Svod 109 I did I s connected with the the with connected s

Furthermore, theFurthermore,

not abolish “a abolish not hen he he hen nor the the nor .1 .,

2 .

CEU eTD Collection 115 114 113 112 111 a such that noted Miliukov 1832. of Statute Organic the and Vienna of Congress the body.” political Polish ground to desire representative Russian “athe fromindependentbe would that legalabasis on institutions was point essential the view, Miliukov’s ri historical the of restoration the to autonomy Polish the of claim the connected theywhen people own their to service bad a did koło the of deputies the Declaration.” people,the Polish which they intheDuma. represented of opinion the on relying rights, inalienable their recognize to demanded they Instead as who petitioners, as weand cometofight for totheState Duma rightscommon freedom.” for our of Kingdom Pol the of autonomy the of necessity the follows them from sacrosanct; inthe Statediscussion Duma. formal on exclude to government the of attempt an was Laws Fundamental the from Poland” of Kingdom people.” Russian the authors The

Ibid. Rech’ Ibid. Ibid. GDSO. and as a cherished demand of the whole population of our region. With this claim this With region. our of population whole the of demand cherished a as and

115 eea d Several behave not did Poland of Kingdom the of representatives the that see can One and inalienable are rights “Our phrase: the by concluded was declaration The

63 (May,63 1906)

Sozyv 1. 1 1. Sessiia Sozyv

According to Miliukov, this was the purpose of the reference to reference the of purpose the was this Miliukov, to According

appreciated the opportunity to advocate their “inalienable rights before before rights “inalienable their advocate to opportunity the appreciated 114

Presumably, y ltr te newspaper the later, ays .

111

basis the “question of appropriate rights of our region” from the the from region” our of rights appropriate of “question the basis ked the State Duma to grant some autonomy to the Kingdom. Kingdom. the to autonomy some grant to Duma State the ked

In the view of the Polish delegation, elimination of the “the the of elimination delegation, Polish the of view the In 51 .

112 Miliukov was the author of this article. He He article. this of author the was Miliukov

Rech’ 156

ulse te ar the published

ghts of Poland. In Poland. of ghts ticle “The Polish Polish “The ticle that argued the acts of acts the 113

CEU eTD Collection 118 117 116 delegati Polish the of claims the disregarded speech throne the on response confrontation Germany. with international for media appeals Miliukov, to According opinion. public international to appealing by independence acquire to Poland of attempts earlier of memories the back P who opinion, Polish the by restricted, be would institutions central of competence the which in autonomy, contrast By statehood. Russian the strengthen would right the as disintegration, Russia’s cause the by defined Poland. of spoke they when for, autonomy” “provincial of notion the of limits the transgressed range.” the cla their support to opportunity an between of friends their “[deprived] thereby place taken had opinion.” that public Russian the and Polish the of representatives ‘autonomy’ about negotiations of scope National Democrats. a in was question” “Polish the of statement oland from the Russian state. Moreover, the question of “historical rights” brought brought rights” “historical of question the Moreover, state. Russian the from oland

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. tion could only aggravate the position of Poland in conditions of Russia’s Russia’s of conditions in Poland of position the aggravate only could tion

Sejm could Sejm 117 In Miliukov’s view, such a statement of the question question the of statement a such view, Miliukov’s In Kadet the result, a As

In other words, Miliukov reproached the Poles for for Poles the reproached Miliukov words, other In iwd autonomy viewed central institutions. institutions. central

only strengthen fears of those representatives of the Russian public Russian the of representatives those of fears strengthen only

118 - dominated commission for the preparation of Duma’s Duma’s of preparation the for commission dominated

For the Kadets the limits of this autonomy h autonomy this of limits the Kadets the For

as the first step towards a complete separation of of separation complete a towards step first the as

Understood in this sense, autonomy would not not would autonomy sense, this in Understood -

wing parties feared, but, on the contrary, contrary, the on but, feared, parties wing direct connection direct 157

, the carried it “far beyond the the beyond “far it carried

Polish with the program of the of program the with 116 aig demands making that

The Polish deputies Polish The

the Kadets stood stood Kadets the ead fr a for demands ims in the full full the in ims on. ad to be be to ad In the the In

that n CEU eTD Collection 120 119 o a neither could which states, foreign between agreement an to referred declaration] [the I argumentconvincing a not was which law, international the to appealed authors the particular, In oversights. thespeaker.”mood ofbothsocietyand “ was which moment, one at tribune the on fist his hit to chose declaration the read who person the worse, matters make To reading.” of manner the and contents the of regardless negatively accepted formalities. long by wits its of out driven exhausted, off, day the on was Duma “the when demands, their advance ko Polish the of deputies the that argued he particular, o position the justify to tried He Kadets. the and parties Polish the between agreement the of initiator major the autonomy oftheagreements Polish thepursuit on newspapers. Polish and Russian the in polemics of wave new a raised outcome an Such nationalities”. certain of needs burning “the satisfying about remarks general only contained and autonomy not did tsar the to address Duma’s the of version final pinions of the European bureaucracy of the nineteenth century, but rather on the will the on rather but century, nineteenth the of bureaucracy European the of pinions

Prawda Prawda GDSO According to Lednicki, the text of the declaration contained several important important several contained declaration the of text the Lednicki, to According Lednicki Alexander of position the was vulnerable most the situation, this In

76 moral, nor a real force… Our today’s demands do not rely on thoughts and and thoughts on rely not do demands today’s Our force… real a nor moral, 21 (1906): 21

253 .

119 nstead of “ of nstead

h Pls rtczd h aes o becig th breaching for Kadets the criticized Poles The f the Kadets and Kadets the f ”

somew In these circumstances, “any speech would have been been have would speech “any circumstances, these In

the will and the earlier history of the Polish people, Polish the historyofearlier the and will the hat

120

offensive and quite at odds with the general the with odds at quite and offensive

158 placed part placed

ł o chose the wrong moment to moment wrong the chose o

of the blame on the Poles. In Poles. the on blame the of explicitly

mention Polish Polish mention i initial eir

be –

CEU eTD Collection 122 121 autonomyKingdom ofPoland. ofthe support the to a promise from party the but as renunciation of way interpreted noother Poland of Kingdom “the expression Laws Fundamental the from excluded government Russian the when moment, the at Kadets the of passivity the Lednicki, to according Thus, program. party’s the the in demands national about this formulations general of view, Lednicki’s member In party. third Kadet the every to belonged though commission even autonomy Polish the for demand the th that fact the atsurprise Lednickihis expressedIn it, Miliukov. to letter open an published Ledincki ko international greater acts legitimacy provided aspirations. for their the of representatives the of view the in that, was difference only The laws. government certain a foreign that adopts thewill of stem fromrather than ownwill, its theoretica same the ko Polish from the of position the proceeded as assumption argument His autonomy. for argument the sufficient a obtaining was people Polish the of will the him, For autonomy. the which andwill takeaccount.” into it this respect to us urge that democracy of principles general the on people, own our of

Ibid Ibid . .

Several days after the adoption of the Duma’s response to the throne speech, speech, throne the to response Duma’s the of adoption the after days Several to references the superfluous found Lednicki Thus,

ersnaie o te Polish the of representatives e commission for preparation of the address refused to include into it it into include to refused address the of preparation for commission e 121 text of the address represented a clear divergence from from divergence clear a represented address the of text

” 122

and

ko he title of title he ł 159 o, namely, that the rights of the people people the of rights the that namely, o, ł o sought to justify their demand for for demand their justify to sought o

“the King of Poland,” could be be could Poland,” of King

the supremacy of law, by by law, of supremacy the

the the ł o, o, l CEU eTD Collection 125 124 123 the of view Kadets, the In unrealistic. were demands present their that delegation Polish f signal a as interpreted be could nationalities of rights the about declaration general the and address Duma’s the into autonomy Polish the of demands specific want they everything get t that expect to wrongwere Poles the Miliukov, for Thus, renounce. to want understa certain had Kadets that demonstrate, Onwanted withthe Poles. theotherof to ahand, mediator negotiations Miliukov inits deprive consequently, and, Lednicki with relationship the break to want not strive toaccomplish.” would party the which principles, the of “one still was Poland of autonomy the that used latter The fact ofelectoral theparty complicated position that it withother parties. the in struggle the despite even program, their into autonomy Polish the of slogan the took Kadets exclusio its signify not did address the in autonomy the of question the of State absence the Therefore, Duma. the in represented parties political the all of opinion the consider to wanted n could address

Ibid. Ibid. Rech’ ifrne il o ipd te rmto o tee rnils wih r euly rcos for precious equally are which principles, these us. of promotion the impede not t will that confidence difference with say me let any for, strive equally we which exists autonomy, the understanding there If Lednicki. 125

Miliukov’s response can be interpreted in many ways. On the one hand, he did he hand, one the On ways. many in interpreted be can response Miliukov’s the that explained Miliukov reproaches, Lednicki’s to response open an In

66 ( 66 autonomy Our views on the ‘fundamental laws’ completely coincide with the views of Mr. Mr. of views the with coincide completely laws’ ‘fundamental the on views Our 1906)

to turn this slogan into weapons against the Kadets. Miliukov assured assured Miliukov Kadets. the against weapons into slogan this turn to ot be regarded as coming from one party. one from coming as regarded be ot .

n from the Kadet program. On the contrary, as Miliukov said, the said, Miliukov as contrary, the On program. Kadet the from n within narrower bounds was an accessible goal, yet only if the the if only yet goal, accessible an was bounds narrower within 124

Inthe end, wrote: Miliukov ed . In this light, the unwillingness of the Kadets to include to Kadets the of unwillingness the light, this In . ifrne n h justification the in difference

160 nding of autonomy, which they did they which autonomy, of nding

123 n, osqety i the in consequently, and,

In this case, the Kadets the case, this In hey would hey the party party the or or his his

not the the CEU eTD Collection 128 127 ( 126 rather than relat the 1815, of constitution Polish the and Vienna of Congress the of acts the with accordance in autonomy vague. appeared tobe parties political main the of point programmatic names. their by things significance.” political great has restitution ofparticularity Kingdo of the at was a separate brochure inMay 1906. W of article the in deputies Polish the of position the of illustration an find can One opinion. public Russian the of sympathy on count they did degree certain a to Only agreements. interparty tactical any by unbound remain p their defend to them for important was it Instead, goals. their accomplishing for indispensable Kadets the of support the regard not did deputies in demands its limited accord and allies their as Kadets the regarded delegation Polish Warszawa: Nak Warszawa:

Ibid. Ibid., W who often demonstrate their ignorance of public law, there dominate very inconsequent views views inconsequent on autonomy, on very dominate there law, public of ignorance their demonstrate often who ł adysław Studnicki, Studnicki, adysław

ance with their recommendations.

The greater part of the article was devoted to Studnicki’s attempt to prove that, prove to attempt Studnicki’s to devoted was article the of part greater The Poland of Kingdom the autonomyof the of question the that articleargued The Polish the earlier, said was it as but Kadets, the of position the was Such

47 the top of the agenda: “The deputies in the State Duma should demand a a demand should Duma State the in deputies “The agenda: the of top the .

Among our people, unaware of political sciences, among Warsaw publicists and jurists, jurists, and publicists Warsaw among sciences, political of unaware people, our Among an ładem Księgarni E Księgarni ładem autonomy ionship between the Kingdom of Poland and Russia was a real union, union, real a was Russia and Poland of Kingdom the between ionship the claims about the future relationship of Kingdom towards the Empire. towards ofKingdom futurerelationship the about the claims Konstytucya Rosyjska i prawno i Rosyjska Konstytucya lhuh the Although .

. Wende i SP, i SP, Wende .

126 127

n cran a, tdik sgetd calling suggested Studnicki way, certain a In lgn f uooy a bcm a important an become had autonomy of slogan m r

1906

ather than an providing than act ather 161 ) .

państwowe stanowisko Królestwa Polskiego Królestwa stanowisko państwowe ł n oad te ey oin of notion very the Poland, in adysław S adysław tudnicki, published in published tudnicki, rincipal position and position rincipal autonomy. This 128

CEU eTD Collection in: 132 131 130 129 the substantiate to instrument an colleagues) Finnish his did it (as theoretician Polish m the of interpretation archaic latter. the in unincorporated remained former the which of dynasty, one of state. Russian ( state” “our phrase the used Manifesto The Statute. Organic the of causes the preceded S ( possession” ( rendered incorpora of act aon it real union. incorporated the ofparticipation ( fragment state a as Poland Congress the of because union, real a as qualified be not could Poland of Kingdom the and Russia rseiei Krlvta Rsiso Dierzhave Rossiiskoi k Korolevstva Prisoedinenie Dierzhava nasha Dierzhava uch an interpretation was grounded on archaic formulations of the Manifesto that that Manifesto the of formulations archaic on grounded was interpretation an uch

“Manifest 14 fevralia 1832 goda. goda. 1832 fevralia 14 “Manifest 44. Ibid., Ibid., 44 Ibid. Polnoie sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii. Imperii. Rossiiskoi zakonov sobranie Polnoie usin ta rfr o h isiuin o te tt, one wt i. y otat i an in contrast, By it. only as state mayregarded be authority with bounded state, t All belongs. province the which the to state, the of a of the and assembly legislative the institutions of acts the on relies the power the province, autonomous to refer that questions competenc power. Its of source the itself is it case, first the in because, autonomy provincial from different is absence of bilateral treaty between the two states. Whereas Jellinek viewed the the viewed Jellinek Whereas states. two the between treaty bilateral of absence

In the view of Studnicki, even the Organic Statute cannot be perceived as an an as perceived be cannot Statute Organic the even Studnicki, of view the In between connection the that argued who Jellinek, with disagreed Studnicki

- h prs “h jiig f h Kndm f oad o h Rsin State Russian the to Poland of Kingdom the of joining “The phrase the

44 … . even when a non a when even

posiadłości posiadłości 132 icue al atr ta wr nt cetd s h cmo ise, r s the as or issues, common the as accepted not were that matters all includes e

tion. In his translation of the first article of the Statute Studnicki Studnicki Statute the of article first the of translation his In tion. This allowed treating Poland and Russia as two different possessions different two as Russia and Poland treating allowed This 129 ) in the mean the in )

According toStudnicki, Ro - sovereign [the] state is connected to another state by a real union, it union, real a by state another to connected is state [the] sovereign syjskiej), ing of the possessions of the Romanovs, rather than the than ratherRomanovs, the of possessions the of ing O novom poriadke upravlenia i obrazovaniia Tsarstva Pol’skogo” Pol’skogo” Tsarstva obrazovaniia i upravlenia poriadke novom O onarchy as a possession of the monarch served the the served monarch the of possession a as onarchy

state did state - wideissues.

rather Staatsfragment Sobranie vtoroe Sobranie

not exclude th exclude not

he questions that do not refer not do that questions he

162 than as joining to the state state the to joining as than

130

” s onn t te “Russian the to joining as )”

(St.Petersburg, 1833) v. 7., 1833) (St.Petersburg, ), at the conqueror could conqueror the at

tdik age ta non that argued Studnicki

to the autonomous autonomous the to ( pa ństwu uthority uthority Thus, an an Thus,

impose impose .

) . 131 -

CEU eTD Collection Duma, whose consent was indispensable for the actual implementation of the the of implementation actual legislation onautonomy. the for indispensable was consent whose Duma, the in party only the were Kadets the And support. to ready were Kadets the what could delegation Polish Pop of viewpoint the developed Studnicki sense, certain a In autonomy. provincial of idea of restoration the Stud for rights. historical demand the as but autonomy, for claim a not this was that demand declared openly and state a as Poland recognizing on insisted Studnicki the contradicted fundament also but insufficient, only not was Poland to rights autonomous provide assembly legislative Russian the making of idea Kadets’ the perspective, inal Studnicki’s Thus, state. Polish autonomy uni on thewill ofthe statewide Russian legislature. depend would which autonomy, an than rather Poland, of Kingdom the of status legal Empire. Russian the from Poland of Accordingly, Kingdom the of separation legal of idea on, its legal order was not the product of the will of another state that had granted had that state another of will the of product the not was order legal its on, ienable rights, as if it were a separate, although a non a although separate, a were it if as rights, ienable ł awski, who clearly understood the difference. However, it was uncertain how the how uncertain was it However, difference. the understood clearly who awski, Although Poland had not been the side of the treaty that established the real the established that treaty the of side the been not had Poland Although

al principles that stood at the basis of Polish demands. In other words, words, other In demands. Polish of basis the at stood that principles al and could restrict, and even abolish i abolish even and restrict, could and

Studnicki suggested that the that suggested Studnicki nicki clearly distinguished between his claims and the Kadets’ Kadets’ the and claims his between distinguished clearly nicki

implement this agenda, as it went far beyond the bounds of of bounds the beyond far went it as agenda, this implement implicit

assumption was that Poland had certain certain had Poland that was assumption Polish deputies demand restoration of the of restoration demand deputies Polish 163

t, but rather originated from from the the from from originated rather but t,

- sovereign, state. From this this From state. sovereign, CEU eTD Collection 134 133 a the regarding Party Democratic National the of position the to adhered They landowners. large of interests the represented provinces, Western two. another took Politics Real of Party the of a PartyProgressive the of members The Democrats. 29belongedNational Poland, tothe Kingdom the 34places of in thefor Duma. Outof ProgressiveParty the and DemocratsNational the th result, the As campaign. electoral of course the in anti persistent of because position, their weakened only it but Committee, Jewish the with coalition a formed Democrats Progressive Party (PPP). with alliance an of favor in more was Konic, Henryk by led Union, the within group minority a Jewis the among adherents their of some lose to afraid were they as proposal, the rejected Democrats Progressive the of majority the However, (the with coalition a forming suggested they Instead, Duma. represen sole being of ambition the renounced and parties Russian the of criticisms the considered they time This Poland. of Kingdom thei continue to decided Democrats National the Duma, first the in deputies Polish the of declaration unsuccessful an Despite proclaimed.

Ibid., Ibid., Janus, Party of Real Politics, former Politics, Real of Party aig eue t claoae ih h Nat the with collaborate to refused Having were Duma new the to elections the Duma, the of dissolution the After

116 The Polish Ko Polish The The The .

the Second National Democrats. They left the Union and created created and Union the left They Democrats. National ł o, the Russian Duma Russian the o,

Duma 133

: A

Step towards aMorePosition? towards Realistic Step ugodowcy - Semite rhetoric that the National Democrats used used Democrats National the that rhetoric Semite

113 .

, 164

and the Progressive Democratic Union). Union). Democratic Progressive the and

took the majority of the Polish seats Polish the majorityof the took ta 134 cquired three places; the members members the places; three cquired ional Democrats, the Progressive Progressive the Democrats, ional tives of the Polish interests in the in interests Polish the of tives e participants of the coalition the of participants e

wle euis eetd from elected deputies, Twelve r struggle for autonomy of the the of autonomy for struggle r

the other two Polish parties Polish two other the grarian question and joined joined and question grarian h population. Meanwhile, population. h the

Polish Polish of CEU eTD Collection 138 2010), Sotsium, (Cheliabinsk: 137 136 135 historical legal the of su who those were there supporters claims Polish the of justification the with Along Duma. new the in discussion for propose to intended they which autonomy, Polish of project the on work their question.” side the supporting by ce on other each balanced Duma agent “third Polish the circumstances, these In voting. the of outcome si Kadets the by performed center Duma’s the of role the result, the As government. the of policy the supported left Duma. first the in had they that seats 179 the with compared places 98 only won Kadets The one. first the to condemned participating for in“VyborgManifest elections, the in part take not could Kadets, the of associate closest the Progressive Polish the

Janus, 1906 imperii Rossiiskoi Duma Gosudarstvennaia Smirnov, Anatolii Ibid., Ibid., - ig euis n mmes f oeae ate (corss Ntoait) who Nationalists), (Octobrists, parties moderate of members and deputies wing

After the dissolution of the first Duma, first the of dissolution the After Jan Stecki: balance The

118 117 The Polish Ko Polish The 138 . .

koło. ” Democrats

o “odr o te odn share”). golden the of “holders (or 135 Autonomy ł

of political forces in the second Duma was different as compared compared as different was Duma second the in forces political of o, the Russian Duma Russian the o, oa Dosi eae the became Dmowski Roman 137 , , none of none ,

which was most willing to make concessions on the “Polish the on concessions make to willing most was which

At the same time, there was an was there time, same the At 214. 214. gnificantly di gnificantly

in hand is betterhand is anunachievable than in state

the members the rtain questions, the Poles could play a decisive role, role, decisive a play could Poles the questions, rtain

, 199 minished and they could they and minished .

165

came to the Duma, and even Lednicki, even and Duma, the to came

the Polish deputies did not break off off break not did deputies Polish the

o .”

hn h to oa oiin in opinions polar two the When 136 edr of leader

increase in increase ggested another approach to to approach another ggested ko - 1917. ł o chos o

the

Istoriko no longer define the define longer no

the number of the of number the oo A for As koło. e the tactics of a a of tactics the e - pravovoi ocherk pravovoi

as he was was he as the

CEU eTD Collection 141 140 1906 Rosyjskim, 139 new situation. the to it adapt to order in necessary was Duma the in politics Polish the of principles system. the of overthrow complete for spirit enough have not did they but uprisings, and would be easy evenprovincial toachieve themodest of au aim Conquered w those, of interests the also but Poland, of Kingdom the interests the only not consider to had Democrats National current situation. change a only was There th of aims strategic the in change a signify not did proposal Stecki’s However, Kadets. the with rapprochement a of possibility a open could view, his in accept and claims Polish the of extent response. Duma’s the of preparation on commission an and Polish the of participant a Stecki, Jan was them of One problem. the of solution

Ibid., Stecki, Jan h biog The administrative organization, the government, after a short period of hesitation and bewilderment bewilderment and hesitation of period transformatio short a after government, the actual organization, administrative of necessity the bring concessions formal that opposition the of might real the to than government the of compliance revolutionary movements proved to be powerless. be to proved movements revolutionary And state… the of development political fi (the

18 As it turned o turned it As of politics the Forhim, principles. important several proceededfrom Stecki

“old” member of the National Democratic National the of member “old” s hl o te uas session)… Duma’s the of half rst .

The fact is that… recent progress in the sphere of freedom should be attributed more to more attributed be should freedom of sphere the in progress recent that… is fact The raphy

ad. Mroe,tedsouin ftefrt Duma first the of dissolution the Moreover, Lands. W sprawie autonomii Kr autonomii W sprawie - 1917. S 1917.

f tci e: Czes see: Stecki of

ł ownik biograficzny ownikbiograficzny ut, the revolutionaries were revolutionaries the ut,

in the tactics, which was adjusted in accordance with the the with accordance in adjusted was which tactics, the in

ólestwa Polskiego ólestwa a Brzoza ław 141

(Warszaw

eie t scr te xlsv rgt o oto the control to right exclusive the secure to decided ing then, right in the moment of unfolding struggle, the the struggle, unfolding of moment the in right then, h ato age ta a oa rvso o the of revision total a that argued author The

the idea of provincial autonomy. This step, step, This autonomy. provincial of idea the

, Kamil Stepan, Stepan, Kamil , 140 166 a: Wydawnictwo sejmowe, 2001), sejmowe, Wydawnictwo a:

(Krak

able able Party ów: G.Gebethner i Spó G.Gebethner ów: to conduct to 139

who also participated in the the in participated also who a of those Poles, who lived in in lived who Poles, those of

Posłowe Polscy Polscy Posłowe tci su Stecki ytmtc camp systematic o ie i te so the in lived ho ns in domestic policy and and policy domestic in ns … tonomy.

When it became clear became it When riots, assassinations, assassinations, riots, left gse reducing ggested

no hope that it it that hope no

e Polish Polish e łka,1907), w parlamencie parlamencie w

196 aign and and aign - 200 - called

ko 17 . ko

the the . ł

ł o. o

CEU eTD Collection 146 145 144 143 142 Western border, emerge there with would obscure astate separate aims. the along tensions of conditions the in that think to began They Russians. the irritated conditions. develo cultural the since moment, the at case the not was This forces. its of development demand a Conquered the claim circl constitutionalist Russian the in sympathies certain evoked still Poland of Kingdom the of autonomy of claims the if However, Poland. of Kingdom beyo territories the into state this of expansion for demand the entail eventually would state) Polish separate a of existence the presuppose would which “autonomy,” an such of demand the (i.e. statehood of elements with autonomy Poland. of Kingdom the of interests the with along the encompass to had parties Polish of program maximum The inevitable. be would independence this of recognition self its enable would which independence independence. of slogan the by inspired

Ibid., I Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. bid .,

mn o te oe i te Conquered the in Poles the of pment

Stecki argued Stecki

38 37 34 23 . . - -

35 24 was more appropriate for a people that reached the condition of complete complete of condition the reached that people a for appropriate more was 145 . .

s rsl, h cam f uooy ih lmns of elements with autonomy of claim the result, a As it would require would it

Lands would be inevitably rejected. inevitably be would Lands as follows. Taken as a whole, the Polish claims Polish the whole, a as Taken follows. as - such a development of the forces of the Polish people, Polish the of forces the of development a such ufcec ( sufficiency

inter

ests of the Poles from the Conquered the from Poles the of ests 142

167

ne independence inner However, in order to acquire the the acquire to order in However, ad sil eurd ie n favor and time required still Lands

143 144

o Sek, h dmn of demand the Stecki, For

Acc nd the borders of the the of borders the nd ording to ording . hn h form the Than ).

were obviously obviously were s atmt to attempts es, ttho only statehood 146

Stecki, such Stecki,

Lands Lands outer able able al al

CEU eTD Collection 150 149 148 147 from delegation Polish the case, this In issues. common consider would which parliament, the of chamber separate a example, for institution, common the on Russia Lands. o presence the of because particularly closer, much between relationship the Furthermore, Finland. and Empire the above stay would that institute particular a create to large that not was Russia with issues common of range the and whole separate a as existed Finland him, For di model a as Finland of example usual the Stecki, to commercial the complicate and Poland of Kingdom the would between relationship budget separate a for demand the that argued He realpolitik. in claims their adjust to had Poles the the moment, at However, statehood. their of recognition for claim a pose to able be would economic when future, the In all of ground the on stand Poles the that Russians the to explaining allow would autonomy provincial force economic and cultural of development the facilitate could it but enough, be not would autonomy provincial statehood. of idea the from autonomy of notion the purifying suggested

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. Ibid.,

150

Stecki also analyzed particu analyzed also Stecki these In

47 46 39

. . . Stecki suggested a hypothesis that hypothesis a suggested Stecki

148

terms of terms - circumstances, it was necessary to choose another way. Stecki Stecki way. another choose to necessary was it circumstances, Russian statehood, which statehood, Russian a union of two states. Consequently states. two of union s of the Polish people, taken as a whole. At the same time, time, same the At whole. a as taken people, Polish the of s forces of the Polish people develop fully, the Poles Poles the fully, develop people Polish the of forces

lar arguments of his opponents among the Poles. Poles. the among opponents his of arguments lar

would calm would

168 the Poles wanted to create a union with union a create to wanted Poles the

f Polish interests in the Conquered the in interests Polish f codne ih h dmns of demands the with accordance Conquered d not apply to the Polish case. Polish the to apply not d

Russian fears and suspicions. and fears Russian ,

for for usa n Pln was Poland and Russia him,

Lands.

there would be a a be would there kresy 149 147

According Certainly, would be be would

CEU eTD Collection 154 153 152 151 to had diet The institution. legislative statewide a by adopted be to had law a such definition, By region. the in autonomy introduce would that law a in diet Polish the the principle of recognition the included list This based. be would autonomy Polish which the ultimate goal. law The Poland. of Kingdom the of population the of only not and general, in people Polish the of interests the be to had there place first the At aside. left be to had law the of sovereignty of principle the standpoint, Stecki’s to adapted people the of will the and needs mature are order use the legal or in1815 ofPoland Kingdom ofthe of thestatus be wouldnot ablebut it toprotect ofthe ingeneral. the interests Poles Pola of Kingdom the in interests Polish the protect to able be would union personal the prevent to able be attempts i tosuppress orrestrain the rights ofthePoles would and matters statewide of solution the in in weight from delegates with united be would Russian the in Poland of Kingdom the of representatives there minority insufficient an represent present

Ibid. Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., to

At the end of the brochure, Stecki suggested a list of general principles on on principles general of list a suggested Stecki brochure, the of end the At restoration for strive to need not did delegation Polish the that believed Stecki

44 50 49 n h Rsin alaet rte ta i te common the in than rather parliament, Russian the in bolster . - . Kompetenz

hs il n t b ue i acrac wt tee needs.” these with accordance in used be to and will this .

its demands for autonomy. “[The] major source of the Polish claims Polish the of source major “[The] autonomy. for demands its 154

- K ompetenz

, i.e. ,

kresy the definition the . 151 . In this case, they would have a far grea far a have would they case, this In . The Polish interest consisted in having the having in consisted interest Polish The

. T . 169

he historical he

was only an in an only was of range of n theConquered - legal apparatus should be should apparatus legal

- wide parliament, which which parliament, wide of autonomous rights of rights autonomous of - historical arguments in argumentshistorical in hme an chamber strument to achieve achieve to strument 152

Lands. Thus,aLands. 153

hs from Thus, d

would would nd, nd, ter ter CEU eTD Collection 156 155 no was there note, explanatory the of printout a receive to were Duma the of members Poland. of Kingdom the of organization autonomous on bill draft a Duma c speaker ofko read thePolish declaration the of floor the to autonomy of this During dissolved. that could onlyaccomplished by be goal strategic a was this pre the restoring to tantamount was This Poland. of Kingdom the of bounds the within beyon far went which tasks, national demonstrate he this, achieve to order In moment. present the at claims their moderate to colleagues Polish his convince to had he hand, allies potential alienating without defend to possible be would which position, “realistic” a formulated he hand, one discussed instatewide institutions. freedom obtain miso o 3 mmes wih was which members, 33 of ommission

GDSO. Sozyv 2. 2., 2. Sessia Sozyv GDSO. Ibid., - atto trioil nert o te Polish the of integrity territorial partition

The second Duma lasted less than four months. On June 3, 1907 it was was it 1907 3, June On months. four than less lasted Duma second The the On directions. opposite two in moved argument Stecki’s that see can One to note explanatory An 54 .

within the limits of its competence, while oth while competence, its of limits the within The Draft Bill of Autonomy of Bill The Draft ofPoland ofthe Kingdom short period the Polish delegation managed to br to managed delegation Polish the period short

, 1914

which required which

the Duma. At the end of the meeting of April 10, 1907 the 1907 10, April of meeting the of end the At Duma. the .

h dcaain otie a rpsl o om a form to proposal a contained declaration the 155 among the Russian political activists. On the other other the On activists. political Russian the among means of a means of

d the idea of accomplishing the Polish statehood statehood Polish the accomplishing of idea the d

the development of the forces of the people people the of forces the of development the to discuss the project and propose to the the to propose and project the discuss to

ł o that was signed46members. by its 170 -

provincial autonomy.provincial ihain omnelh However Commonwealth. Lithuanian

wd udrtnig f Polish of understanding wide a er questions had to be to had questions er

ing its project project its ing

156

Since

CEU eTD Collection 159 in: zakony” 709. 1906 fraktsii dumskikh Zakonotvorchestvo 158 157 competenc the within 4). (Article institutions statewide of recogn revealed project general the readingof closer a time, same the At union. real a of one the conn the that meant This state. Russian the into Poland of incorporation legal avoid to suggestion Studnicki’s discarded project conditions. special by “governed were affairs internal “ an constituted Poland of Kingdom the that recognized thereby delegates Polish The Finland of Duchy Great the of status the on empire Russian the ofLaws Fundamental the of article second the of repetition previous its to compared attempts toplace ofautonomy thePolish thequestion ontheagenda. as took delegation Polish the of thinking the direction Neverthel on). to reaction (Miliukov’s project Polish the and discuss failed note. explanatory replie speaker The Duma. the of competence the in not was question the that Purishkevich April on discussion “Osnovnye polozheniia zakonoproekta zakonoproekta polozheniia “Osnovnye Ibid

“Osnovnye polozheniia zakonoproekta ob avtonomnom ustroistve Tsarstva Pol’skogo” in: in: Pol’skogo” Tsarstva ustroistve avtonomnom ob zakonoproekta polozheniia “Osnovnye

opr with Compare d that this question would be resolved after the Duma members read the the read members Duma the after resolved be would question this that d ., ition oftheition supremacy

First, the project defined project the First, draws that thing first The

1917 Rossiiskoie zakonodatel’stvo X zakonodatel’stvo Rossiiskoie - 1918 ess, an analysis of the project is necessary in order to understand what what understand to order in necessary is project the of analysis an ess,

. the absence of the basic principle of provincial autonomy, namely the the namelyautonomy, provincial of principle basic the of absence the “ 96 . pila 3 yohih uvezdny Osnovnye utvierzhdennye Vysochaishe 23 Aprielia g. 1906 “ :

157

However, in its last days the Duma focused on other issues and issues other on focused Duma the days last its in However, e of the diet. Howe diet. the of e 10,

if one does not to consider the remarks of of remarks the consider to not does one if

of Russi

the sphere of issues of sphere the … teto i te oih rjc i a word a is project Polish the in attention - - 159 1917. Dokumenty i materialy i Dokumenty 1917. XX vv. ,”

an statewide institutions over thean Polish institutions statewide ones.

inalienable part of the Russian state,” whose whose state,” Russian the of part inalienable 709 The ver .

(Moscow: Iuridicheskaia literatura, 1994) v. 9., 44. v. 9., 44. 1994) literatura, Iuridicheskaia (Moscow:

ection between Poland and Russia was not was Russia and Poland between ection article five did the same for issues placed issues for same the did five article 171

in the paragraph a) it was declared that that declared was it a) paragraph the in

to be be to ” 158 included

hs te uhr o the of authors the Thus,

it, (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2006), 2006), ROSSPEN, (Moscow:

will be analyzed later later analyzed be will in the competence competence the in

gosudarstvennye gosudarstvennye articles of the of articles - Vladimir Vladimir by - word word

CEU eTD Collection 162 161 160 of the subordination the and authority, legislative of independence the presupposed (which taken had authors monarch by a presuppos Democrats, Progressive to refused or diet mention becau one, formal a was statement this that assume, to possible “sovere latter’s the on restrictions only the constituted decisions, diet”. the to relation and subordination their of order the as well as competence, their of sphere the region, the of institutions was diet was project, the to according with the modelof connection federative of twostates. accordance autonomy,in butrather modelprovincial diet. Thataccording not is, tothe institutio the and institutions statewide the 4. article the in mentioned those except affairs, the all embraces diet the of competence the

Prawda Ibid., Ibid.,

executive authorityto the center).

h asne f uh cas i te rf bl o 1907 of bill draft the in clause a such of absence The auth executive the Second,

710 710 , what would happen in happen would what ,

: 160

to define the sphere of his competence including “arrangement of judicial judicial of “arrangement including competence his of sphere the define to 42 . - 161

711

- The project The 43 (1905) 43

second second . h spee uhrt, hc cnee ad prvd h diet’s the approved and convened which authority, supreme The

a step toward step a ovn i. y contrast, By it. convene .

favourable votefavourable in thereby

to be appointed by the supreme the by appointed be to

s the concept of autonomy of concept the s tutrs of structures put the case if the emperor opposed emperor the if case the d h psiiiy f vriig h vt o the of veto the overriding of possibility the ed the

rt i te esn of person the in ority

the diet.

question of division of competence between competence of division of question ns of the Kingdom of Poland in favor of the the of favor in Poland of Kingdomthe of ns

172

Sieroszewski

government 162

’s n self and as defined as

projec

authority. However the the However authority. viceroy se the project did not did project the se ignty. ol ma ta its that mean could

the decision of the of decision the t, adopted by the the by adopted t, - government, the the government, ”

by Kokoshkin by However, it is is it However, ( namiestnik ) , CEU eTD Collection 164 163 customs, issues, (monetary functions statewide certain controlled that bodies the of Poland of Kingdom the to subordination of means by text the in on later restricted not alter unilaterally afterwards. could it which autonomy, the about law the adopt to had Duma State the words, other In itself. autonomy the of consent the without institutions autonomous of competence the alter to possibility a of deprived thereby were institutions statewide The states. the of union the from autonomy provincial the distinguished that principle diet. the of consent the autonomywithout of bill the of clausesthe Finnish and thestatewideinstitutions. articulated Kompetenz authority. supreme the by appointed be to had commission this of chair The bodies. legislative Russian the from half other the and diet Polish the a of means by reconciled commission be to were Poland of Kingdom the of institutions the and institutions statewide the between conflicts the that stipulated It authors. Polish and to diet the urge would which the of competence of sphere the approve t he

Ibid. Ibid. zakonoproekta polozheniia “Osnovnye union of st of union bv al ih h monarch the with all above

Finally, the concluding formula of the general conditions forbade altera forbade conditions general the of formula concluding the Finally, ko The inst statewide of sphere the addition, In - by Kompe

of 24 members, of whom one half would be elected from the members of of members the from elected be would half one whom of members, 24 of ło’s ates. the Finnish delegates as a way to resolve the disputes between the the between disputes the resolve to way a as delegates Finnish the notion of notion tenz One could imagine a imagine could One

a rpae b te da f prle lgsain first legislation parallel a of idea the by replaced was

autonomy seek

oee, ril 2 caiid h itnin o the of intentions the clarified 22 article However, a compromise with the Russian executive Russian the with compromise a …

,”

was hardly distinguishable from the concept of concept the from distinguishable hardly was 714 . viceroy situation, in situation,

173

itutions defined in in defined itutions

( namiestnik which the which 163 ) suggested by the diet, diet, the by suggested )

Thus, the principle of principle the Thus,

164 monarch the

That was That article four was was four article refused to refused

authority authority iis of limits

the keythe tion of of tion CEU eTD Collection Uchrezhdeniia Gosudarstven Uchrezhdeniia 167 166 165 strugglerepressive with a society Russian the that suggested also project the of authors The Poland. of Kingdom restored a for return in Russia towards pe our of trust the on count Poland. of Kingdom the of rightto full apeople Russian autonomythe “provides Polish autonomy authors, the Accordingto the needed Russia why explained also the to issues local on decide to authority the delegating of sense the in autonomy and decentralization auto and administration separate arrangement the acknowledged Statute t stressed Organic and Vienna of Congress the to referred It autonomy. Polish the one ofPop the State Duma. the respect, i deputies its send refused who Finns, this the from differed project Polish the In of authors 21). (Article legislation statewide of basis the on all parliament in part take to supposed were Poland of Kingdom the of deputies the function statewide inaccordance laws with (Article 12 to supposed were they though even Kingdom, the of institutions legislative the to ta railway telegraph, post, legislation, excise

Ibid., 711. Ibid., ouasvnaa ua Szv . aooae’y ziveia veene a soai s. 55 st. osnovanii na vnesennye zaiavleniia, Zakonodatel’nye 2. Sozyv duma. Gosudarstvennaia

The project was accompanied by an explanatory note. In phrases that remind remind that phrases In note. explanatory an by accompanied was project The be union, real a of project the not was project a such time, same the At

713. ł

awski’s article discussed above

f h Kndm of Kingdom the of 166

institutions elected by the population of the Kingdom of Poland. It Poland. of Kingdom the of population the by elected institutions noi dumy bureaucratic machine: ople.”

(St.Petersburg: Gosuda 167

In other words, the Poles promised their loyalty their promised Poles the words, other In Poland. The note asserted the necessity of of necessity the asserted note The Poland. was following was ,

the note outlined the historical grounds outlinedfor thehistoricalthe note 174 riffs etc.). Thus they became responsible responsible became they Thus etc.). riffs

rstvennaiatipografiia,

th the example of the Poles in the in Poles the of example the ). 165

1907),

137 - Russian Russian nomous nomous a the hat .

cause cause n CEU eTD Collection 170 169 168 word. the of sense true the in autonomy provincial of idea the recognize to appeal his emphasized Miliukov Dis autonomy. provincial “real” from project Polish the distinguished that features those all noted pr p article the In attention. of kind certain autonomy. a of issue the really was it that impression an make indeed could th inattentively Read articles. specific in hidden were project Polish the of points key The state. Russian the of part a be to had Poland of Kingdom the and autonomy wanted Poles the seemed it that so form, veiled a in preserved were elements These collea his persuade cla to necessary to tried who Stecki, of position the follow not projectdid At thesame time, the names. articulate calling bytheir things itopenly, unio a for real had tostrive thePoles They ideaopinion. that rejected Studnicki’s public Russian the for suitable more be would that form a in them present to sought authors the However, Duma. the in Poles the of declaration first the of foreground

ie te oe fr eti mv i te ieto o pltcl els, and realism, political of direction the in move certain for Poles the aised Ibid. Rech’ Ibid t siiul aaiis o cetv sca wr t rglt is oil ie n srgl with struggle and life social its regulate to work social forces. depersonalizing and destructive creative for capacities spiritual its free, benevolent, lively, a two acquire for who people, the of assistance multisided and to useless be not will it order…, state the of transformation regarding Stecki’s ideas to strengthen the Polish influence in Western provinces, provinces, Western in influence Polish the strengthen to ideas Stecki’s regarding .,

However, the peculiarities of the project did not escape from Miliukov’s Miliukov’s from escape not did project the of peculiarities the However, in were which principles, general the preserve to attempted project The

138 86 ( 86 t h mmn, hn h Rsin epe s bu t tk a ra efr of effort great a take to about is people Russian the when moment, the At .

1907) 169

To this project this To rify the concept of autonomy from the elements of separate stat separate of elements the from autonomy of concept the rify .

170 ublished in the newspaper newspaper the in ublished

n iikvs iw te oih eeain a t define to had delegation Polish the view, Miliukov’s In

Miliukov opposed the project in project the opposed Miliukov

168

175

centuries dedicated its forces and strains all all strains and forces its dedicated centuries

Rech ’

on April 12, 1907 Miliukov Miliukov 1907 12, April on

the brochure of Stecki. of brochure the gues that it was was it that gues ehood. e he yet n and

the the ey ey

CEU eTD Collection 171 secondary of reform the demanded they government, the of side the joined deputies on depended vote wa Duma andgovernment, the 12 only reform to governmental (down Duma third the in Poland King the from deputies the of number the reducing dramatically by Duma didnothappen.two parties, possible, ifwas it ever convergen expected the Thus, considerably. influence their ko Polish the and Kadets the both legislation, new the of basis the on elected chance tosecure certai a still was there that implied and autonomy of understanding Kadets’ the accepting autonomy. of projects realistic more for f improvements principle interpre be could Poles the of count could it exclusively aims, their accomplishing for favorable more become had Russia in situation the that thought delegation Polish the If Russia. in affairs of state present precisely

Ibid.

h gvrmn ratd o h atmt f h kł t bran n h second the in bargain to koło the of attempt the to reacted government The Duma, next the In fail. to doomed were hopes optimistic Miliukov’s However,

what they wanted to achieve proceeding from a realistic assessment of the the of assessment realistic a from proceeding achieve to wanted they what in hopeless situation. Miliukov, however, considered, that there were no no were there that considered, however, Miliukov, situation. hopeless in

o n the power of the public opinion inside Poland. Otherwise, the behavior the Otherwise, Poland. inside opinion public the of power the n or the Polish cause th cause Polish the or hc sd te oih ko Polish the side which n rights for the Kingdomn rightsPoland. for the of f h mi the of The Third Duma: Third The End the Dead ted as im im as ted s divided on two equal camps. Thus, camps. twoequal divided on s

litary draft draft litary en, at the same time, there time, same the at en,

practical

171 176 ło

n te wrs Mluo suggested Miliukov words, other In h Kdt dcdd o upr the support to decided Kadets the

would choose. Although the Polish Polish the Although choose. would seeking only to make a make to only seeking

) Drn te discuss the During .

ce of the positions of the the of positions the of ce was still open still was the outcome of the the of outcome the

statement statement ion of the the of ion the way way the dom of of dom ło

lost of

CEU eTD Collection 175 174 173 172 because regions, the Petersburg,to St. in center, the herein areresolved that questions forces.Dmowski said: order.” spee Minister’s Prime in find not could he that declared Dmowski followed, that discussion the During future. nearest that the in speech policy governmental a of made trends general Stolypin expounded session this At 1907. 16, November on Duma the ko Polish the of se seventh the at place took which Stolypin, leader Minister Prime the and Dmowski the between dialogue the in reflected became Duma, matters.” “pu their the on of decide number to them the allow to but supposed needs, not was their representatives of speak only nationalities, could Other state, spirit.” the by “Russian inhabiting be to had Duma new the that declared 3, June of Manifesto the In dissolved. a quickly find was Duma second to the as vain Poles in were government the the with ground common of attempts the all However, budget. state the of discussion s in instruction of language the Poland. of Kingdom the in education

Ibid., 1., 3. Sessia Sozyv GDSO. PSZRI Chmielewski, purely bureaucratic rule, or the state system would really be renovated by means of wide self wide of forces… social ofthe invitation and government means by renovated be really would system state the or rule, bureaucratic purely gove the that institutes these all ch anything “that would provide a hope for actual renovation of the state state the of renovation actual for hope a provide would “that anything ch

174

Dmows In 341 The new situation, in which the Polish delegates found themselves in the third third the in themselves found delegates Polish the which in situation, new The , v 173

. 27. no. 29240 no. 27. . Stolypin even mentioned the borderlands, but it is not clear from his words… whe words… his from clear not is it but borderlands, the mentioned even Stolypin mwk age ta ay esnbe oiy a t rl o lcl social local on rely to has policy reasonable any that argued Dmowski - 342

. The Polish Question in the Russian StateDuma Russian the in Question Polish The

ki’s view, it was necessary to “move the center of gravity of many many of gravity of center the “move to necessary was it view, ki’s .

341 .

rnment is going to call to life to call to going is rnment

econdary education. The same happened during the the during happened same The education. econdary

172

They

97 the 1907, 175 177

put forward a project of making of project a forward put

, 40 , Prime Minister Peter Stolypin Stolypin Peter Minister Prime would only be auxiliary means for means auxiliary be only would - 42.

rely Russian Russian rely ssion of of ssion Polish ther ther - ł o CEU eTD Collection 181 180 179 178 177 176 self local the of development the for Poles the of claims modest the ofthecitizens first acquire rate will and all therights. Stolypin advised did, citizens Roman the once good highest the that accept school.”high languagein Russian the instituti educational normal a have not did they example, For themselves. blame to had rate” second the of citizens the themselves force.” national a always self of force “the reliance the against not themselves withthestat second of position its O “Certainly!” of records the to be considered PolandKingdom will of the of inhabitants “the policy a such with accordance in that concluded and Duma the the to referred favor.” people’s in properly resolved be can they there only

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.,

This dialog showed that, in the new conditions, the government opposed even even opposed government the conditions, new the in that, showed dialog This was he that speech concluding the in said Stolypin criticism this to response In

352 342 . .

u threefold decrease of the representation of the Kingdom of Poland in Poland of Kingdom the of representation the of decrease threefold t raged, Dmowski proclaimed that “the Polish people will never accept accept never will people Polish “the that proclaimed Dmowski raged, - oenet o which on government,

h ssin a ti mmn a oc fo te ih shouted: right the from voice a moment this at session, the - ae iies n hs tt ad il ee b al t reconcile to able be never will and state this in citizens rate e, inwhichtheye, areassigned a secondary place.”

n oa fre. oee, h Pie M Prime the However, forces. local on 179

is to become Russian citizen, carry this status as high as as high as status this carry citizen, Russian become to is tlpn lo elrd ht hs, wo a js called just had “who those, that declared also Stolypin

180 second

He further called to: “ calledto: further He h cnrl oenet il ey a t be to has rely will government central the

178 -

rate citizens of this state.” ofthis rate citizens on because “they did not want to use use to want not did “they because on , and then you will call yourself the the yourself call will you then and ,

” 181

176 Take our point of view of point our Take

Further on, Dmowski on, Further inister declared that that declared inister - government 178 177

According and and , CEU eTD Collection 186 185 184 183 i społecznych myśli politycznych Państwowej„ Izbie 182 the autonomyaccorded onlyifthis and Russians, fromit the They onlyreceive could of society. theRussian anti strong a partial least at obtain and will their dictate could they that thought Duma the in delegation parti w “Earlier Dumas. previous two the in activity conclusion this reached He tactics. parliamentary by autonomy to achievethe impossible was it that realize neededto Poles the Grabski, Accordingto W the idea state. Russian ofbelonging tothe of dreams that clear accepted Poles the until useless were basis it national the on equality or decentralization made Stolypin time, same the At characteristics. ethnic the of acceptance the imply not did Russians” “become to call The decentralization. ould take the autonomy from weakened Russia Russia weakened from autonomy the take ould

ładysław Ibid. Ibid., Ibid. Ibid., W ihr n eea, r n io ise, ni te usa pol bcm cnicd ht this that convinced become people Russian the until issues, minor interests. political own suitstheir autonomy in or general, people, Polish in the of either will the state Russian the on impose cannot and force material substitute

neet o te usa statehood. Russian the of interests ładysław Grabski, Grabski, ładysław culiarity of our Polish delegation in St. Petersburg.” St. in delegation Polish our of culiarity

autonomy. However, this goal proved to be beyond their reach and caused only only caused and reach their beyond be to proved goal this However, autonomy. Fr by formulated were situation changed the in delegation Polish the of aims The

35 34 . . autonomy. the win not could Poles the that inferred Grabski notion this om

It turned out that the power of of power the that out turned It - Grabski Polish movement, both in the government and among a considerable part part considerable a among and government the in both movement, Polish in: in: “ “Memoria , Myśli o Rzeczpospolitej o Myśli

n o te edr o te oih ko Polish the of leaders the of one 184

(Krak ł o konieczności programu dla delegacji polskiej w Petersburgu w III III w Petersburgu w polskiej delegacji dla programu konieczności o ł

ów : Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1988) Literackie, Wydawnictwo solidarity may solidarity

185 186 ” Autonomia, Reforma, Edukacja obywatelska Edukacja Reforma, Autonomia, ”

rbk’ saeet ial cnurd with concurred finally statement Grabski’s

179 Grabski ,

have a moral significa moral a have due to our solidarity and the the and solidarity our to due

183 wrote, we assumed that we we that assumed we wrote,

In other words, the Polish the words, other In ł i te hr Duma third the in o .

by an analysis of their their of analysis an by nce… but it cannot cannot it but nce… . Wybór . with with . 182

CEU eTD Collection (St.Petersburg 1908) Altenberg, 190 189 188 187 states all an create to an able Poland be give would to Russia autonomy), necessary would it this for (and later the of trust the acquired only side her on peoples of core (1908). Question” Polish the and Russia, “Germany, book his in expounded influence.” German on severalconditions. the power toimplement them. more were Kadets the Now, principles. national Polish the consideration into take to want not did they yet opposition. Russian Dumas. two first the in agreement of failure the for liberals the blame to continued Poles late. the Besides, too came convergence this However, interests. political their on perspective Miliuk what

Ibid., Ibid. Ibid. to take them back after the crisis is over. the crisis after takeback them to a us to concessions certain makes government the moment critical a at if And principles… national our with accordance in not but people, Russian coercion, under reforms the conducts from pressure the under concessions of path the follows government the when oa Dmowski Roman –

First, Russia had to “chose the path of Slavic policy and policySlavic of path the “chose to had Russia First, depended autonomy Polish the of accomplishment the Grabski, to According

the natural foes of the Slavs. Thus, Dmowski assumed that the mutual interest interest mutual the that assumed Dmowski Thus, Slavs. the of foes natural the mwk’ agmn ws that was argument Dmowski’s .

When the building of the Russian statehood is unsteady again, as it was two years ago; ago; years two was it as again, unsteady is statehood Russian the of building the When , 1909) , v xetd rm h Pls when Poles, the from expected ov .

Russian translation: Roman Roman translation: Russian .

, rbk hmef eakd ht h Pls could Poles the that remarked himself Grabski 187 imy Rsa keta polska kwestya i Rosya Niemcy, 189

In his view, the Kadets had sufficient weight in the first Duma, first the in weight sufficient had Kadets the view, his In

disposed to understand these principles, but they did not have have not did they but principles, these understand to disposed ee rbk rpoue Dosis da wih h latter the which idea, Dmowski’s reproduced Grabski Here fe it after

–

we may be sure that these reforms will be in favor of the of favor in be will reforms these that sure be maywe 188 stopped repressions against the Poles. Having Having Poles. the against repressions stopped

Russia would be able to draw the Slavic Slavic the draw to able be would Russia Dmovskii, Dmovskii,

s a people, it will only do so with the intention intention the with so do only will it people, a s 180

e called he

( - Lwów Sla emni, Rossiia Germaniia, vic front against the German German the against front vic : Towarzystwo Wydawnicze H. H. Wydawnicze Towarzystwo :

hm o dp a realistic a adopt to them liberate itself from the the from itself liberate o count not

below; when it it when below; plsi vopros pol’skii i

190 n the on

The

CEU eTD Collection 194 193 192 191 allies. their as liberals Russian the consider seriously not did Democrats National the the first Dumas. two Pole the that obstinacy the with sharply contrasted Poland, for concessions minimal the acquire to only if Duma, third the further interests its instrengthening theWestern borderland. Russia’s contradict not would that way a in formulated advant cultural its preserve to it help and behind lagging from Poland prevent to least at was delegation Polish of task the peasants, of position the improved and reforms economic g serveDuma still evenas could thegeneral it though goal. ko Polish the of tactics parliamentary the define not could autonomy fulfilled, were conditions these Until decentralization. Russia’s for impediment major the reconciliation thePoles. with Dmowski for constituted groups social gov Russian the on influence German the However, threat. German the against struggle common their in consisted Poles the and Russians the of overnment and the moderate majority in the Duma. As Russia took the path of of path the took Russia As Duma. the in majority moderate the and overnment

Ibid., Ibid., 38. Ibid., Grabski, Dmowski, g oe Russia. over age The willingness of the Polish delegation Polish the of willingness The the from concessions partial for look to delegation Polish the advised Grabski of path the along transformation inner its begin to had Russia Second, conclude to possible is It 39 .

“Memoria Germaniia, Rossiia i pol’skii vopros i pol’skii Rossiia Germaniia, ł o konieczności programu…,” konieczności ł o

193

l te rjcs f h Pls dlgto hd o be to had delegation Polish the of projects the All 191

that throughout the whole period of their interaction interaction their of period whole the throughout that

revealed in their relations with the Kadets in Kadets the with relations their in revealed ,

146

36 181 - 179 .

to collaborate with the government in government the with collaborate to

asserted Grabski, the slogan of of slogan the Grabski, asserted 192

interests, and would only only would and interests, 194

rmn ad particular and ernment ł i te State the in o CEU eTD Collection Duma wing right the since late too came realization the acquire convocation could autonomy of slogan the when situation, the in themselves found eventuallyDemocrats National the and lost was time the Thus, allies. potential their of irritation even and fir the in discussion the for question “Polish the sidelined consequently the propose to Democrats National the of attempts the all time, same the At question.” and Poles the towards trustful less became real rhetoric the to confined were allies liberal the approach to attempts their All autonomy. Polish the of idea the support c Democrats National the right moderate Russian the short pursue Poles, the as just Russians, the that premise the on acted and anarchy) of forces the as perceivedthey whom socialists, the (exceptparties Russian the differencesbetween the that fact the by events the of perception this explain can One principles.” “Polish the of misunderstanding Kadets’ the to failure the attributed delegation Polish the failed, tactics this When the Instead opinion. public Russian the of part friendly the on relying without concessions gain to expected They

union - term tactical alliances. In a certain sense, it was easier for the Poles to deal with with deal to Poles the for easier was it sense, certain a In alliances. tactical term , o longer no d

was unwil

their own interests. interests. own their .

support if support ecig o hs beh this to Reacting f the of

ev a te rga o program the as serve ling to makeling any toconcessions

Third Duma the Poles realized that their demands could only only could demands their that realized Poles the Duma Third

accorded with the interests of the Russian state. However state. Russian the of interests the with accorded ud o understand not ould - y preferred to stake on “moral force” of their own claims. own their of force” “moral on stake to preferred y wing

Therefore, no basic agreement was possible, but only only but possible, was agreement basic no Therefore, oih ainlss i not did nationalists Polish

avior of the Polish delegation, the Russian liberals liberals Russian the delegation, Polish the of avior parties due to a keener a to due parties

of decentralization, which decentralization, of st and the second Dumas met with indifference indifference with met Dumas second the and st f their activity in the Duma. Following the the Following Duma. the in activity their f

182

majority ht oe te usa liberal Russian the moved what

the Poles.

p , erception of their aims their of erception which dominated the third third the dominated which opeed the comprehend

mask ed

the idea of a a of idea the

principle principle . Yet, Yet, . ,

to s this this CEU eTD Collection general support of the public opinion in Russia, without specifying which party they they party which specifying without Russia, in opinion public the of support general T voters. Polish the of support solidary the with whole by weakened Russia, behave that representation Polish the if premise them, with agree would the “anarchy,” upon acted Poles the Initially, claims. their co of fate the influence to wantedthey because Duma the to deputies their send to agreed which borderlands, Western Russia’s minorityPolishin the of the status of question the open separ possible greatest the However, opinion Not problem. complete“inner liberty intheir affairs,”by analogyFinland.with the Greatof Duchy accepted and bargain a Russians delegati o short stopped Poland of Kingdom the scheme, this possible bureaucracy. Russian of dominance greatest the from Poland of the Kingdom the of liberation or Poland, of “particularity” the as negatively, understood Mili (as “realism” greater towards moved h Pls cal Poles the eetees tee ee meiet o te a t s to way the on impediments were there Nevertheless, eventually autonomy of question the on deputies Polish the of position The Polish the how unclear was it Besides, - n nationals beyond thebordersnationals beyond Kingdom of the reject g foreign policy to the to policy foreign

“autonomy,

the bargain, but even the Poles themselves were divided on this issue. this on divided were themselves Poles the even but bargain, the only : they were ready to abandon the claim the abandon to ready were they :

did e te Conquered the led

h gvrmn ad h rgts pr o the of part rightist the and government the ” yet in exchange they expected expected they exchange yetin ” central state central ation of the Kingdom of Poland Poland of Kingdom the of ation

Conclusion Lands. Unlike the Finns, the Polish leaders leaders Polish the Finns, the Unlike Lands.

kv ald t. Initially, it). called ukov

institutions. institutions. 183

delegation expected to implement their implement to expected delegation

f complete independence onl independence complete f .

hey also counted on a certain certain a on counted also hey The Poles essentially offered offered essentially Poles The Russia to provide them provide to Russia f or

comple uch a solution of the the of solution a uch “autonomy” was was “autonomy”

from Russia left Russia from te independence te usa public Russian d

as a unitary a as

with with y by by y In

CEU eTD Collection executive power statewide Russian of institutions. the subordinate and autonomy Polish of by autonomy.Battered limited economic st of benefits the realize eventually would they Poland, Russia throughout of It not did Russia from themselves separate to desire Poles’ secession ofinthelong Poland run. to lead to threatened concessions minor even authorities, Russian the of view of point the From independence. complete for fought and arms the up took eventually, and, They time. each “ungrateful” “grant” to attempts par revolutionary against Poles, the to made be revolutionaryas parties“anarchy.” agents of the dismissed and opposition, liberal the and government the between controversy the Abo forces. political Russian of behavior and motives the aboutassumptionmistaken aproceeded from the Poles time, same Atthe spoke about. was rather caused by the government’s continuous repression of all manifestations all of repression continuous government’s the by caused rather was their national development. Conversely, if the Poles were provided equality equality provided were Poles the if Conversely, development. national their Russian liberals proceeded from a different assumption. In their opinion, the the opinion, their In assumption. different a from proceeded liberals Russian could concessions no that assumed parties wing right the and government The the “reeducate to hoped liberals Russian the Thus,

ties and commercial advantages. ’s entire territory as well as as well as territory entire ’s

autonomy to Poland. In the view of the authorities, the Poles were Poles the authorities, the of view the In Poland. to autonomy

vn f h Pls elrd hi spot f h government the of support their declared Poles the if even is Te wr ifre by informed were They ties.

took concessions as weakness, as concessions took criticism from the right the from criticism

d the d

legislative author legislative

184

eti self certain

, the Kadets restricted their idea their restricted Kadets the , aying within Russia, especially Russia, within aying

h eprec of experience the reflect their actual interests. actual their reflect ve all, they underestimated underestimated they all, ve Poles” by providing them them providing by Poles” ity of the Kingdom to the to Kingdom the of ity - rule posed greater posed in the Kingdom of of Kingdom the in

demands demands previous previous

CEU eTD Collection ua Fcsd n h nes f hi nto, h Pls ee p to apt were Poles the nation, their of needs the on Focused Duma. weak the than rather government, the with deal to chose and force significant a as self the to Contrary Poles. the over principles. national Polish the of essence the understand to liberals Russian the of unwillingness self of Instead two first the Dumas, in predecessors their to Similarly Duma. third the in majority wing right the faced they now by However, return. in loyalty and gratitude their promising natio their pose just than rather interests, state Russia’s to reference by claims their justify to necessary was it aims, their achieve to order in that realized Poles the Finally, project. this with dissatisfied were Kadets the why expl of detailed Miliukov more a except reaction, no got they again, Once Poland. of Kingdom the to belonged competence the over competence the which in project, detailed more a formulated and understood not were suggestions their that concluded to failed Duma first the in representatives f except Thus, one. previous consecutive portrayedofas mis anexample be can allies alleged of interaction historyof the Thus, Poles. the imaginationof the in t part, their Kadet the fit not did they that is Duma the in Poles Each of the two sides, misinterpreted the be the misinterpreted sides, two the of Each T powe the overestimated obviously Kadets the turn, their In

the Polish deputies in the third Duma pursued the logic of “natio of logic the pursued Duma third the in deputies Polish the he major conclusion that can be drawn from the analysis of behavior of the the of behavior of analysis the from drawn be can that conclusion major he

he Kadets did Kadets he

episode of their communication happened to be as unfortunate as the the as unfortunate as be to happened communication their of episode - reflection, the Poles attributed the failure of their strategy to the the to strategy their of failure the attributed Poles the reflection,

not correspond the image of enlighted of image the correspond not r sot oe f iikv in Miliukov of note short a or - communication. - image of the Kadets, the Poles did not regard them them regard not did Poles the Kadets, the of image

react to the Polish Polish the to react 185

havior of the other, whereby each each whereby other, the of havior s’

image of the “reeducated.” For For “reeducated.” the of image declaration

Russians that existed existed that Russians Rech’ r of their rhetoric rhetoric their of r nal demands and and demands nal ,

change their their change nal egoism.” egoism.” nal the Russian Russian the . The Poles Poles The . nto of anation - CEU eTD Collection the representatives of the Russian public opinion, who feared not only the separation the only not feared who opinion, public Russian the of representatives the the in minority Polish the of position the influence and Duma Russian the in participate to wanted delegates Polish advo the with analogy the in by realunion, a on insist representativesto Polish the allow not did provincesWestern minority Polish of problem the time, same the At convenient. was it when sit political current the and nation” the of “interests the with accordance in vary could which of meaning the slogan, a as it treated they meaning, precise a with notion juridical a than Rather the that was autonomy anyagreementsget onterms andwiththe government. simultaneouslytried to fi not could they whom with partner, the with face to face Kadets the left elections the in Democrats Progressive the of failure The Poles. the all of position the for position of Union the with connections had who Lednicki, by deceived were Kadets the Besides, “autonomy. agreement the but Poles, the with terms on got Kadets the Polish the of outcome The Poles. the and Russia for both beneficial equally be would which Poland, of Kingdom the for status a find confir to possible it believe behavior not did latter The parties. their rightist of viewpoint fact, In Russia. from separation possible greatest demands their of essence the change not did they However, public. Russian the for acceptable more be would that form a in demands their envelop to trying rhetoric, nd a common language. Besides, this partner was not disposed to bind himself with himself bind to disposed not was partner this Besides, language. common a nd the Progressive Democrats. Their mistake was that they took Lednicki’s personal personal Lednicki’s took they that was mistake Their Democrats. Progressive the The main problem that led to the failure of the whole project of the Polish Polish the of project whole the of failure the to led that problem main The

” Moreover, each of the sides invested autonomy with their own meaning. meaning. own their with autonomy invested sides the of each Moreover, ” uation. Similarly, the “historical rights” served as an argument, argument, an as served rights” “historical the Similarly, uation. cates of the special status of Finland. Along with autonomy, the the autonomy, with Along Finland. of status special the of cates

Poles understood autonomy as a means towards a greater goal. goal. greater a towards means a as autonomy understood Poles Conquered - Russian meeting engendered a false impressi false a engendered meeting Russian Lands. Such claims caused suspicion among suspicion caused claims Such Lands.

186

only referred the word word the referred only med the the med

on that that on –

the CEU eTD Collection autonomy,earlieradvocated theFinland. thanthey autonomy had of Polish of idea the advocate to Kadets the for difficult more much was it conditions, mem persistent by complicated was situation The lands. “Russian” the in expansion of attempts also but Poland, of Kingdom the of

187

ory of former conflicts. In these these In conflicts. former of ory

CEU eTD Collection 2 Question… Ukrainian 1 Russian the of of Ukrainecentral a point. became annou having parties, Democratic 1904 In network. political the united Kiev in Organization Ukrainian General Ukraine. independent of slogan the proclaimed which Party, Dmitry 1899 In politics. in interest emerged activity. more offered which Galicia, to moved movement government. the with conflicts Ukrainian the of who activists, Ukrainophile force. political significant case Ukrainian

Dmitro Doroshenko, Doroshenko, Dmitro 19 the in movement Ukrainian the of history the of analysis detailed A B movement national the cases, Polish the and Finnish the to contrast In Ukr the emergenceTheof

y the beginning of the 20 the of beginning the y in Russia in The was - ie oiia poess Mn rpeettvs f h Ukrainian the of representatives Many processes. political wide circle were engaged were circle

. Influenced . Naris istorii Ukrainy istorii Naris represented “Ukrainian Question”: Re Question”: “Ukrainian - 1905 it split into into split it 1905 and Federative Utopia Federative and pursued mainly pursued salse i 1860 in Established

above above

by 1 ainians at ainians

nced the political program, in which the autonomy the which in program, political the nced In

th Chapter Chapter a small group of intelligentsia, of group small a

(Lviv:

Antonovich cen all the the in

by so by tury a new generation of of generation new a tury state ae 1870 late “

Svit,” 1991), 546. 1991), Svit,” the political stage took placestage took political the 188 the cultural aims cultural cialist ideas cialist

service 4.

Ukrainian Radical and the Ukrainian the and Radical Ukrainian

- found the Revolutionary Ukrainian Ukrainian Revolutionary the found

e the ies

- favorable e te etr f h Ukrainian the of center the ies

oa hoay no common a into hromady local and tended to tended and , al Politics al

. Many of the sympathizers sympathizers the of Many .

they l Hoaa united Hromada Old th

conditions for for conditions

century see in: Miller, The The Miller, in: see century t h sm tm, the time, same the At demonstrated a strong strong a demonstrated Ukrainian rather than than rather avoid any avoid

in the context the in

activists activists political being

in the in direct direct the the a CEU eTD Collection advocating and communes of federation a of ideas archaic the overcome the from diverged views his Hrushevsky, of authority the recognized Ukrainians the Although Duma. t after faction parliamentary Ukrainian the of activity the Ukrainian prominent cooperati Russian the at place took which divisions political many internalized movement the Besides, t of organization delegating of a at associations to communities idea the promoted He Bakunin. Mikhail Ukraini project th of problem the However, other dissertation. from this in them considered movements distinguished national which state, Russian entire the of federalization prominent figuresUkrainian ofthe movement. Odessa and Chernigov, Kiev, in branches local Their Ukrainians. Th nation. Ukrainian the of idea right Russian the Party. Revolutionary Social the and Democrats Social li very were parties Ukrainian state the joined movement Mikhail Hrushevsky Mikhail with Along

was that federative ideas wereideas federative that was an parties preserved many archaic elements, which continued the tradition the continued which elements, archaic many preserved parties an - w on and leadin ide level. This led to led This level. ide

the

construction of the Ukrainian national statehood within the Russian Russian the within statehood national Ukrainian the of construction - e Ukrainian he wing parties opposed the Ukrainian movement and denied the very very the denied and movement Ukrainian the opposed parties wing antem f h Uriin nelcul tradition. intellectual Ukrainian the of mainstream uooy te dooy of ideology the autonomy, theoretician g to competitiong among to - wide occupied mited. The closest Ukrainian allies on the left were the were left the on allies Ukrainian closest The mited. s

cleavages and cleavages re higher level and finally to the center. the to finally and level higher parties; he , flected e Kadets were another important ally of the the of ally important another were Kadets e

weak a special place in the Ukrainian movement. movement. Ukrainian the in place special a joined

therefore

ay hrceitc o Bknns model. Bakunin’s of characteristics many

ly 189

support t Petersburg St.

different groups.different personal rivalries complicating rivalries personal

h Uriin oeet proposed movement Ukrainian the

the ed political possibilities of strictly of possibilities political By contrast, the Octobrists and Octobrists the contrast, By

in Russia. Russia. in

e lcin i te first the in elections he rmd ad influenced and hromada oeegt fo loca from sovereignty was more was

The program of the of program The The amorphous The novd many involved

e ogt to sought He

interested in interested

mutual

eir of A l

CEU eTD Collection 3 i “real the called, they what on, focus to offered and utopian as autonomy of demands issues Ukrainian spli the Besides, Club. Kiev the from opponents positi their enforce to hoping to sought latter The Duma. fourth the in elections the ass party adversary, of theClub alliancewith all the of project the supported only the of pursuit an of conditions great a as status Russia’s all for common to had Ukrainians to vulnerable t aware was he time, same the At empire.

ssues.” hought thatof introduction autonomywould Anton Kotenko, Olga Martyniuk, Alexei Miller, AlexeiMiller, Martyniuk, Olga AntonKotenko, wti ter w party, own their within t Mawie te aes eue t dsus h fdrtv poet ad the and projects federative the discuss to refused Kadets the Meanwhile, . In the period of reaction, th reaction, of period the In S

c a uch ociation. However, it restored its restored it However, ociation. claims

the Nationalist faction in Duma connected with connected Duma in faction Nationalist the critics, who opposed the the opposed who critics, Ukraini icmlt caatr f h Uriin nation Ukrainian the of character incomplete n he East three impending Bt pltcl rus oprtd ln te kana cultural Ukrainian the along cooperated groups political Both .

compete with compete an demands an Russian NationalistsRussian inKiev.

- empire

lvc nationalities Slavic conflict of the great powers. In these circumstances the the circumstances these In powers. great the of conflict many n i Urie in Ukraine in ons

project was P . e Ukrainian movement resumed a resumed movement Ukrainian e

of whose whose of ltcl eso icesd n 1907 in increased tension olitical - doomed to failure to doomed Russian emergence emergence of of of the all the of “

Maloross...,” 432. Maloross...,”

relationship with the Kadets on the eve of eve the on Kadets the with relationship “immaturity” leadership 190 facilitate its development.facilitate its

ersnaie sympathized representatives

ain bt lo eid n a on relied also but nation,

n ws osee by bolstered was and - of a distinct Ukrainian nation. Ukrainian distinct a of 3 Russian nation that claimed to be be to claimed that nation Russian

optto wt ter political their with competition

of the Kadets strove to avoid a avoid to strove Kadets the of .

of P cooperat rime the Ukrainians’ most serious most Ukrainians’ - Ukrainian project and and project Ukrainian minister Stolypin not Stolypin minister al project made it it made project al wt Ukrainians with e

form of form

h nto of notion the - 94 n the in 1914

ih the with political a

non The The -

CEU eTD Collection 6 Kritiko Bakunin. 5 programmy i Svod ob’’iasneniia programmy. sotsial’noi Idem. 1881); “Gromady,” i “Rabotnika” 4 be should principle authoritarian and violence on down top from based organization, Unite the of the Inproject lines. federal along reorganized be could country particular a or general in rejected Bakunin time, same the At feelings. i human of terms in between peoples relationship the displayed that metaphors on based was it as realization, movement romantic a of characteristic 1848. of events the of course the federation of notion a revolutionarie of union a of Such idea his reflected individuals. free of union a as peoples the of union tha metaphor a rather was but meaning, juridical clear any have not did It a ideas wereofBakunin. premised notion federation by developed onthe into state centralized Russian the reorganizing federation. of ground the in lay would which principles, the formulated Dragomanov Union” Free “The and Democracy” 1880 In Dragomanov. Mikhail of works the consider to important is it federation, and autonomy regarding

ntergovernmentaland juridical aspectsofafederal relationship units.

Dragomanov, Dragomanov, novoi “Osnovy Bakunin, Mikhail Mikhail Dragomanov, Istoricheskaia Pol’sha i velikorusskaia velikorusskaia i Pol’sha Istoricheskaia Dragomanov, Mikhail Later on, in 1867 Bakunin formulated a more precise idea of how the humanity thehumanity how ideaBakunin aprecise of formulated more Later in1867 on, 1840 late In activists Ukrainian the of position the of roots intellectual the understand To

Dragomanov’s Tradition and NationalismDragomanov’s Phenomenon and New Tradition asa 4

At the same time, it should be noticed, noticed, be should it time, same the At Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin, Aleksandrovich Mikhail - biograficheskii ocherk biograficheskii - ies Bakunin formulated the idea of federation of Slavic peoples. Slavic of federation of idea the formulated Bakunin ies Sae o Erp Bknn u frad n da ht a old “an that idea an forward put Bakunin Europe of States d - ies,

n i wrs Hsoia Pln ad Great and Poland “Historical works his in slavianskoi politiki” Mikhail Dragomanov, Dragomanov, Mikhail politiki” slavianskoi

6 (Kazan, Tipografiia A.M.Gran’, 1905), 88 1905), A.M.Gran’, Tipografiia (Kazan,

“Vol’nyi soiuz” soiuz” “Vol’nyi His representation of natio of representation His

. However, it was impractical and difficult for difficult and impractical was it However, .

- 42. 42. 191 s of different nations nations different of s

(Genève: Tipografiia “Gromady,” 1884). 1884). “Gromady,” (Genève:Tipografiia –

“Vil’na spilka.” spilka.” “Vil’na that the Dragomanov’s federalist Dragomanov’s the that demokratiia (Genève: Tipografiia Tipografiia (Genève: demokratiia ns as per as ns pturiso politico ukrainskoi Opyt Mikhail Aleksandrovich Aleksandrovich Mikhail to be established in established be to - 91. 91. sonalities was a was sonalities

t framed the framed t -

Russian Russian

5 -

CEU eTD Collection (Mosco 7 the Moreover, other. each with solidarity their prevent not did people of strivings natural the latter, the with accordance In person. a of vision anthropological certain a Therefore unavoidable.be would contradictionthe arbitrary signify not does will individual an time, same the At exist. to cease would contradiction the abolished are two latter the as soon As its inequality. lose would w it association Bakunin the of view of the in will because significance, the and individual of will the between contradiction The association. the for inviolable be would that freedom, of sphere h entirely up give not does association, an to competencies certain delegating when individual, an framework, a such Within nations from provinces of autonomy provinces, from communes of autonomy the individual its app be would of it Similarly members. autonomy the provide would and association, the of level basic the of core the at be would principle federative a Thus, association. the of character association associ an such bedinning people the world.” entire the of then and Statesfirst,Europe United the into latterfinally, the and nations, into provinces provinces, into communes communes, into individuals of federation populatio the of strivings tha organization new a with replaced

ihi Bknn “eeaim stils i nielgz” Idem, antiteologizm” i sotsialism “Federalism, Bakunin, Mikhail w: In general, Bak general, In

Izdatel’stvo “Pravda,” 1989), 19. 1989), “Pravda,” Izdatel’stvo bt ol confo would but , to wud o ips is il on will its impose not would ation

on the level of local association. For Bakunin, the general will of will general the ForBakunin, association. localof level the on unin’s idea was to reconcile individual wills a wills individual reconcile to was idea unin’s .Teewudb o te rnil pr rm voluntary from apart principle other no be would There n. m to rm

lied to higher levels of the association and secure and association the of levels higher to lied

hi bsc neet and interests basic their t would reflect would t is own will. He secures for himself a certain a himself for secures He will. own is

192

, the anarchist doctrine presupposed doctrine anarchist the , s nedrd y ttho and statehood by engendered as

the interests, needs, and natural and needs, interests, the

individual members of this this of members individual iooia stilgi, politika sotsiologiia, Filosofiia,

elc the reflect action; nd the needs of needs the nd

otherwise otherwise voluntary etc .

CEU eTD Collection 8 when ferment, double by captured is Europe of east whole the when “Now, wrote: Caucasus.” and Europe par reasonable” Eastern most “the of federalism called Dragomanov peoples the of socialists the among least at than nations, the among not if now, useful be would federation this And federation. recomme he Instead, peoples. to Slavic only association the confine to want not did he However, International. the of section Slavic a create to suggestion his shared and ideas Bakunin’s of significance of In “Historical Poland work his Bakunin. of theory the regarding ideas his of continuity the recognized himself latter people of administrative function. all incharge with to tended responsibility tradition, and accountability interchangeability, of principles the emphasize Bakunin’s continued that projects, the Therefore, authority. rat the Thus, association. the of associat (of agave social institutions Bakunin’s preference torepresentative model levels the all at institutions to applied be should principles Similar freedom. personal of sphere the into intervention their prevent or usurp be to them avoid to order in possible as frequent as membership their change and institutions collegial and elective be to have these Moreover, institutions. its to or to belonged ind case, this in applicable all at if “Sovereignty,” sovereignty. state repressive process. thestate this into of interference self of capable be to supposed were people

Dragomanov, her than a state) and restricted and state) a than her ividual, who delegated his delegated who ividual, These principles were similarly integrated in the works of Dragomanov. The The Dragomanov. of works the in integrated similarly were principles These of idea the denied approach an such standpoint, juridical a from Considered

Istoricheskaia Pol’sha Istoricheskaia

rights (that he could not realize himself) to a commune commune a to himself) realize not could he (that rights and theGreat ,

250 the competence o competence the .

dd o “ to nded

- 193 - Russian Democracy” Dragomanov spoke Russian org

anization and cooperation without a a without cooperation and anization f the people in charge of charge in people the f forming

t of Bakunin’s theory and and theory Bakunin’s of t

wdr East wider a -

executive European

to the to ion, an an ed 8

CEU eTD Collection 11 10 9 and economic to contradict not Dragomanov of approach would the distinguished feature particular This criteria. geographic units federal the between borders the idea more explicit. his makes Dragomanov abstract following the In boundaries. “natural” by other each to opposed be to seem regions These Europe. Eastern the formed that regions” “natural of idea an was Dragomanov Caucasus. the of peoples the and Latvians, Russians, the with Along neighborhood. territorial of principle the on founded union a of idea an forged Dragomanov language, and origin common of idea the on based Slavs of association represent a organization, ac federation of idea the association Dragomanov thattheBakuninoriginal of an underlined, idea. this was author West, the from separation a without certainly activists political and social of federation of idea the when time a is it organizations, socialist of beginnings the has… regions natural its of each

Ibid., 251. Ibid.,

Ibid., 264. Ibid., 250. Ibid., individuals, communes and tribes of particular nationalities. Moreover, in the times of of times the in Moreover, nationalities. economic.” and geographical, of natural basins, theborders particular of ov case every in almost nationalities these of tribes location the colonization unconscious and communes individuals, easi y om y aue ntd y agae pyhlgcl iiaiy ad egbrod of neighborhood and similarity, psychological language, by united nature by form ly A union of the whole humanity is only a general union of particular unions. The latter can latter The unions. particular of union general a only is humanity whole the of union A Dragomanov defining for basis the as principle ethnic the Dragomanov, to according Thus, n ter epe. t h sm tm, otay o aui’ pa o an of plan Bakunin’s to contrary time, same the At peoples. their ing

of socialist organizations should precede the union of the nations. Thus, nations. the of union the precede should organizations socialist of

voluntary association of likeminded activists composed of delegations of composed activists likeminded of association voluntary

Uk a rfruaig aui’ ie. e assumed He idea. Bakunin’s reformulating was anas uh fdrto might federation a such rainians quired a specific meaning. It was to be to was It meaning. specific a quired

existing states (as “unnatural”). They are divided with divided are They “unnatural”). (as states existing

10 194

An interesting element of the theory of theory the of element interesting An

- 11

curs ra significance.” real a acquires

nld te Lithuanians, the include

f atr Europe, Eastern of a permanent soc permanent a erlapped with erlapped

ht the that ialist 9 -

CEU eTD Collection 1996), 173. 1996), 1995 to 1710 from Thought Ukrainian system, judicial (eds.) Luckyj S.N. George and Lindheim present the general “In “ ideas: Bakunin’s of statutes of the to adherent according an for expression unusual 13 70 goda 1917 o P.N.Miliukov i “M.P.Dragomanov Ganelin, 12 of list Dragomanov’s example, For level. lower of units the of autonomy substantial a securingup, bottom ratherfrom but did, decentralization of projects liberal usuallythe no authority of delegation the regarded it because particularly than revolutionary. rather liberal, more it made which project, the of features certain explainable makes circ latter The activists. zemstvo moderate more rather but revolutionaries, not were These audience. particular a to ideas his addressed Dragomanov that noticed be should it However, state. Russian new the in units the of connection federative to how on views his expressing as Dragomanov of project the consider rather will I chapter, this In government. the an to linked of organizations result the of a intrigue was Dragomanov of project the that important, much that not is It of parts federation. various between borders the define to criterion main the was population of views the from Draft

For example, it is exactly due to his appeal to a moderate audience, it is possible to see such an an such see to possible is it audience, moderate a to appeal his to due exactly is it example, For Mohrenschildt - 73. 73.

Constitution for the Ukrainian Society in the Free Union” translated by I.L. Rudnitsky in: Ralph in: Rudnitsky I.L. by translated Union” Free the in Society Ukrainian the for Constitution

However, despite its liberal “cover,” the project of Dragomanov was radical, radical, was Dragomanov of project the “cover,” liberal its despite However, his The

–

laboratoriia laboratoriia

, T , tory of this project is reviewed in the book of Dmi of book the in reviewed is project this of tory oward a United States of Russia, Russia, of States United a oward

later activists of national movements, for whom the ethnicity of the the of ethnicity the whom for movements, national of activists later 13

iea’o i eoitino m revoliutsionnoi i liberal’noi

o. 0 16, a b cniee stsatr. Mkal Drahomanov, Mikhailo satisfactory.” considered be can 1864, 20, Nov. The projectUnion” the“Free of

(Torronto, Buffalo, London: The University of Torronto Press, Torronto of University The London: Buffalo, (Torronto, Towards and Int and Towards

samoupravlenii i federalizme i samoupravlenii

195 131

ellectual History of Ukraine of History ellectual ysli -

166; 166;

(St.Petersburg: Ev (St.Petersburg: See also See : Boris V.Anan’ich, Rafail.Sh. Rafail.Sh. V.Anan’ich, Boris : t from the top down, as as down, top the from t

” Russkaia emigratsiia do emigratsiia Russkaia try Mo try ropeiskii Dom, 1997), 1997), Dom, ropeiskii . An . h

organize a a organize Anthology of Anthology enschild. umstance umstance 12

CEU eTD Collection 17 16 15 14 between authority the of division the that emphasized, paragraphs these to note The etc.) (academies institutions learned and educational higher as well as region, the of public “supervise region,” schools secondary administer the and region, the in education public in regional activity the economic administer all and “supervise for economy,” “legislate to had They councils. local be to The councils. elected to responsible have would which committees, executive appoint institutions elective The institution ( province one of level the to moreencompass than could level regional The region.and, finally, thenvolost’, uezd, stretching and village local the from starting institutions elective system far, should a complain. victim intervention military for nationality appeal could peace of “inviolability public (e) and personal in language native paragraph the of (recognition say violate, would executive any help.” such give to is duty co the request to responsibility, own their under authorized, be should who peace, of thejustices local of responsibility the of is rights above preservation “The said: rights human of section a to footnote a time, same il resist rightto the includedrights human inalienable

Ibid Ibid Ibid Drahomanov, . ., 172. .

, , 174.

ln ih h ihs fa niiul rgmnvcniee n eal the detail in considered Dragomanov individual, an of rights the with Along

f oa self local of s had to be authorized to dismiss to authorized be to had s

“ guberniia Draft Draft Constitution for the Ukrainian Society in the Free Union…,” 173. Union…,” Free inthe Society thefor Ukrainian Constitution - government. ) . According t According . 15

In other words, according to the logic of Dragomanov, if Dragomanov, of logic the to according words, other In

S projec

elf o Dragomanov, the village councils and elected and councils village the Dragomanov, o - oenet a t b crid u through out carried be to had government t paid much attention to the to attention much paid t

196 the officials, who commit illegal action. illegal commit who officials, the in the office of an official that went too went that official an of office the in

prto o nab top, whose troops, nearby of operation legal actions of officials.legalof actions maintained at the expense expense the at maintained life),” 16

a l a

competence of of competence ocal justice of justice ocal

At theAt 17

CEU eTD Collection 19 18 Vitebsk suggestedlargeregions formingalso Balticregion.the He to added be to provincehad of territories Latish Dragomanov, to according example, For provinces. province a cases, to 2 (from provinces several of consisted regions Dragomanov’s Thus, conditions. ethnographic and economic, geographic, be would these Dragomanov, allow would which irreconcilable overcoming criteria “objective” find to possibility the admitted he time, same the At divided. be to have would Empire Russian the which into regions, the representatives at any time. other by replaced be might and councils regional their from mandate a acquire would representatives These councils. regional representing deputies, the of consist would minorit and occupations, of types all possible, as far as also but localities, the all of inhabitants the only not represent would elected “those that important was it Moreover, districts. electoral in colleges ( Council Union ( Council State the as them mentioned Dragomanov field, particularly financed by it.” inmatters of maximum a have should each that but competence, limited more with those to superior become not should competence wider with institutions that possible, as far so in provide, should statutes “these that: essential was it time, sp by regulated be to had level various of bodies elective

Ibid., 173. Ibid., Ibid.

Alongwith chambers. two by represented was authority state of level higher The

ouni Duma Soiuznaia

the political project Dragomanov suggested a preliminary sketch of preliminarysketch aDragomanovpoliticalsuggested project the ol b rdcd u t asgig tnc ertre t other to territories ethnic assigning to due reduced be could tensions and pacify the process of process the pacify and tensions

. Th ). e a wl a majorities.” as well as ies

Sae oni hd o e hsn y electoral by chosen be to had Council State e

18 197

Gosudarstvennaia Duma Gosudarstvennaia ecial statutes. At the same same the At statutes. ecial

drawing the borders. For borders. the drawing independence in its own its in independence 19

h Uin Council Union The 5). In some some In 5). ) and the the and ) CEU eTD Collection 20 federative project the was because bygovernment, Great This Reforms. the introduced self zemstvo with features similar certain had content the Moreover, authority. state i to tried Dragomanov Bakunin, unlike time, same the At competence). his exceed would authority executive of representative a if case, the in force military of involvement a ones, higher the self of levels lower of autonomy subsidiarity, were Bakunin of the Kharkiv region. traced som a tendency toadd in be might principle ethnographic of influence The criteria. economic the all above regarded Dragomanov that assume, to possible is It Dnieper. the of sides two along For territory. this on of halves even sometimes, and along right defined are borders the moreover (Odessa), South and (Kharkiv), Ukrainian the te with These population. provinces the of division the approached Dragomanov how see, to important is it people, Ukrainian the of liberation the all above aimed project along lines. territorial all with accordance in transformed be would peculiarsocial a to region, due distinct a into Western Transcaucasia, of

Idem. nvest his proj his nvest

Thus, the features that related Dragomanov’s project with the federative ideas ideas federative the with project Dragomanov’s related that features the Thus,

osdrn te kana smahe o Daoao ad h fc ta his that fact the and Dragomanov of sympathies Ukrainian the Considering ect with a with ect

priority of representative bodies over the executive authority (up to (up authority executive the over bodies representative of priority 20

rtre hd o e iie it tre at: et Ke) East (Kiev), West parts: three into divided be to had rritories

example, for example,

juridical content that proved its claim to describe a certain a describe to claim its proved that content juridical and Eastern Siberia. The Cossack lands had to be united be to had lands Cossack The Siberia. Eastern and eprovinces UkrainianofKurskVoronezh to and uezds uezds

rgmnv h iv ein was region Kiev the Dragomanov,

. It is hard to see any natural geographic borders geographic natural any see to hard is It .

198 arrangement of the of arrangement -

estate principle, they could be divided divided be could they principle, estate

- government regarding government

Cossacks. After they Afterthey Cossacks.

to be situated be to uezds - , CEU eTD Collection and the Russian Empire Empire the Russian and 1863 Kiev, Hi Faith organizations: 22 1882). slovo,” 21 Vl and Antonovich 20 vis independence Russian organizational their preserve to strove tasks cultural movement infrastructure were under mo population politically to and movement Ukrainian the of ideas the disseminate Thi language. Ukrainian the the that was activists Ukrainian the for challenge Another network. political common a into organizations dispersed of number large 1890 case. Zemstvo Society.” th developed

Mikhail Dragomanov, Dragomanov, Mikhail h pltcl neato o te empire the of interaction political The th

- etr o te ae f n “ an of base the on century If in Poland the fragmentation of the politic the of fragmentation the Poland in If ies), the major task for the Ukrainian activists at the moment was to integrate a integrate to was moment the at activists Ukrainian the for task major the ies), eiu rival serious The Ukrainian political movement had been forming in the beginning of the the of beginning the in forming been had movement political Ukrainian The

- h ognzto o te Ukr the of organization The wide political movements. - 1907 . 22

e features of Dragomanov’s earlier project written precisely for the “Free the for precisely written project earlier Dragomanov’s of features e

n tne t co to tended and (PhD Dissertation, Yale University, 2009). chapter 4; Liliana Riga, Riga, Liliana 4; chapter 2009). University, Yale Dissertation, (PhD e ersnaie o te Ukrainian the of representatives he 21 ainl lgn. h goig empire growing The slogans. national llis, llis, adi s

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 123 2012), Press, CambridgeUniversity (Cambridge:

Politicheskaia programma obshchestva “Zemskii soiuz” “Zemskii obshchestva programma Politicheskaia o te Ukrain the for mir Naumenko (Dragomanov’s earlier associates) were among were associates) earlier (Dragomanov’s Naumenko mir Between Empire and Nation: Urban Politics, Community, and Violence in Violence and Community, Politics, Urban Nation: and Empire Between The Ukrainian Political Ukrainian The Groups crusac ws n meiet in impediment an was circumstance s

- p te ersnaie o te kana national Ukrainian the of representatives the opt

l Hromada Old

ainian political groups differed from from differed groups political ainian - wide political movements and the Ukrainian national national Ukrainian the and movements political wide ian groups, as they had had they as groups, ian

199

y could not publish their editions in editions their publish not could y .” al forces took place rather early (in early rather place took forces al t longtime Its hromady - wid

pltcl movements political e ln wt assuming with along - 155. 155. developed developed ebr Vlad members

hi atmt to attempts their

(Genève: “Vol’noie “Vol’noie (Genève: The Bolsheviks Bolsheviks The the Polish Polish the - iie the bilize à - regional vis the the vis imir imir

CEU eTD Collection 26 S.N. George and Lindheim Ralph in: Wsyliv Luckyj(eds.) Zenon by translated Ukraine” Independent “An Idem, 25 literature, (1860 Radicalism Ukrainian language, culture the Ukrainian Russia, the left Hromada Dragomanov of Since developing concerns. social at and lite the aimed combine to sought endeavor conversely, Dragomanov, etc. intellectual ethnography an purely as in expressed Naumenko and Antonovich that their views the with line the in was Organization Ukrainian 24 23 nation Ukrainian the union,” political a in monarchy Muscovite the joined Republic wa well material and forces spiritual of development comprehensive and full with citizens its provide to able be would state homogenous ethnically and independent an only that assumed independence. its acquire to strives nature by nation each that arguedMikhnovsky a in ideas t As population. Ukrainian the of exploitation political with work educational and cultural the combining of idea the 18 in founded (RUP), Party Ukrainian Revolutionary the Ukrainianjoint movement. within groups political different of coexistence peaceful relatively a enabled stages issues. cultural purely of discussion the beyond go not did Ukrainian General tog the into “hromady” local 1899. the in Organization unite to initiators key the

Mykola Mikhnovsky, Mikhnovsky, Mykola Idem, “An Independent Ukraine…,” 202. Ukraine…,” “AnIndependent Idem, General emerged newly the and Hromada” “Old the of activity the of trend oriented culturally The EvhenChikalenko, s living through a long interlude in its history. Since 1654, when “the Ukrainian “the when 1654, Since history. its in interlude long a through living s ether in private apartments of its leading members. leading its of apartments private in ether

earlier debate with Dragomanov. The former two represented the trend which saw Ukrainophilism Ukrainophilism saw which trend the represented two former The Dragomanov. with debate earlier by represented was organizations Ukrainian the among trend radical more A

John .

Toward rcue y yoa ihosy A Idpnet kan” (1900). Ukraine” Independent “An Mikhnovsky Mykola by brochure - - Paul Himka, Himka, Paul being. being. s and sand Tvory 26 aotia Ukraina Samostyina

Intellectual History of Ukraine… of History Intellectual From time to time, the members of this organization gathered organization this of members the time, to time From

s o Urie acrig o ihosy a ta mmn it moment that at Mikhnovsky, to according Ukraine, for As (Kiev: Rada, 2003) v.1., v.1., 242. 2003) Rada, (Kiev: - 1890) Socialism in Galicia: The Emergence of Polish Social Democracy and and Democracy Social Polish of Emergence The Galicia: in Socialism

(Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1983), 46 1983), University Press, Harvard (Harvard:

(Lviv: Drukarnia Udilova, 1900) English translation: translation: English 1900) Udilova, Drukarnia (Lviv:

200

he party’s program they approved they program party’s he

The agenda of these meetings these of agenda The - 99. The organizers The 99. retd gna rvie i the in prevailed agenda oriented 24 rary interests with the political political the with interests rary

This at least in its early its in least at This - 47. 47.

claims against claims

advocated

the He He 25 a

CEU eTD Collection 30 29 28 27 declared Mikhnovsky Instead, tha rather secon The renouncing Constitution. the of articles the fulfil to tsars the of violation and be loyaltheir to turned into language.” Ukrainian the know not does and stranger a become has himself God but Ukraine, the over rule tsar “inheritors the of language Ukra the of each of death and life the over right unrestricted an enjoyed who tyrant, legal a into turned republic Ukrainian servant.” Muscovite lowest today’s than rights, hu political elementary their all lost formerrepublic membersthe of individual the government, Ukrainianthe from B organization. internal its in independent totally state, separate a of status the Ukraine the Pereiaslav Meanwhile, latter for a the secured socalled the articlesConstitution. of mise the with along dying gradually been had

esides, Ukraine had the rightesides, the carry Ukrainehad to outtheir foreign policy. Ibid., 209. Ibid., 208. Ibid., 203 Ibid., Ibid.

ihosy osdrd w psil vrat o atos n epne to response in actions of variants possible two considered Mikhnovsky away taken was statehood to right the “When Mikhnovsky: to according Yet,

ry of of ry n in the sphere of legality. T legality. of sphere the in n -

204.

virtual

h tet. e, h lte dcso ly n h shr o pwr relations, power of sphere the in lay decision latter the Yet, treaty. the the treaty with Ukraine by Muscovite tsars. The first variant was to oblige to was variant first The tsars. Muscovite byUkraine with treatythe

Ukraine, according to Mikhnovsky, was that Muscovite State violated State Muscovite that was Mikhnovsky, to according Ukraine, he

oppressors. oppressors. lots, theonlylots, that, difference being 30

of the Pereiaslav Constitution.” Pereiaslav the of The autho The a ihs Tefre kana eulcnhs fewer has republican Ukrainian former The rights. man

ht t was it that

inians. Finally, the law of 1876 put a ban on the the on ban a put 1876 of law the Finally, inians.

r stated that stated r its republican freedom. republican its he author did not choose between choose not did author he

useless useless 201

, the Ukrainian population Ukrainian the , 29 o ics te eealv treaty, Pereiaslav the discuss to

h fre poetr f the of protector former The helots did nothav helots did

“Not only does a foreign a does only “Not 28 27

The ma The vrat suggested variant d in reason for reason in

the variants the e toapprove hd been hd . CEU eTD Collection 33 32 31 politic a than rather future, remote outdated statehood Ukrainian the of independence groupsregion. inthe Russians Great and Jews, Poles, the meant he foreigners” weapons.” our down lay to right no have we territory, our in remains Constitution.” “U wrote: Pereiaslav Mikhnovsky the be will freedom total achieving step towards first The struggle. the for rises it today but misled, been long has nation Our what that declare We b Russia. rightfully in people Ukrainian the of territory entire the for t under people? the to Caucasus.” mountains Carpathian the from Ukraine independent and free, indivisible, th until relevant time same the of part themselves Ukrainians the because

Ibid. 214. Ibid., Ibid.

he Pereiaslav Constitution of 1 of Constitution Pereiaslav he hs Mikh Thus, Ukrainian the of interests the of exponents true the of aim the be would What

ere existed a movement against its oppression with the slogan: “One, single, “One, slogan: the with oppression its against movement a existed ere Muscovite state. Moreover, the time had passed fo passed had time the Moreover, state. Muscovite

. On the other hand, the idea of a complete independence was a dream of a a of dream a was independence complete a of idea the hand, other the On . In the view of Mikhnovsky, this aim would be “the restoration of our rights our of restoration “the be would aim this Mikhnovsky, of view the In o prsig nations. perishing for

31 elongs to us but was taken away by force we accordingly take by force. by take accordingly we force by away taken was but us to elongs

, Mikhnovsky assumed Mikhnovsky , osy o te n hn, elrd n da o rsoig the restoring of ideal an declared hand, one the on novsky,

riefr kanas sln s vnoeeey foreigner enemy one even as long As Ukrainians! for kraine

his was not appropriate regarding Ukraine, at least least at Ukraine, regarding appropriate not was his al slogan for an immediate action. As the result, of of result, the As action. immediate an for slogan al had

the 6 5 accepted the legality of those violations on the on violations those of legality the accepted 4 and all the wide the all and 4

statute of limitation of statute

202 and renounced the Periaslav treaty as as treaty Periaslav the renounced and

- r restoring former laws. At laws. former restoring r ranging implications it has it implications ranging -

of the politically dominant politically the

a treaty could could treaty 33

y “enemy By 32

Finally, only be be CEU eTD Collection 35 v. 2., 264 1999) 34 progr Their Party. Labor Democratic Social Ukrainian a as 1905 in RSDLP with union” “federal a form to had and position weak a in themselves found Huk) A. and Porsh Mykolai all (above position independence p the of rest the with off broke members its of group certain a 1904 In party. the inside tensions the abolish lands. of difference national”and “historical of regardspecial tha program new a adopted oppressors. immediate their against struggle exploited the from the classes distracting and bourgeois as program their into claims national the social Russian the with ties closer develop to sought party Ukrainian Revolutionary the of part substantial A to. belonged heparty the ofmembers the amongeven support arg an of line a such Yet, rights.” “historical and constitution the of restoration of ideas Polish certain ethnicimplications. h moment, this At “exploiters.” from Ukraine of liberation to called Mikhnovsky time, same the At side. Russian the by forced adisregarded breaki an of idea the of form the in people Ukrainian the of rights” “historical the of restoration is although that way, Mikhnovsky, legal a suggested question” implicitly, “Ukrainian the of decision of variants two the

Ibid., 287. Ibid., (ed.) Sarbei V.G. - democra In the reasoning of Mikhnovsky one could see the influence of the Finnish and Finnish the of influence the see could one Mikhnovsky of reasoning the In

ument in defense of a special status of Ukraine did not acquire a further further a acquire not did Ukraine of status special a of defense in ument

- 265. i mvmn. osqety hy iapoe o te da o include to idea the of disapproved they Consequently movement. tic “Ukrains’ke pytannia” v Rosiis’kii imperii (kinets’ XIX XIX (kinets’ imperii Rosiis’kii v pytannia” “Ukrains’ke

ry o on SL. h rmiig deet o pro of adherents remaining The RSDLP. join to arty

sgetd eraiigRsi aogfdrllns with lines federal along Russia reorganizing suggested t

is rhetoric acquired a revolutionary meaning with meaning revolutionary a acquired rhetoric is

ng off the treaty in response to treaty the ng in off Pereiaslav Constitution of 1654. Meanwhile, he Meanwhile, 1654. of Constitution Pereiaslav

am proclaimed the right of each nation for nation each of right the proclaimed am 203

This, however, did nothowever,did This, 34 –

pochatok XX pochatok n 93 h party the 1903 In

its gross violation gross its st.) - (Kiev: (Kiev: wide wide - CEU eTD Collection 39 stolittia (kinets XIX diial’nost’ 38 37 partii politychnykh ukrains’kikh pershikh dokumeny Programny derzhava. 36 we movement Ukrainian the of trends various circle, narrow relatively a was general in intelligentsia Ukrainian the that fact the to due Moreover, themselves. among cooperate i maintain to order in Therefore supporters. active its of number limited a was movement Ukrainian the for problem main The surface. the at only to develop the contactsRussian with sought Efremov, Serhy and Grinchenko Boris revolutionaries devoted leaders, Their Party. Radical Ukrainian separate a formed party the of wing radical more a Party Democratic Ukrainian unitary remained idea ofethnographicForexample,theattempt in1904a tocreate thelimits within interest. Ukrainian the to adherence whose supporters, those Organization threat they these Moreover, of members groups. the between tensions provoked claims political the formulate to attempts any as question” “Ukrainian the of politicization avoid to sought latter the a among response its find autonomydiet. witha special self political and cultural ett among dentity

Chikalenko, Chikalenko, wit Byanalogy

.. Strilets, V.V. Porm Uriski sotsial Ukrains’koi “Programa In general, the political fragmentation in the Ukrainian national movement was was movement national Ukrainian the in fragmentation political general,the In not did Ukraine the of rights” “historical the advocate to idea Mikhnovsky’s

Tvory e iacd y h sm sponsors. same the by financed re h the Ukrainian National hthe Ukrainian kan’a Radikal’no Ukrains’ka

, empire 245 - 250 - ; ; ie oiia mvmns h Uriin rus a to had groups Ukrainian the movements political wide –

more moderate part of the Ukrainian activists. Conversely, Conversely, activists. Ukrainian the of part moderate more V.G. Sarbei (ed.) (ed.) Sarbei V.G. 1939 rik 1939 - eemnto ad ogd h cam f h Ukrainian the of claim the forged and determination 36 - demokratychnoi robitnychoi partii” partii” robitnychoi demokratychnoi

nd o leae rm h Gnrl Ukrainian General the from alienate to ened

(Kiev: Kyivs’kyi universitet, 2002), 16. 2002), universitet, (Kiev: Kyivs’kyi - - Democratic Party in Galicia Galicia in Party Democratic Demokratychna partiia: vitoky, ideologiia, organizatsiia, organizatsiia, ideologiia, vitoky, partiia: Demokratychna 37

caused a caused wide socialist or wide socialist “Ukrains’ke pytannia…,” “Ukrains’ke

204

split among its members. As the result the As members. its among split

hs crusacs re their urged circumstances These ganizations.

(Kiev: “Poshuk,” 1992), 12. 1992), “Poshuk,” (Kiev: Bagatopartiina Ukrains’ka Ukrains’ka Bagatopartiina

284. 38

h organizational the

- minded

CEU eTD Collection 43 Idem. 1904); 42 Polaków i Polskę 41 na poglądy ego 2011). NaukowePWN, i Hruszewski Mychaiło postępowy: History Serh 1987); Culture National of Politics The Hrushevsky: 40 The diet. regional a to elections the at parties political Polish the against competition a radical both of ( representatives the united that Party Democratic Russian. in times several republished further was and 1904 in Petersburg St. in published was past. national and imperial Russian of part integral an as history its and Ukraine the treated that narrative, imperial the challenged he where visnyk journals scholar Ukrainian leading the of editor the was and Lviv of University the at teaching been referred. often he which to Galicia, in politician a as experience more a was Hrushevsky Ukrainianthe jour than thinker, systematicand consistent all, Above ideas. new of number a in brought activists common actions and concepts, setting while Ukrainianagenda. upthe to least at or compromises, tactical and ideological to participants narodovtsy

Prymak, Grushevskii, Mikhail Plokhy,

For comprehensive study on Hrushevsky’s biography see: Thomas M. Prymak, Prymak, M. Thomas see: biography Hrushevsky’s on study comprehensive For Ukraine, of history multivolume a of author the was he time same the At . (Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 2005); Łukasz Adamski, Adamski, Łukasz 2005); Press, Toronto of University London: Buffalo, (Toronto, In 1899 Hrushevsky was among the founders of the Ukrainian National National Ukrainian the of founders the among was Hrushevsky 1899 In Ukrainian the of discussion the into Hrushevsky Mikhail of involvement The versusNational Territorial

42 Unmaking Imperial Russia Imperial Unmaking Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Hrushevsky, Mykhailo ii Plokhy, ii

Illiustrirovannaia istoriia Ukrainiskogo naroda Ukrainiskogo istoriia Illiustrirovannaia ) trends of the Ukrainian ofthe ) trends movement. Zapyski Naukovego Tovaristva Shevchenk Tovaristva Naukovego Zapyski Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian of Writing the and Hrushevsky Mykhailo Russia: Imperial Unmaking

Ocherk istorii ukrainskogo naroda naroda ukrainskogo istorii Ocherk 57 - , 59

- Autonomy: Mikhailo the Hrushevsky of Position 150.

(Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, Toronto of University London: Buffalo, (Toronto,

205

(St.Petersburg: “Obshchestvennaia pol’za,” pol’za,” “Obshchestvennaia (St.Petersburg: Thus theparty could

(St.Petersburg, 1913). (St.Petersburg, 41

A sh A nalists. Moreover, he had thehad he Moreover, nalists. o

and ort version of this study this of version ort

40 (Wars Literaturno

Since 1894 he had he 1894 Since

aw: Wydawnictwo Wydawnictwo aw:

oriae their coordinate

take part inthetake d populist nd Nacionalista Nacionalista - naukovyi Mykhailo Mykhailo

CEU eTD Collection 2002) v. 1., v. 1., 296. 2002) 47 46 45 i materialy Dokumenty stoletti: v 20 dumka politychna 44 the to foreignare which interests, the of sake the for used being from and centers state territo Ukrainian the of interests practical and economic interests: regional of basis the on more even out carried be should It weaker. even are they as traditions, ethnographic and historical on only rely not should it Similarly, in of circles wider among weak is it because feeling, national Ukrainian of idea the and enough be not will word nationality Ukrainian the nation… a into it transforming devel and progress the nation…” “for a that as assumed, society Ukrainian the organizing in itself and engage economic, and political become nationality, ethnographic of idea the beyond oppose Hrushevsky trend this To culture. Ukrainian of developing and 1876 of Edict Ems the abolishing to Ukrainian the in trend cultural a criticized Hrushevsky engage to and themselves a into common work cultural toaccomplish Ukrainians Russian the with unity national of sense a “develop to administration.” and legislation in Ukrainian po widest “a with it with providing and province distinct a into territories population the of separation for stood party the Empire, Austrian the of borders the within significance, theoretical a have only could aim this while it as united Ukrainianparty a people theproclaimed independenceof

Mykhailo Hrushevskii “Ukrainstvo i pytannia dnia v Rossii” Idem. Rossii” v dnia pytannia i “Ukrainstvo Hrushevskii Mykhailo 58. Ibid., Ibid. natsional’no programmy “Iz

In the the In

ril, ulse i Mrh 95 in 1905 March in published article, d an idea that the Ukrainian movement in Russia “should go “should Russia in movement Ukrainian the that idea an d - demokratychnogo (narodnogo) stronnytstva” in: stronnytstva” (narodnogo) demokratychnogo ….

45 Developing Developing

The party’s program also expressed an intention an expressed also program party’s The

206

( pet f h Uriin epe for people, Ukrainian the of opment B.M.

consciousness should not invo not should consciousness

,1983) v.1., v.1., 57. ,1983) movement that movement homogeneity.” ry, its emancipation from the the from emancipation its ry, Literaturno Tvory u 50 tomakh 50 u Tvory telligentsia in Ukraine. in telligentsia

Ukrains’ka suspil’no Ukrains’ka - aim. s final naukovyi ssible autonomy ssible

46 limited its limited 47

Hrushevsky (Lviv: “Svit,” “Svit,” (Lviv: lve only lve 44 visnyk visnyk

aims Yet, -

CEU eTD Collection 50 49 48 preserving n Ukrainian the and appear, not would nation Ukrainian the insufficient, be efforts these Should space. political and economic peculiar a as also but ethnographic, an as only not territory Ukrainian the of t of efforts the on depended realization Its project. a only was nation Ukrainian the that recognized Hrushevsky words, other issues.” cultural and economic, political, of basis a as assumed unconsciously there“whose nations werenational other Ukrainians with alongside because antiquarian, remain could question” “Ukrainian on n national the forgetting constitutio wide Russian “the Thus, interests. their of orbit an into it draw may that nations developed t of evolution an the with opposition with and territory by together bound of remnants the and cu and feelings historical national loose by only linked is that community a a create to had still that community ethnographic regional its development, economic and cultural rational, its to foreign territory, Ukrainian

Ibid. Ibid. 297. Ibid., Ibid.

oiia ad cnmc basis.” economic and political

It is It

autonomy and self

its antiquarian distinct features. distinct antiquarian its important that Hrushevsky distinguished the Ukrainian nationali Ukrainian the distinguished Hrushevsky that important a mvmn might movement nal ltural he Ukrainian nation could face the impediment on the part of more more of part the on impediment the face could nation Ukrainian he

interests of the “state center “state the of interests

peculiarities. By contrast, a contrast, By peculiarities. eeds, if the Ukrainian national movement would not be placed be not would movement national Ukrainian the if eeds, - government.”

toaiy ol b inco be would ationality

he Ukrainian intelligentsia to forge the interests interests the forge to intelligentsia Ukrainian he

economic and political interests that were in in were that interests political and economic

the that concerned most was Hrushevsky attract the Ukrainian society and lead to to lead and society Ukrainian the attract idea is so muchdevelopedand is thatit deep, isso idea 48

207

.” Hrushevsky was anxious that such that anxious was Hrushevsky .”

Ukrainian nat Ukrainian

nation was a community tha community a was nation rporated into other nations, nations, other into rporated ion. N ion. ationality is only only ationalityis ty as an an as ty t was was t 50

In - CEU eTD Collection 52 51 “non and “privileged” into Russia of peoples the divide would Hrushevsky, for arrangement, an Such autonomy. national any without parliament represen be to had nationalities the of rest the while diets, special with provided be would Caucasus and Finland Poland, that presupposed which plans, of editors the by published of struggle a as Austria with nationalities, ratheras than analogy by future Russia’s the saw Hrushevsky should Ukrainians the Hrushevsky, For Austria. of peoples other among pariah” of role the for themselves among were they Therefore the where monarchy, R Galician Habsburg the of example the brought further Hrushevsky situation.” the of masters actual the become soon might others and Armenian Polish, crysta nationally and consolidated most of classes bourgeois the introduced… are forms constitutional the when However, justice. human generally or national of basis the tru government… the with than harder be would them with struggle The groups. national or classes social the of hands the to government of hands the from on pass would wheel steering the question, what form

Hrushevskii “Ukrainstvo i pytannia dnia…,” 298. dnia…,” i pytannia “Ukrainstvo Hrushevskii concerns. similar movement expressed national Polish ofthe representatives that the me remind, Let e representatives of the Russian intelligentsia. It was possible to agree with them onthem agreewith to possible was It intelligentsia. Russian the representativesof e ie, ot rprd o te oiia atvt nationalities activity political the for prepared most lized, ute, rsesy rtczd h cntttoa p constitutional the criticized Hrushevsky Further, In

Hrushevsky uth ens 51 elzd hmevs s h nto mc ltr hn other than later much nation the as themselves realized Until this moment the constitutional movement was driven by the by driven was movement constitutional the moment this Until the Russian constitution constitution Russian the ’s view ’s not allow the similar situation to situation similar the allow not

consolidation according to

Osvobozhdenie the last to take part in in part take to last the , the prese the ,

nt moment was critical, because it posed it because critical, was moment nt

. He was especially concerned with those with concerned especially was He . 208 would take.constit “Along withthe

political life and thus “condemned thus and life political cla ss. be

repeat oet ta hd o be to had that rojects - privileged” similarly privileged” ed ted in the common the in ted –

in Russia. Here, Russia. in ra Russian, Great peoples. ution,

the

to 52

CEU eTD Collection 54 53 Thu empire. Russian entire the of reorganization future the for formula common a out work to order in nationalities in claim this defend t population mixed self national the of organization the of foreground a into territories national the put to necessary with operate co to had they Moreover, intelligentsia. Ukrainian conscious the of part the on work were P were South bankand ofonthe Dnieper non di they of members the from Assembly Constituent the of convening on based were which projects, those development.” constitutional successful a of condition Hrushevsky the to Suwałki in Lithuanians the also and provinces Siedlce and Chełm in Ukrainians the subject would which Poland, self special a providing against was he addition, ground national on conflicts endless to lead would thought, he as This, territories. ( provinces existing suggested it that was him, for project, the of danger Another Austria.

Ibid. 299. Ibid., - noble intelligentsia. Moreover, large property holders and nobility on the left left the on nobility and holders property large Moreover, intelligentsia. noble

oles and their attitudeoles and tothe their d not have enough of the representatives of peasants or other labor classes, or classes, labor other or peasants of representatives the of enough have not d Thus, according to Hrushevsky, developing t developing Hrushevsky, to according Thus,

’s - zemstva

oenet n rpeetto. enhl, n h triois ih a with territories the in Meanwhile, representation. and government te ntoa, oil ad oiia gop. o Huhvk, t was it Hrushevsky, For groups. political and social, national, other conclusion gubernii e ihs f ioiis a t b poetd I ws import was It protected. be to had minorities of rights he . He noted that zemstva represented mainly the nobility, while while nobility, the mainly represented zemstva that noted He . Russian society and among the representatives of other other of representatives the among and society Russian “eiiain f h ntoa triois a te pri the was territories national the of “Delimitation : ) into self into )

, nie n h Pls cs, h laig Ukrainian leading the case, Polish the in unlike s,

“Ukrainian national question”“Ukrainian w national

- ulmtd oe o te Poles.” the of power “unlimited governing units without delimitation of national delimitationnational of without units governing russified

209

, while on the right bank most ofthemmost while onthe right bank ,

- he Ukrainian nation required nation Ukrainian he government 54

rsesy lo rejected also Hrushevsky

o h Kndm of Kingdom the to ould be negative.ould be transforming the transforming 53

The

n to ant

main hard s . In . me

- CEU eTD Collection 57 Alexei Miller, 1976: Edict More theEms I; about nauk,1905), akademii 56 55 group. no were there because role, this congress. this at press Ukrainian the Ukra the of leaders the ofOne nationalities. various of interests the consider also would which constitution, the for This 1905. March confere in journalists of conference the was movement Ukrainian the to begin mov political the of activity growing 1876. in introduced language, written a as Ukrainian the imperial by the result, initiated was debate scholar R the and The himself Hrushevsky language. distinct a “Little as the of dialect” recognition Russian about question on discussion heated a of background whole the empire.Russian of reorganization required Ukraine of rearrangement Hrushevsky, For Russia. without task national their fulfil could Ukrainians that suppose not did thinker

Chykalenko, Chykalenko, Plokhy, b tee tsei mlrskg pcang slova pechatnogo malorusskogo stesnenii otmene Ob 57 Considering these circumstances, an important event for the representatives of of representatives the for event important an circumstances, these Considering the against place took thought Hrushevsky’s of development further The

nce aimed to formulate a common tactics of the Russian press in the struggle the in press Russian the of tactics common a formulate to aimed nce

search Unmaking Imperial Russia Imperial Unmaking

t h conference the At Tvory ing

290. for the political allies. the for

edict of December 12 December of edict

inian Democratic Party Democratic inian , sin cdm o Sine ok t p later. up it took Science of Academy ussian

other Ukrainian other Ch The Spring of 1905 Spring The - 53. y kalenko ements in the empire urged the U the urged empire the in ements

According to him, he was the only candidate for for candidate only the was he him, to According

1904 abolished the censor restrictions for for restrictions censor the abolished 1904

210 rpsd o raie a organize to proposed

journalists among the members of his his of members the among journalists

(St.Petersburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi Imperatorskoi Tipografiia (St.Petersburg: ,

Evhen Chy Evhen 56 The Ukrainian Question Ukrainian The

t h sm tm, the time, same the At kalenko krainian groups krainian

etn of meeting represented 55

s the As …

CEU eTD Collection 61 60 59 58 of thePoles debates duringthe topical Sieroszewski that was formulaindirectly, theof replica it time, same the At I. Nicolas of legislation the of form archaic the programUkrainian Democratic ofthe Party. adopted recently the of four paragraph the word by word repeated resolution the of The statehood. of tradition historical developed a with peoples the as status “non of representatives by theRussian approved and ballot secret and direct equal, by elected Assembly, Constituent own its statu (“organic”) special a on based “autonomy with provided guarantee razvitie “independentcultural toge rest The invitation. the rejected Jews the and Poles the of representatives The lines. federal along Russia “ inorodtsy

Chikalenko, Chikalenko, 292. Ibid., Ibid. 291. Ibid., Fundamental Laws Fundamental (elect diet Ukrainian future the by out worked statute, organic special a on based autonomy, with provided woul in Russia theorder state ther with Chykalenko passed Chykalenko with ther

The expression the “organic statute” referred to the Polish case, moreover, in moreover, case, Polish the to referred statute” “organic the expression The “cultural expression The

) .” 4. Therefore … we claim that the territory populated by the Ukrainian people would be would people Ukrainian the by populated territory the that claim we … Therefore 4. that claim a pose we system, centralized the from damage the consideration into Taking

58 ” hr te cud ics cmo soas eadn rognzto of reorganization regarding slogans common discuss could they where ,” th d n h bss f h peiul mnind a) n apoe b te state the by approved and law) mentioned previously the of basis the on ed Tvory

s right. is codn t te eouin te usa Fund Russian the resolution, the to According - wide parliament.” wide ,

280. 61

f the of

state developmentstate oevr te eouin elrd ht ah epe a t be to had people each that declared resolution the Moreover, - tt” ( state” d be arranged on the principle of the widest national autonomy. national widest ofthe arrangedthe on principle be d

ainl eeae gtee a a eaae etn, a meeting, separate a at gathered delegates national

nederzhavnye -

60 tt dvlpet epesd h srvn o the of striving the expressed development” state a resolution that proclaimed the right of peoples for for peoples of right the proclaimed that resolution a

( samostoiatel’noe kul’turno samostoiatel’noe

211 pols o cur a iia political similar a acquire to peoples )

te to te mna Lw hd to had Laws amental

be worked out by out worked be - gosudarstvennoe gosudarstvennoe

last phrase last - e, yet ted, wide wide

nd nd CEU eTD Collection 66 65 64 63 62 Yet, Transcaucasia. and Lithuania, Poland, like regions other with along Russia Little Liberation of Union the seriously take to Russian The Assembly. Constituent Ukrainian special a by Statute Organic the out working suggested that part the especially journalists, t repeated declaration The activists. zemstvo of meeting general the at declaration this deliver to had zemstvo Chernihiv the of representative IlyaRussia.the Shrah,in decentralization zemstvos ofnotion a desirablefederation of withequal Russia rightsfor each itspeoples. of arrangement symmetrical afor stood resolution the of authors the Poland, of Kingdom only referred constitution own their with statehood separate their recognize Union. Liberation the of members the with

“ v Rossii dvizhenie Liberal’noe April,1905 in activists zemstvo meetingofthe the shortlyafter formulated platformwas The Chykalenko, 1. item op. f. 279. RGASPI. Demokraticheskaia partiia i ee programma” programma” ee i partiia Demokraticheskaia to obey the will of the oldest in the family, to a big father or elder brother. Therefore it obeys obeys it Therefore brother. elder or p father state any blindly to big a to family, the in oldest the of will the obey to used got it disciplined and uncivilized because dangerous, rather seemed people this with union semi with country one in live to fears some non

this formula delited this was soon - state peoples of Russia; reflected on a possible federative arrangement, yet we expressed expressed we yet arrangement, federative possible a on reflected Russia; of peoples state Shortly after the congress of the journalists, a meeting of the representatives of of representatives the of meeting a journalists, the of congress the after Shortly clearer a provides Chykalenko of “Memoirs” the from quotation following The

e otns f h rslto o bhl o “ of behalf on resolution the of contents he We talked a lot at our meetings and in the dinners about contemporary conditions of conditions contemporary about dinners the in and meetings our at lot a talked We n iv dpe a eea dcaain poliig h ncsiy of necessity the proclaiming declaration, general a adopted Kiev in Tvory

the earlier claims of the Ukrainian activists. At least the platform of of platform the least At activists. Ukrainian the of claims earlier the ,

293. ower. Moreover, it feels itself to be a master in Russia. masterin Russia. a be it feels to itself Moreover, ower.

39. p 39.

presupposed providing a wide regional self regional wide a providing presupposed , 160. , . . 4 of peoples of Russia:

from the program oftheUnion.

Osvobozhdenie - Asiatic unci Asiatic

62 212

However, if the claims of the Poles to Poles the of claims the if However,

vilized Muscovite people. A federative federative A people. Muscovite vilized

67 -

(1905): wide zemstvo meeting seemed meeting zemstvo wide inorodtsy

279 . ” at the congress of of congress the at ”

66 63

- government to government

o the to 65

CEU eTD Collection Razmyshlenii o probleme Russkogo mogushchestva” Idem. Idem. sotsialism mogushchestva” Russkogo probleme o Razmyshlenii 68 67 other national movements. principles, theaspirations rather than oflocal level self regional no Poland and Finland reforms the before had own their with have borderlands could culture developed distinctive nationally the However, unacceptable. provided. define would that criterion unified later provided all common a the had nations argued: ofthedemonstrated be Ukrainians not accepted that Struve thewould soeasily. claims

Peter Struve, “K programme Soiuza Osvobozhdeniia” Osvobozhdeniia” Soiuza Struve, “K programme Peter More developed and articulate position of Struve at this issue: Idem. “Velikaia Rossiia. Iz Iz Rossiia. “Velikaia Idem. issue: this at Struve of position articulate and developed More it goes too far. it goestoo of regions other to widely too in regards treated be paragraph Poland, for Russi Little and Lithuania state so more even and similar Transcaucasia, as Russia of a regions such to withinapplicable provided be must Poland

of competenceself ofof Struve Liberation of Union the of project initial the regarding Struve of reaction The

a. One of two: either the paragraph regarding regional self regional regarding paragraph the either two: of One a. – potential to become separate nat separate become to potential

(Moscow: “Respublika,” 1997), 50 1997), “Respublika,” (Moscow:

regarding them them regarding According to Struve, transforming Russia into a federation of peoples was was peoples of federation a into Russia transforming Struve, to According be very the From - - ’s position ’s

. Here it is important to notice, that Struve tried to formulate a certain a formulate to tried Struve that notice, to important is it Here . Russian nation. Russian little from the standpoint of real politics, rather than abstract justice justice abstract than rather politics, real of standpoint the from little 67

f orkv Ti dd o mean not did This Bobrikov. of was grounded in his distinction between already develop already between distinction his in grounded was ginning of the liberated political life in Russia… the Kingdom of of Kingdom the Russia… in life political liberated the of ginning assimilation had no prospects no had assimilation - governing institutions should be should governing institutions 68 certain

A more detailed analysis of Struve’s a Struve’s of analysis detailed more A o hm h atnm sho autonomy the whom to

- - autonomy, sim autonomy, 63. 63. oenet e prov be government ions

- legal status as Finland, which is absolutely absolutely is which Finland, as status legal : otherwise : 213

Ibid

69 ilar to the autonomy that Finland Finland that autonomy the to ilar aroia Pltk, u’ua r kul’tura, Politika, Patriotika: -

Russia, except Finland and Poland, Poland, and Finland except Russia, 70 (1905): 307. (1905): 70

they should be integrated into into integrated be should they - – government provides very little little very provides government

an o Srv ta aat from apart that Struve for dd Ti mat ht the that meant This ided. considered on the basis ofbasis considered on the d those peoples that only only that peoples those d uld or should not be be not should or uld

pproach will be will pproach

or, if this this if or, eligiia, ed ed CEU eTD Collection 70 2002). 69 the majo giving the to minorities, preference of representation the secure to able be not would districts 250 contain would about projects suggest constitutional contemporary The voters. of number small a with districts electoral small establishing require would parliament the of organization rational the as rights similar furth He Poland. Caucasus and Lithuania, Ukraine, providing against statement Struve’s the criticized He movement. liberation the of leaders the by prepared projects topresentthe possibilities their claims tothe Russian society. view, his In cause. Ukrainian the of benefit the for connections these use to unwillingness their for liberals, Russian activists. th about discussion the initiate to Shrah of attempt the and journalists, of congress positive the a of results gave the of he evaluation time, same the At ideas. their of propaganda for conferences activ national Ukrainian the national of federation a into Russia of reorganization on based be to had order parliamentary new the him, plan hisown suggested which he

Ibid., 303. Ibid., yhio rsesy “osiusoni ors Idem. vopros” “Konstitutsionnyi Hrushevsky, Mykhailo

n h scn pr o te ril Huhvk aaye te constitutional the analyzed Hrushevsky article the of part second the In in article, an wrote Hrushevsky 1905 May in events these to reaction a As

rsesy erahd h Uriin, seily hs lne wt the with linked those especially Ukrainians, the reproached Hrushevsky

0 mmes f h primn. osqety te lcoa districts electoral the Consequently, parliament. the of members 600 er argued that in order to allow nationalities expressing their interests interests their expressing nationalities allow to order in that argued er - 0 tosn vtr i te nie usa Fr rsesy such Hrushevsky, For Russia. entire the in voters thousand 300 - territorial units. territorial Russian ConstitutionalismRussian alongFederal Lines iy I odr o ae h rpeetto mr feil, the flexible, more representation the make to order In rity. ss o te dd o ue h psiiiis f semi of possibilities the use not did they for ists

the Poles, who were even more influential, utilized all utilized influential, more even were who Poles, the ftr sau o Urie t h meig f zemstvo of meeting the at Ukraine of status future e

for the arrangement of the state arrangement ofthe the for

Hrushevsky began his article with criticism of criticism with article his began Hrushevsky

214

vr u 0 tomakh 50 u Tvory

- wide parliament. For parliament.For wide , o. 1 vol.

(Lviv: “Svit,” “Svit,” (Lviv: - legal CEU eTD Collection 74 73 72 71 liberals. of agendas political and economic of support their for condition a be would this and Ukrainians the of claims national the satisfy to suggested Hrushevsky words, other In questions. wh nationalities, between struggle a to lead would question national the of solution other any that prove to wanted he Struve, as such Liberation, of Union the of members the of federali of struggle.” object an than rather development, political and cultural, economic, of ground nat the self the territories, national in basis, national a on organized only “… argument: an brought Hrushevsky statement this of defense Russia self ( state self national regional of system the with accordance in organized be will Russia whole the or exclusion, be will territories these whether is, question The assemblies. on “No wrote: state the to than rather diet, regional a to directly deputies the elect to better be would it case, this in Yet, diminished. be must districts electoral

Ibid. Ibid. 308. Ibid., 307 Ibid., c wud e n meiet o eovn mr ugn pltcl n economic and political urgent more resolving to impediment an be would ich - - government would cease to be a privilege of certain nationalities. The whole whole The nationalities. certain of privilege a be to cease would government government.”

nederzhavnye

ional struggle, having made the nationality what it must be must it what nationality the made having struggle, ional

must be organized on the basis of self of basis the on organized be must 74

73 - zation alongzation national

308.

Thus, Hrushevsky sought to convince the Russian liberals of expediency of liberals Russian the convince to sought Hrushevsky Thus, Russian

e doubts 71

) nationalities should put on their agenda the idea that the regional regional the that idea the agenda their on put should nationalities ) - In the view of Hrushevsky, “… the Ukrainians and all other non other all and Ukrainians the “… Hrushevsky, of view the In ie ate, o atr hte ti wud e oilss or socialists be would this whether matter no parties, wide

that certain territories will acquire their regional representative representative regional their acquire will territories certain that - territorial principle. Interritorial recentof contrastto principle. statements

215 - - government of national territories.” national of government government may neutralize and reduce and neutralize may government

- wide parliament. He further further He parliament. wide –

the basis and the and basis the - territorial territorial 72

In - CEU eTD Collection 77 76 307. Ibid., as theirideal. it not accept should parties whileprogressive the parties, 75 autonomy that that, idea an was This autonomy. of understanding their of foreground logi the challenged easily Hrushevsky sufficient.” quite be would law general of basis the on statement simple A issue. this complicate unduly to likewise, or parliament, central the of self a with it providing and province the of separating self and diet special strongly a represents and majority, pronounced basis its forms nationality certain a which in million, argued Hrushevsky reproducingall theexisting theright in politicalgroups andsocial proportion. mini a be could parliament the in diet the of delegation the c a in there delegated be rather but diet, the of majority the by not elected be should parliament central the in diet regional the of representatives the that prescribed only He regions. representation this whether specify not did he as so project, his in representatives of number exact the mention not did Hrushevsky diets. regional of representatives the from formed First like. look should state federative Russian the of parliament central the view, his to according

Ibid., 308 Ibid., 308. Ibid., conservative with compromise a as only considered be might parliament chamber two the him, For Referr

olwn ti picpe Huhvk sgetd dtie poet f how, of project detailed a suggested Hrushevsky principle, this Following -

309. ertain proportion (one representative out of four deputies in the diet). Thus,diet). the in deputies four of out representative (one proportion ertain n t te xeine f uoen tts ih autonomo with states European of experience the to ing

a t b eul r rprinl o h sz o te ouain n the in population the of size the to proportional or equal be to had of all, it had to be one be to had it all, of

77 that “a homogeneous territory with a population more than a a than more population a with territory homogeneous “a that -

government.” o ipso eo hs rfrig o oehn lk te aua lw ( law natural the like something to referring Thus,

has to be separated into a distinct province with a a with province distinct a into separated be to has

- 76 chamber parliament. chamber c of the Russian liberals, which they put in the the in put they which liberals, Russian the of c to a special law, adopted by this parliament, is parliament, this by adopted law, special a to

o Huhvk, sbetn te su of issue the “subjecting Hrushevsky, For

216

- government to the permission the to government 75 -

copy of the regional diet, regional the of copy This parliament had to beto had parliament This

s provinces, us o ipso eo

), CEU eTD Collection 79 78 to order in deputies, three or two but one, not elect would district each that suggested a with along minority a of representation effective restrain material various the struggleinterests of andclass inthe parliament. selfis above stay should cultural census” and scholar higher the with circles to “the given him, be to should According priority intelligentsia. the that argued, he time, same the At groups. social the of quarter a about diet the into bring to necessary was it Hrushevsky, of direct, view the In ballot. universal, secret and equal, a by delegates the elect to rule the aside stepping suggested He and non Orthodox both of organizations church of autonomy the also and taxes, own introduce million.” te the and people million one of population applied be to had competence of volume “different Hrushevsky, to According competences. wider required Hrushevsky, for territories, admi higher to representatives the send to right the and police roads,philanthropy, sanitary, education, schools, include to had self smallest the of minimum The diet. the of competence the of Kompetenz principle the maintain and authority central the by provided be should

Ibid., 310. Ibid., 309. Ibid., Hrushevsky’s further rea Hrushevsky’s further same The allow would which system, electoral an considered Hrushevsky Furthermore, - Orthodox confessions. Orthodox 78

. o te ertre oe 1 mlin rsesy osdrd h rgt to right the considered Hrushevsky million 15 over territories the For

general law, according law, general delegates, who would be elected by assemblies of different of assemblies by elected be would who delegates,

soning was about the organization of the regional diet. regionalthe of organization the aboutwas soning

itrss n b a eta eeet ht would that element neutral a be and interests h

to Hrushevsky, had to establish the minimum the establish to had Hrushevsky, to itaie n jdca isiuin. Larger institutions. judicial and nistrative

217

rtre wt te ouain f 15 of population the with rritories

eo ipso eo majority in the diet. For this he he this For diet. the in majority to the territories with the with territories the to - governing regions regions governing Kompetenz 79

- CEU eTD Collection 80 self local of system up. bottom dele by hierarchy a in together linked diets) regional self of levels the all where Dragomanov, and Bakunin of scheme the from model Hrushevsky’s of difference referr Hrushevsky which to level, state self the Thus authority. self local the Meanwhile, state the national a of self of level levels lower from separated the was region territorial Thus, direct. be to had diet regional the to elections the avoi to Hrushevsky, for possible, be would it this, to Due level. lower of bodies elected from delegates the of formed be self the Moreover, principle. territorial self local The formations. bureaucratic artificial as meaning their lose would provinces the principle territorial nationality inthe region. sec to and representation flexible more a introduce to possible was it Hrushevsky, of view the in Thus, districts. the of any in majority a make not did and region the of territory the within dispersed were that parliament, the at elections. place third or second the acquired who candidates those diet the into bring

Ibid., 311. Ibid., For Hrushevsky, after the whole Russia would be reorganized along national along reorganized be would Russia whole the after Hrushevsky, For hierarchical a of remaking consequent a was project Hrushevsky’s general, In - 80 ie alaet and parliament wide

hs ol alw ersnig hs s those representing allow would This - government, in which the national principle acquired a more more a acquired principle national the which in government, - government, formed from bottom up was separated from the the from separated was up bottom from formed government,

- government, starting from lowest units was another level of of level another was units lowest from starting government, - governm - government from lowest to the highest (including the the (including highest the to lowest from government

h rgoa de fre oe ee o authority. of level one formed diet regional the time, same the At elections. direct of proliferation d n wud lo e raie aog h national the along organized be also would ent

- governing institutions of higher levels would levels higher of institutions governing ed the regional diet. This was an essential essential an was This diet. regional the ed

218

ca ad ainl rus n the in groups national and ocial gating their representatives from from representatives their gating ure the advantage for the main main the for advantage the ure - government. In other words, words, other In government. - - - CEU eTD Collection 81 state entire the of two interests the and a region the of suggested interests the which Dragomanov in parliament, Besides, population. of amount equal regions several along proper Russia and Ukraine both of division a offered it because consistent more was project Dragomanov’s issue, this Regarding regions. national other and Ukraine with along parliament central the in represented In case un Great a was it toremain singleunit. this had Russians by populated territory entire the that was approach his of point weak the lines, federal (a largernationality, fifteen above hadtoacquire million nationality a to belonging population the of amount the on depend would this Rather nationality. a of “maturity” of degree the as so parliament central the of decision the competenc these receiving Moreover, region. the of level the to transferred be would competences essential if true, come would this Hrushevsky, For ties. economic by bounded region autonomous an of creation of result a as mainly o part “unconscious” of transforming of possibility the implied argument This being. into comes nation the region established the the of borders within than group, ethnic dominant a with territory the of delineation the was of basis the on nation the making for condition a was rather but ethnicity, with coincided initially that something as just not was territory the time, same the At hierarchy. of levels lower the at even nationalities between exist view his in Therefore, population. the of composition national of distinctness a of idea the on argument his based Hrushevsky turn, his In region. the on self the of organization only was ethnicity Dragomanov, For role. prominent

Ibid., 309. Ibid., Considering the intention of Hrushevsky to reorganize the entire Russia along Russia entire the reorganize to Hrushevsky of intention the Considering

- government along with economic and geographic features of of features geographic and economic with along government

219

ethnicity. In other words, first first words, other In ethnicity. wider competencies). wider a ainlt it nation into nationality a f es should not depend on depend not should es o te rnils of principles the of e , clear boundaries could boundaries clear , clear, how it wouldbe it clear, how

ih relatively a with - chamber 81

CEU eTD Collection 84 XIX Konets 83 82 stateIt donotmeet peoples. theofits needs argues: na Russia, of decentralization for argument granted.” be should nation, the unit, collective a of rights the final variant of the at themselves representDuma. State the to elections not could they separately because Parties, Radical was program their of evolution The Russia. in Party Democratic Ukrainian the of ideas the principles onthelevelstate of Kompetenz much pay of question the regarded Neitherit not Russia. of rest the consequencesfor the to attention did project the time, same the At place. prominent a took Ukraine interes the project Hrushevsky’s In chambers. separate by represented be would

Ibid., 167. Ibid., demokratichesko Ukrainskoi “Programma Strilets, necessary…” should such of need the realize now If legislation. local for right the with territory its on autonomy

once wt te egr f h Uriin eortc n te Ukrainian the and Democratic Ukrainian the of merger the with connected The preamble of the program said: “Along with the rights of individual citizen, citizen, individual of rights the with “Along said: program the of preamble The of development with along place took thought Hryshevsky’s of evolution The

Ukrais’ka radikal’no Ukrais’ka provide each nation, each republic a right to establish autonomy, when it would be be would it when autonomy, establish to right a republic each nation, each provide – …

- nachalo vv XX nachalo Kompetenz, offering to divide the competencies on the basis of general of basis the on competencies the divide to offering Kompetenz, decentralization has to be be to has decentralization 84

this program wasthis inJanuary 1905. published . (Moscow: POSSPEN, 1995), 166. 1995), (Moscow: . POSSPEN, an The Ukrainian Radical - demokratychna partiia demokratychna arrangement, yet in any case, the fundamental laws of the state state the of laws fundamental the case, any in yet arrangement, 82 -

wide legislation. A result of inner debates and theoretical evolution, the evolution, theoretical and debates inner of result A

extended up to the point that each nationality would have have would nationality each that point the to up extended -

radikal’noi partii” partii” radikal’noi

mely that common laws for the Russian Russian the for laws common that mely 220 , 17 ,

- - Democratic Party 18. 18.

Programmy politicheskikh partii Rossii. Rossii. partii politicheskikh Programmy ,

not

all the parts of the state state the of parts the all 83

t ute big the brings further It

ts of ts CEU eTD Collection 87 86 85 may regions, the into federation the of division the of claim initial the Thus, autonomy). and (federalism Radi that Ukrainian assumed the of program the time, same the At way. practical more a in question this regarded Hrushevsky whereas nations, of equality of principle abstract an from proceeded Kiev in activists the of program the Thus, the than competencies, of volume larger a have idea argued aa population ofHrushevsky,would more who region numerous that with It rights. equal obtain to had republics national of federation a into the needs peoples. ofdistinct with incompatible was centralization that saying paragraphs several offered program nation.” “ borders. state Russian the beyond lived who Ukrainians, those with Ukraine Russian connec the emphasized preamble the of phrase last The property. wide nation a become to have will pro of means all and manufactures resources, natural compactly it their territory entire the on populates.” People Ukrainian the for… “autonomy national autonomous equal A thought of thought A

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. cnmc agenda economic

In general, this program suggested the idea of reorganization of entire Russia Russia entire of reorganization of idea the suggested program this general, In “r the that proclaimed program The

This whole preamble is missing in the earlier program. Instead program. earlier the in missing is preamble whole This 86

In the next next In the o al h pols udrto te eest” f hs organization this of necessity” the “understood peoples the all not detached parts of a single national organism can never leave a living living a leave never can organism national single a of parts detached not presuppose autonomies for other peoples. Ye peoples. other for autonomies presuppose not n oils principles, socialist on abstract, -

- ertra units.” territorial territorial units units territorial

the authors of the program ex program the of authors the

is possible to notice a contradiction with contradiction a notice to possible is

eorganized state should be be should state eorganized 221

for each nationality. Moreover, these these Moreover, nationality. each for

85 n camd ht on h ln and land the soon that claimed and

ein ih salr population. smaller a with region h porm lo lie for claimed also program The plain cal - eortc Party Democratic ed

t, in the future, future, the in t, that the that a federation of federation a , tion of the the of tion

the earlier the y

based

the - CEU eTD Collection 90 89 88 woulddisputes bereconciledby rather means, diplomatic war. thanby international the while militia; into transformed be would army regular the future, the region.” home the of borders the within passed be would “militaryservice the that peace.” and war of questions the and army statewide d) trade; international and customs c) spending; and income of inventory statewide b) the secure “a) foreignstat interactionswith to which isreduced competence ofthisparliament, would which the suffrage, mentions paragraph the that is of important most Yet, minorities. for system representation proportional a with yet ballot, parliament. statewide a direct and equal, universal, the of basis the on the elected be would parliament of organization the describe which paragraphs, affairs”). the all manage autonomo these of competence the regarding hint a is there second article specified therights nationalities: of The basis. estate and class on privileges the all of abolishing presupposed and rights territory entire the at beginning very com the from provided be Ukrainian should the autonomy that implied program the Anyway, be constitution. to the had in right recognized this and autonomy, for claim could nationalities bypassed these

Ibid. 168. Ibid., 167 Ibid., units. rights manage ( assembly representative regional pactly Ukrainians. populated by the

n h mi, hs ril rpas h gnrl ttmn o te rabe Yet, preamble. the of statement general the repeats article this main, the In referred article first the program, the of part main the In

88 along with any other unit. A reorganized state must be a federation of these national national these of federation a be must state reorganized A unit. other any with along

- all Each of the nations in Russia should acquire autonomy on its territory with a distinct distinct a with territory its on autonomy acquire should Russia in nations the of Each

168.

the affairs within the borders of its territory. Each such autonomo such Each territory. its of borders the within affairs the

oe rcsl ti cmeec is competence this precisely More

Rada ). The latter would have the right to issue laws and and laws issue to right the have would latter The ).

222

At the same time, it specifies it time, same the At s nt (te ih to right (“the units us

the general human human general the exposed us unit has equal equal has unit us

nd secret nd n next in This 90 es;

In CEU eTD Collection 95 94 93 302 1912), Bashmakovykh, self local 92 wide a of 91 right the provide should constitution regional “the said 1905 of project nor 1904, of project the neither delegatedis not institutions fromestablished butis by above, region the itself. diet. the of solution the guarantee) authority. central the of sanction a without laws fundamental local the establish should legislature local the that presupposed co term the by replaced is version P Democratic Ukrainian authority. central the of competencies c constitution regionalthe words, interests.” state the contradict… not should constitution “the specifies, parliament.” central the by rejected nor abolished, neither be cannot which Ukrain “The that stipulating confederation a be rather would Democrats Radical Ukrainian the by offered polity the view, their In liberals. Russian formu federation of notion parliament.” central the of competence the beyond ( Moreov institutions. Ukrainskaia Narodnaia Vlast’ Narodnaia Ukrainskaia

Chykalenko, Chykalenko, Ibid. demokratichesko Ukrainskoi “Programma Ibid.

eo Kokoshkin, Fedor

s o te einl ntttos n te nttts f oa self local of institutes the and institutions regional the for As state central the of competence the defined directly paragraph the Thus,

Tvory ,

280 r te ril 7 article the er, eti p osceu ouasvnou pravu gosudarstvennomu obshchemu po Lektsii .

- 303. arty lated by the German theoreticians of law and borrowed by borrowed and law of theoreticians German the by lated

used the expression “organic statute “organic expression the used a Pplr uhrt wrs u is w constitution, own its out works Authority Popular ian )

had the right to decide on all the questions, which lay which questions, the all on decide to right the had ould not intervene the sphere of the above mentioned above the sphereofintervene notthe ould . 92 nstitution. Similarly as in the program of 1905 of program the in as Similarly nstitution.

And, n hs vein, this In -

radikal’noi partii…,” 168. partii…,” radikal’noi Let me remind, that the earlier proje earlier the that remind, me Let fee: Te kana Pplr Authority Popular Ukrainian “The offered:

in this case, the competence of the regional regional the of competence the case, this in

223 95

provided any detailed vision. It only only It vision. detailed any provided h lte hd o cnweg (or acknowledge to had latter The hud e osdrd h atce 6, article the considered be should 91

hs rnil cnrdce the contradicted principle This

” which which ” (Moscow: Izd. Br. Br. Izd. (Moscow: - government, government, 94 in the new new the in

ct of the of ct

n other In 93

e it Yet ,

it -

CEU eTD Collection 97 96 that fact by explained be can It claims. social and economic their and parties socialist of programs the of influence larger a displays it time, same the At competencies. their par the of chambers the of functioning the of details juridical to attention rights nation) the region over (or nation Polish the even and liberals, Russian of projects the in than party Ukrainian the of program the in wider much was manufactures. at inspectors elected disab for pensions workday, 8 of claim a contained program the Besides, stations. power electric and mines, steamships railroads, the include also should region the of property The institutions. to belong would land the Moreover land. this work will who those, among distributed and purchased be should landholding private the program, this to According orientation. socialist clear a have would have decisions. toexecute the over theOne executive following one. can from it the notice statement: Party Democratic Radical unite.” can and societies, town and village to government

Ibid. demokratichesko Ukrainskoi “Programma delegate the execution of their decisions to the elected persons, responsible to the assemblies, assemblies, the to responsible them. elected which persons, elected the to decisions their of execution the delegate

A large section large A only but institutions, executive special any offer not does It program this Hrushevsky, of project the to comparing general, In h Rgoa Pplr uhrt (h De) rgoa cucl ad oite wo societies and councils regional Diet), (the Authority Popular Regional The 96

y nlg wt erir rjcs f Bakun of projects earlier with analogy By 97

of the program of 1905 is devoted to “economic tasks,” “economic to devoted is 1905 of program the of

h region the ae sgiiat rfrne to preference significant a gave e ad eie, n a idpnet raiain of organization independent an and retired, and led

wide property. alists, exactly because it included the distributary the included it because exactly alists,

hs te optne f h rgoa authority regional the of competence the Thus, radikal’noi partii…,” 169. partii…,” radikal’noi n b mngd y h eetd representative elected the by managed be and

224

to to

those districts, where the societies societies the where districts,

n n Daoao, the Dragomanov, and in

ersnaie authority representative

individuals, who individuals,

liament and and liament as less pays which uld uld - hour hour ,

CEU eTD Collection 100 3 99 98 population, the of group considerable certain a of interests the represent would partner their if case, the in only autonomy of question the discuss to ready be would Kadets theentire claimsbutnot the information ofcertain aboutthe population. groups, only disposal their at had Liberation of Union problematic, the of leadership more the that considering was regions other for borders the Establishing autonomy. for strivin their in solidary was population Its Poland. of Kingdom the was Kokoshkin, for artificial Russia, in the region distinctive and within homogeneous only The impossible borders. administrative was autonomy the Kokoshkin, For anew. parts to also but whole, the to state the of parts the of relationship the define to borders.” clear quite and life independent their had units autonomous the state the to relationship their defining of moment the Europe Western in because Europe, Western in than complicated more was Russia decentralization. administrative of question the from question national the distinguish to suggested city and zemstvo of meeting September the activity parties. socialist ofvarious Radical Ukrainian the of representatives the of many 338.

For detailed analysis of this project see in chapter 5. 5. in see chapter analysis project ofthis detailed For deiatelei…,” gorodskikh i zemskikh s’’ezdu biuro organizatsionnogo “Doklad Kokoshkin, Fedor Ibid. Ibid.

The Kadets highlighted their principles of the question of nationalities at the the at nationalities of question the of principles their highlighted Kadets The The programmatic statement of Kokoshkin’s contained a hint that the future future the that hint a contained Kokoshkin’s of statement programmatic 98

For Kokoshkin, the issue of delimitation of autonomous regions in regions autonomous of delimitation of issue the Kokoshkin, For The KadetstheGrounds anAlliance and for

By contrast for Russia the task is not only not is task the Russia for contrast By 225

activists

A ti meeting this At . - Democratic Par Democratic

ty took part in part took ty

create these create Kokoshkin 100

“at g CEU eTD Collection 103 102 101 to offered he Instead, Russia. Little idea the branch local Kadets’ of members 1905 autumn the during discussed been had electoralcoalition withthe local Jewish an create to intended Kadets the of groups local the Moreover, %. 39 counted branch were of majority the However, etc.) Mohyliansky Shrah, (Ilya Party Democratic Ukrainian the to belonged them of Some activists. Ukrainian were Russia 1400. counted branch local Kadets provinces” “Ukrainian ( certain in zemstva of members the organization political their into cooptation to due mostly was It chapters. local of network developed more in people, 20 exceed not did Kadets the of organization the dialogue withthe Kadets was weak. rather politic the of balance actual the considering Moreover, party. this of members the by mainly limited was party their of adherents the of number the moment, that At critical. was than rather Chernihiv) and city dumas city and Chernihiv)

Ibid. Ibid. 7. 1.p. item op. f.216. 523. GARF. Hillis,

usas Pls ad es Te atr acrig o h saitc o te Kiev the of statistics the to according latter, The Jews. and Poles, Russians, al forces in the region the position of the Ukrainian Radical Democratic Partyin Democratic Ukrainian Radicalthe of position the region the forcesin al

The negotiations The local the of membership the where Poland, of Kingdom the to contrast In

Between Empire and Nation, Nation, and Empire Between of the Ukrainian autonom Ukrainian the of

the views of a narrow circle of intelligentsia. For Ukrainians this condition this Ukrainians For intelligentsia. of circle narrow a of views the of association between the Kadets and the Ukrainian groups Ukrainian the and Kadets the between association of

(Odessa, Kiev). (Odessa,

423.

Evhen Chykalenko proposed that the Kadets the that proposed Chykalenko Evhen 102 y int y

A certain part of the Kadets’ adherents in Little in adherents Kadets’ the of part certain A ji a eeaie no” ih h Ukrainian the with union” federative a “join union. o their program, and close and program, their o

101 226 103

I a In . I n Kiev n

ovrain ih n o the of one with conversation

Little Russia, the Kadets had a a had Kadets Littlethe Russia, alone , the membership of the of membership the the local organizations local

local branches in in branches local inc lude CEU eTD Collection участия в осуществлении законодательной власти по известным предметам, соответственно соответственно ( для предметам, известным населения.” законодательства по власти потребности общегосударственного законодательной осуществлении порядке в участия в путь автономии местной установления правомерный должен государства открыт российского всего быть для правами конституционными с представительства 107 106 105 104 literal.example, theUkrainian Forparagraph of the following: version 24was the was 1906 in branch Kiev of members the by published translation The illustrative. very was program Kadets’ the of version Ukrainian the regard, this In Kadets. the cooperat to seeking groups national various of representatives the and Kadets the of leadership the for both maneuver for space a provided future the in borderlands program thefollowing with formulation: ad In Finland. of Duchy Grand the of status special a and Poland of Kingdom the of autonomy of claims the included they which in program, party the adopted meeting The place. took Party Democratic the Kad elec the at Kadets the support would Party Democratic an i.e. union, electoral an of compromise a Kadets. the with union federative a join and branches Party Democratic Ukrainian the that insisting Party. Democratic Radical Moscow

Hromads Ibid Chykalenko,

with the rights to participate in execution of legislative authority regarding certain subjects, in in subjects, withpo ofneedsthe the accordance certain regarding authority legislative of execution in participate assemblies to representative rights regional the with and autonomy local establishing for way legal a opened be state of level the at established, be would state Russian entire the The .

, , 301. This statement of the possibility to consider the autonomous status for certain for status autonomous the consider to possibility the of statement This 12 October On

ets would : Russian ROSPEN ' After the rights of civic freedom and proper representation with constitutional rights for rights constitutional with representation proper and freedom civic of rights the After ka

dumka Tvory

version , 1 take ,

997), 37. 997), 60 (1906). 60 300. :

- the Ukrainian theDuma. into the deputies

18 “ S После установления прав гражданской свободы и правильного правильного и свободы гражданской прав установления После ’’ th

104 ezdy

1905 the first (constituent) meeting of the Constitutional Constitutional the of meeting (constituent) first the 1905

According to Chykalenko, the Kadets rejected his offer, his rejected Kadets the Chykalenko, to According и областных представительных собраний, обладающих правом правом обладающих собраний, представительных иобластных

i dition, the meeting accepted the paragraph 24 of the the of 24 paragraph the accepted meeting the dition,

pulation. konferentsii

107

konstitutsionno 227

gemn ta te kana Radical Ukrainian the that agreement

would merge with the Kadets’ local local Kadets’ the with merge would

105 tions in the State Duma, while Duma, State the in tions

- Final demokraticheskoi - wi 106 de legislation there should should there legislation de ly, both parties reached parties both ly,

partii ,

e with e vol

. 1 1 . CEU eTD Collection item 1844. p. p. 4. item1844. автоном лад 108 the with contacts the maintaining in interested was Russia Little in Kadets the of coul Kadets the which needs, and claims their express only could Ukrainians The party. Ukrainian the negotiate not could to give ofwider a definition that assume to possible is it Therefore, significance). “ by competence this state of the rights by the of institution limitations the stipulated that details the omitted and rights legislative with assembly regional the proclaimed program the of version Ukrainian subjects certain legislative regarding authority of execution in participate to rights “the while autonomy, establishing state of level the “at th In shortened. considerably was self local of institutions the denote self “local phrase the used translators the time, (“ assemblies” sobraniia representative “regional expression avtonomiia

The established, there must be demonstrated the ways, how to establish regional autonomies and and autonomies regional establish to how people. ofneedsthe withthe in accordance rights with legislative regionalassemblies ways, the demonstrated be must there established,

для

Ukrainian ii n gener In (“ autonomy” “local expression the that noticed, be should It

все i ) a rnee a rendered was ”)

краев Af ”) was translated as “regional autonomy” (“ autonomy” “regional as translated was ”) i

e te ii rgt ad well and rights civil the ter

Росс

version i d take or not take into consideration. At the same time, the local group local the time, same the At consideration. into take not or take d

al, it is possible to say, that the Kadets and the Ukrainian activists activists Ukrainian the and Kadets the that say, to possible is it al, ради ii ,

eti sbet” (probably subjects” certain повинн on equal ground equal on

з :

« законодавими - П wide legislation there should be opened a legal way” for for way” legal a opened be should there legislation wide - i ie legislati wide сля i

бути “einl sebis (“ assemblies” “regional s autonomy.

того

як показан e Ukrainian translation there missed the expressions the missed there translation Ukrainian e

правами ” будут - oenet Mroe, h woe aarp 24 paragraph whole the Moreover, government. s

w , due to a relatively low bargaining capacity of capacity bargaining low relatively a to due , - as replaced with “legislative rights.” Thus, the Thus, rights.” “legislative with replaced as ordered regime for the whole Russia would be be would Russia whole the for regime ordered e seby n as te etito o its of restriction the also and assembly ve

установлен способи ,

в 228 i дповидно

government” (“ government” , яким i

questions of exclusively local local exclusively of questions громадяньск the Ukrainian translators tended tended translators Ukrainian the

потреб rive rady kraievye

kraieva avtonomiia kraieva чином oblastnye predstavitle’nye predstavitle’nye oblastnye i

люду

i мают

права mistseva uprava mistseva ».

GARF. f. 579. op. 1. op. 579. f. GARF.

”). At the same same the At ”). заводитись i

упорядкованный 108 ”), and the the and ”),

mestnaia mestnaia

краев ”) to to ”) i

CEU eTD Collection 112 111 110 109 won their because was language seriously affected was by theGalician dialect. It newspapers. the of language Ukrainian the left comprehending the in population the of majority was newspapers Ukrainian the of audience t for easier it made and Ukrainian in newspapers own their issue to groups Ukrainian the F it. present le its how exactly is This movement. Ukrainian the for opportunity” of “window a as characterized be could Duma Second the of dissolution the before and parties Ukrainian concessions. the with compromise a for sought electoral right the of activation gradual a of context the in ally potential a as Ukrainians the saw Kadets the Moreover, activists. existe that ties Radical Ukrainian

Ilya Shrah, Pavel Chizhevsky, Mykola Biliashevsky, Andrei Viazlov, and Grabovetsky and Viazlov, Andrei MykolaBiliashevsky, Chizhevsky, Pavel IlyaShrah, Shemet Volodymyr Chykalenko, Hillis, propagandize to groups Ukrainian he only one seat one only In general, the situation after the after situation the general, In the At Between Empire and Nation, Nation, and Empire Between campaign in the First Duma. First the in campaign The Window of Opportunities: Window The First The the Duma Second and reedom of speech, declared by the by declared speech, of reedom

Tvory d between a certain group of local Kadets and the Ukrainian national national Ukrainian the and Kadets local of group certain a between d lcin t te is Dm te kana Radical Ukrainian the Duma First the to elections

- , on its own on its

Democratic Party because of the close friendly and organizational organizational and friendly close the of because Party Democratic 357.

. 111 -

wing Russian national groups in the region during the the during region the in groups national Russian wing 420 Ano - 432.

ther five representatives of theparty of representatives five ther 109

issuing of the Manifest the of issuing In these particular circumstances the Kadets the circumstances particular these In their ideas among the readers. However, the the However, readers. the among ideas their -

ak kan hd eiu polm in problems serious had Ukraine bank 229 eaiey arw mil bcue the because mainly narrow, relatively

Manifest

110 o

opened the opportunities for opportunities the opened o ae few a made

of October 17 October of - Democrati aders tried to to tried aders 112

won their

c Party Party c verbal th

and CEU eTD Collection 118 117 dumka Hromads’ka 116 115 114 113 Ukrainian the of members the of none renewe was Howe opinion. public “progressive” Russian a to addressed foremost which Russian, Party. Peters St. the of apartment the in place to realized. be to failed projects particular of th Meanwhile, people. Ukrainian the of needs pressing the regarding opinions the exchange to forum a of form the took Club the by limited were and pa the because mainly controversies, provoked issues related Ukrainian on bill draft any formulate to attempts Any discipline. strong deputies. 44 fa Ukrainian special a founded Chizhevsky to moved Hrushevsky Duma the of opening “unconsci Uk the of many Chykalenko, banner the under seats

“Zadachi Ukrainskogo Vestnika” Vestnika” “Zadachi Ukrainskogo Ibid klubu” parlamens’koho ukrains’koho sbory “Piershy see: meetings the of format of notion clear For Ibid. Chykalenko, Lototsky, Oleksander with the Kadets can be demonstrated by demonstrated be can Kadets the with 117 . ver, the journal could not exist not could journal the ver,

101 (1906). 101 ic My 96 h U the 1906 May Since

u” kanas n wr interested were and Ukrainians ous” d only in 1912 under the title title the under 1912 in only d 115 Tvory

However, Unlike the Polish koło, the Ukrainian Club did not have a have not did Club Ukrainian the koło, Polish the Unlike However,

101 (1906); (1906); 101 ,

323.

the political agenda of their parties. As the result the meetings of of meetings the result the As parties. their of agenda political the Storinky Storinky

of the Constitutional Democratic Party. Party. Democratic Constitutional the of Ibid Mynuloho . Ukrainskii Vestnik Ukrainskii ana dpte wr paat, u al f hm were them of all but peasants, were deputies rainian

117 (1906). 117 riin lb sud journal a issued Club krainian

vol. 3 (Warsaw, 1934), 6 1934), (Warsaw, 3 vol. more than a yea a than more burg branch of the Constitutional Democratic Constitutional the of branch burg aia Dmcai Pry o a won Party Democratic Radical

116

ction the “Ukrainian Club,” which counted which Club,” “Ukrainian the ction Ukrainskaia zhizn’ Ukrainskaia the fact that the meetings of this club took club this of meetings the that fact the

St. Petersburg St. 230 Organizational ties of the Ukrainian Club Ukrainian the of ties Organizational

1 e aim to organize a detailed discussion discussion detailed a organize to aim e

rticipants belonged to di to belonged rticipants

(

ny n gain issues. agrarian in only 1906): r, because of because r,

3 - 7.

. He and Shemet, Shrah and Shrah Shemet, and He . - 7.

. In the Second Duma, Duma, Second the In . kank Vestnik Ukrainsky

lack of funding. It funding. of lack 113

fferent parties parties fferent codn to According 114

et n the in seat

ih the With

118 in

CEU eTD Collection 1906 (Moscow: Kniga po Trebovaniiu, 2013), 390 2013), Trebovaniiu, po (Moscow: Kniga 1906 120 1907). 119 fo struggle common the join would nationalities for tasks constitutional urgent fulfil to importance the of nationalities the persuade to tried they where Kadets, Russia. postponed be could clai national the satisfying of question the that thought who politicians, those with Particularly, movement. constitutional Russian the in tendencies centralist of aspects the of one only nat was territoriality time, same the At one. into issues national of claim a posed having self contrary, local of forms the and nationalities the of Autonomy.” Vestnik Ukrainsky Hrushevsky of publications of series a with connected is period this of discourse readersactivity ofthe Ukrainian the of deputies. newspaper special a launched 4 to up increased Club the of membership the Yet, parliament.

Mikhail Grushevskii, Grushevskii, Mikhail ae Mluo, Fatia vooitv Ie. o brb. ultitceki khr Publitsisticheskaia bor’by. God Idem. avtonomistov” “Fraktsiia Miliukov, Pavel

ionality. the aftermath. the

n h frt f i atce in articles his of first the In in understanding theoretical the of development further A

h atce ok like looks article The

119

If the Kadets’ theoreticians tried to distinguish the issues of issues the distinguish to tried theoreticians Kadets’ the If 120 ,

until a complete victory of the “liberation movement” in the entire entire the in “liberationmovement” the of victorycomplete a until hc wr ltr erne i a oue Ntoa Qeto and Question “National volume a in reprinted later were which

Autonomy asaForm Natsional’nyi vopros i avtonomiia avtonomiia i vopros Natsional’nyi Hrushevsky offered an opposite opposite an offered Hrushevsky

first

, leaving the consideration of the claims of autonomy of claims the of consideration the leaving , a

in srv. usk Visty Dums’ky sprava. Ridna

epne o h recent the to response

kanki vestnik Ukrainskii - of National Self of National 391. 391.

231 - ertra atnm mre tee two these merged autonomy territorial

r liberation and would not press not would and liberation r (St.Petersburg: “Obshchestvennaia pol’za,” pol’za,” “Obshchestvennaia (St.Petersburg: - government Hrushevsky, on the the on Hrushevsky, government opinion - ulse statements published Hrushevsky , Determination . , According to According

which informed the the informed which . hr ws als was There 7. h Ukrainian the

opposed the the opposed nk, 1905 onika,

he the rights the him

argued f the of more ,

the the the ms

in in o -

CEU eTD Collection 123 122 121 and cityactivists inSeptember 1905. zemstvo of meeting the at Kokoshkin of speech the of fragment the with compared be and documents the to directly centralism from the left.” u divide their energybetween the the following passage: “non particularly, other, of claims the of Poland, of Kingdom the autonomyto the willingness provide to liberals the against as question, national the disregard to tendency the claims if issues, national fl te rn nt ny eadn te etaim rm h rgt u as the also but right the from centralism the regarding only not front the nfold

Ibid., 15. Ibid., 14 Ibid., “ Grushevskii, Mikhail “desire of the population”?” population”?” “desireofthe expressed clearly a with agitation,” “big a of presence the and instinct,” “national the of tension recogn from th but of one be passions, to autonomy nationalistic of influence the emerge from that those, not from instinct,” “national the by dictated are that autonomy, of claims those te forging social from of sides positive liberation the of organizations more th other of of expense condition the at strivings national development of sphere the in of out feelings national and nationalism the of hypertrophy draws causes bounds, natural claims… national the with dissatisfaction when demands, elements rritorial self rritorial .” In the view of Hrushevsky these activists of the liberation movement “make “make movement liberation the of activists these Hrushevsky of view the In pol entire the time, same the At a of phrase The 121 -

15. “Wise rulers,” who begin to think it is necessary to do “something” for national national for “something” do to necessary is it think to begin who rulers,” “Wise

, for whom the national question stands along with the political one, to one, political the with along stands question national the whom for ,

- – government now government h ntoa qeto i gnrl ad n atclr te usin f national of question the particular, in and general, in question national the

il not will e

latter. …is not it in this direction many leading representatives and and representatives leading many direction this in it not …is latter. constitutionalists Natsional’nyi vopros Natsional’nyi

nie y hi wso te people the wisdom their by entice e basics of normal state order, and conditioning acquiring of it by the the by it of acquiring conditioning and order, state normal of basics e 123 clearly 122

movement

, but postponing but ,

publications of the Kadets. The former quotat former The Kadets. the of publications defense

expression of the desire of the population refers refers population the of desire the of expression - state” nationalities. state”

went and go at this moment this at go and went would guarantee the realization of their basic basic their of realization the guarantee would

emics of Hrushevsky was not so not was Hrushevsky of emics

i avtonomiia” i avtonomiia” of the former and the latter. Thus they force to the formerforce andThusof to thelatter. they

it for indefinite time indefinite for it

232

makes the society to develop its energy energy its develop to society the makes Ukrainskii Vestnik Ukrainskii wo seriously who ,

This can be inferre be can This

, who , to te national the ition while , who , recommend to discern discern to recommend

recommend rejecting the similar similar rejectingthe

1 (1906): 14 (1906): 1 concerned concerned

much - d from the the from d territorial territorial

refusing refusing - ion may ion of the the of 15.

against

- CEU eTD Collection 127 126 125 124 peoples.” of “prison a as Russia contemporary of ground and exclusions of way the by Russia nationality any providing without autonomy, of idea the of realization consequent a on insisted Hrushevsky that was theoreticians Hrushevsky qu “Polish the position. international Russia’s for question Polish the of significance the and past historical its Poland, of Kingdom the of distinctness territorial the was him for important argumentation.More autonomy towards population

Idem. “Edinstvo ili raspadenie” “Edinstvoili raspadenie” Idem. “ Grushevskii, 3342. Ibid., 3341 sobraniiu…,” ocherednomu “Dokladk Kokoshkin, Fedor hie ewe te ainlte ad s fo te ay utrl r itrcl erc, or metrics, historical or cultural any them from ask and providing the substantiate a make nationalities to grounds the fair and between reasonable any choice no are There nationalities. all encompass to have emp special a make I demarcation… for elements, unsuitable territories the national in of living or rights population, the the of define minority a to forming have will law fundamental Another government… organize enoughto large and borders national by defined territory, compact self almost is autonomy towards population its of striving solidary now. undoubtful A respects. cultural and homogenous - oenet f ainl ertre eeyhr, hr a eti ntoaiy rvie a a at prevailed nationality certain a where everywhere, territories national of government

Thus, the essence of the polemics between Hrushevsky and the Kadets’ Kadets’ the and Hrushevsky between polemics the of essence the Thus, striving the and feeling national a of tension the time, same the At image the emphasized HrushevskyDisintegration” or “Unity article next his In of nationalfedera autonomyandof e poics ht om h Kndm f oad i ter ot at ersn a represent part most their in Poland, of Kingdom the form that provinces Ten … one of the first laws of the new order will have to establish as a general norm the the norm general a as establish to have will order new the of laws first the of one … I hs iw i ws mosbe o copih fi rognzto of reorganization fair a accomplish to impossible was it view, his In .

emphasized

whole, which is which whole, Natsional’nyi vopros Natsional’nyi sin t slto o al other all of solution to estion” 124

125

of national autonomy with a special tension of national strivings… ofnational tension withspecial a autonomy national of that thereall nationalities.a for principle had single tobe Yet, for Hrushev for Yet, very Ukrainskii Vestnik Ukrainskii …,” 10. …,”

distinct s pecial pecial ee o a eiie on i Kokoshkins’ in point decisive a not were

from th from rvlgs I cud only could It privileges. lism. lism. privileges either to the Poles or or Poles the to either privileges sky, this this sky,

23 3 (1906). 3

e rest of the state in ethnographic, economic economic ethnographic, in state the of rest e hasis of the of hasis

ntoa qetos i te empire. the in questions” “national was not a solid reason to oppose to reason solid a not was

- 127 3342. 3342. universality

with a mixed population, and and population, mixed a with e otae Rsi a a as Russia portrayed He

e accomplished be there a regional self regional a there

of such law: it will will it law: such of to to any other other any of the the of 126

on CEU eTD Collection 129 128 its members. Hrushevskywrote: of development political and economic, cultural, for yearning the infringe not other with union state the of benefits the of awareness of any people. development.” occupies self and development national of questions convince “assurances… is howHrushevsky displayed thebehavior ofnationalities: these interests. own their serve would Russia of unity the that sure, be would Russia in str this him, For state. unitary a as Russia preserve to activists liberal the of striving the whichimpression, exactly this is it thougheven impression, false a was this Ru Great the movementliberation the of leaders certain Moreover, force.police brutal a and bureaucracy of power the were together peoples and nationalities these all kept a by together bound not were which regions, historical and nationalities various of conglomerate

iving may be sincere, but this aim could be accomplishable only if the nationalities the if only accomplishable be could aim this but sincere, be may iving Ibid. Ibid. 8. Ibid., “defeated peoples” assure that they do not think of running away from the detention house detention the from away Russia. of indivisibility and unity the will to loyal stay and running of think the not of do representatives they that The assure away… peoples” run “defeated to ready be would peoples” “defeated and kingdoms” shout

n h ve o Huhvk, uh suacs are assurances such Hrushevsky, of view the In

and

…

Nw we te in the when “Now, cran ertr and territory certain a

frighten the people that in the case of its destruction destruction its of case the in that people the frighten cmlt idpnec i a osqet logical consequent a is independence complete A ssians were the dominant nationality in this state. Yet, for Hrushevsky, Hrushevsky, for Yet, state. this in nationality dominant the were ssians ny internal connection. The only factor that in the view of Hrushevsky of view the in that factor only The connection. internal ny , 129 The factor only aspiration thatrestrain towards this can independence is

hc ae given are which

He openly declares that national independence is a natural striving natural a is independence national that declares openly He surgent surgent

epe break people y h cpie bfr ltig hm u d not do out them letting before captives the by

a sfiin q sufficient has

234 determination of any nationality, which which nationality, any of determination the doors of la Bastille, the jailers begin to to begin jailers the Bastille, la of doors the

128

all these imprisoned “duchies and and “duchies imprisoned these all ualities and energy for the the for energy and ualities peoples, the union that would that union the peoples, o trustworthy not

realization assumed that assumed influences . These These .

f the of … This CEU eTD Collection 133 132 131 130 time, same the At autonomy. the Hrushevs acquire to preparedness better allegedly an all of equality of principle and nationalities the follow to important was it argued, Hrushevsky his offered and the Federalists” regarding and recommendations Autonomists of “Union the of establishment rights and would union state the of members the where apartments, free into prison a of “cells the transform would Hrushevsky, for way, a Such Empire. Russian autonomy regional and territorial Russian could might theyas soon asbureaucracy. repressive However, the struggleagainst

Mikhail Grushevskii, “O zrelosti i nezrelosti” nezrelosti” i “Ozrelosti Grushevskii, Mikhail 14 Ibid., 14. Ibid., 10. Ibid., is a clear tendency towards regionalautonomy.” towards tendency clear isa there contrary the on nation; this inside unity centralist a towards strivings common no are There exchange, fo are, economic of freedom and oppression space and complications international from securing Largeinstitutions, cultural more establishing regions. and peoples other of exploitation development cultural and economic

be dri n h atce O Mtrt ad mauiy Huhvk wloe the welcomed Hrushevsky Immaturity” and Maturity “On article the In national of principle a of implementation wide “a that thought Hrushevsky common by united were Russia of peoples the present, the in Hrushevsky, For

r example,suchbenefits. r population should be autonomous regions. divided into ky saw a certain terminological vagueness in the program of the Union. In Union. the of program the in vagueness terminological certain a saw ky ac - t apart ft

15. …b The Great Russian nationality takes a smaller part part smaller a takes nationality Russian Great The feel themselves feel themselves

hieved only through only hieved

elonging to a large and well and large a to elonging

refuse –

r o te otay ty o sals a establish to try contrary, the on or,

the the freeresidents, special special 130

federa

of the peoples of this union, which would not be a result of of result a be not would which union, this of peoples the of ws h ol wy o rsre h uiy f the of unity the preserve to way only the was ” general privileges

- organized organized lization Ukrainskii Vestnik Ukrainskii rather than imprisonedcaptiverather than

131

principles principles

235

to distinct nationalities on the ground of of ground the on nationalities distinct to . Mor .

state union may provide many benefits for benefits many provide may union state

eover, f hs faction. this of of the population of the empire. empire. the of population the of

4 (1906). 4 the territory with the Great Great the with territory the genuin

uiy Thi unity. e

would win, they win, would no ter full their enjoy s.” 133 132

Above

unity s all

- , CEU eTD Collection 137 136 135 134 and economic the with along considered Dragomanov which principle, ethnographic meaning the national of while for therestofregions he Hrushevsky and national contrad both This units. regional of federation of idea the advocated he where article, previous lines. opposed who liberals, Russian of postulates the with polemics hidden a find can one reasoning, this In liberation. nationalcause of the seriously complicate could claims such that thought natio the of one latter regions. of autonomy the with it replace to striving the and autonomy territorial autonomy. “regional” notion national or “regional expression the view, his

Grushevskii, “O zrelosti i nezrelosti…, “ 270. nezrelosti…, i “O zrelosti Grushevskii, 3330 biuro…,” organizatsionnogo “Doklad Kokoshkin, 205. Ibid., footnote. 204 Ibid., ethnographic territory the division would be in accordance with the economic conditions and and conditions economic the with con accordance in be ethnographic would division the the territory ethnographic with accordance in self local of organization about decree principle the reform would that empire law the time, certain a require should population the of composition national the with divisions… administrative contemporary 136 venience of communication). of venience tend to bind together the pieces from various ethnographic regions; moreover, regions; ethnographic various from pieces the together bind to tend h cnldn atce f th of article concluding The Dragomanov’ the with Comparing t h sm tm, n hs esnn Huhvk ses o otait his contradict to seems Hrushevsky reasoning this in time, same the At …t 134

regards the territ the regards he territory with a prevailing Ukrainian population has to be driven out of the the of out driven be to has population Ukrainian prevailing a with territory he

For

h picpe omn self forming principle the nalities plays a role of “master” in the whole region.” whole the in “master” of role a plays nalities Hrushevsky, “one has “one Hrushevsky,

a otn n poiin o h ie o “national of idea the to opposition in often was

the alteration of the borders between the existing administrative divisions divisions administrative existing the between borders the of alteration the - territorial autonomy.territorial According toHrushevsky, iction, however, becomes less obvious if obvious less becomes however, iction, orial principle only for the Great Russian part of Russia, Russia, of part Russian Great the for only principle orial 137

offered the

B s eis a “u Cam. I seiid the specified It Claims.” “Our was series is composition ecause establishing the borders borders the establishing ecause

to face a hostile a face to

- s project, it is possible to see, that the the that see, to possible is it project, s oenn triois ln te national the along territories governing 236 national

territorial units” was unclear as the the as unclear was units” territorial 3332. f h pplto (while population the of - oenet my e ofnd o a to confined be may government…

- territorial principle.

attitude towards the national the towards attitude in precise coherence coherence precise in to 135

suppose, that suppose,

nie the inside Hrushevsky -

territorial” territorial” - wide wide The The - CEU eTD Collection 138 Other peoples. the be would exactly What independence. their pursue to right the have would peoples the of each for beneficial becomes unity the preserving if realized, be only could variant this him, For future. the of variants possible the of in assumption over peoples distinct of interests the of priority the defending towards views Hrushevsky’s was national acentral program. placeofhis up bottom from authority delegating of principle the that proved federalism fiscal on allowed details and audience Russian reflected detailed less a offered essays the wouldtosatisfyexpenses, beused needs.” theneedscultural oflocal andeconomic state in participation fair a for except region, the of means economic the which, loca the defining and arranging state “the view, national autonomous of competence the defining of ground the autonomous important become connections economic The role. prominent a acquires articles Hrushevsky’s in regions, the of peculiarities geographic

Ibid., 207. Ibid., the In to contrast In Hrushevsk article, this In

interests of the entire state entire the of interests purpose purpose

general, national region into lessernational into self region his reasoning on the fate of the peoples of the empire. It rather was one one was rather It empire. the of peoples the of fate the on reasoning his widening - ie osiuin a t lae h lcl nttts wd sae for space wide a institutes local the leave to has constitution wide f h eiin of edition the of

h sre o tee sas eosrts n vlto of evolution an demonstrates essays these of series the Hrushevsky’s proje Hrushevsky’s a t jsiy h Ukra the justify to had

a space for possible compromises. compromises. possible for space a

y suggested the major condition, which would which condition, major the suggested y rltos poie an provide relations… l iin f h Uriin claims Ukrainian the of vision . Pre . kansy Vestnik Ukrainisky

serving the unity of the state ceased to be an be to ceased state the of unity the serving ct published in May 1905, May in published ct -

governing units.

237

na ntoa claims national inian only for further division of the the of division further for only

that

re, n codne with accordance in order,

Moreover

addressed addressed - territorial units. In his his In units. territorial . Presumably, this this Presumably, . his new series of series new his , his persistence his , . mainly A odn the voiding wise, the the wise, to the the to - lie wide wide 138

CEU eTD Collection 140 139 Progressists t ceased reaction, the of conditions the in struggle dissolved. soon was Duma second The rapidly. form tangible any acquire would conference Radical ofthe Ukrainian sprava only response with the claims ofthe He Poles. the newspaper request on motivated this “Rada”: oppor an as Polish the of move moment the use to Duma the in deputies this Ukrainian the called Hrushevsky delegation, on Reacting discussions. parliamentary the of agenda define conditions for andthe preserving once thenations forever the within to impossible be would it Therefore, itself. decide to have will people the benefit,

Ridna Ridna Ukraintsy” i zakonoproekt “Pol’skii Hrushevsky, Mikhail the claims of non ofthe claims ones Polish the with along and it in the Duma. it inthe introduce to order infaction labor Ukrainian the to it submit and law the willdiscuss partythe of the reaction consideration to local hroma local to consideration the ” Thus, a certain project existed. Yet, certainexisted. projecta Thus, disso soon was Duma The Ko Polish the Duma, Second the In

o exist. exist. o sprava. Dums’ki visty Dums’ki sprava. . This only proved the weakness of the Ukrainian faction in the Duma. the in faction Ukrainian the of weakness the proved only This . ih rfrne o aiin newspa Galician to reference a with Ukrai … u an be would It uiy o elr te cam o non of “claims the declare to tunity to work out the project of “general points” of the Ukrainian autonomy and give it for for it give and autonomy Ukrainian the of points” “general of project the out work to (

Tovar to his appeal to formulate a certain project was a brief note in “ in note brief a was project certain a formulate to appeal his to nian idea, if it will not remember now its obligation its now will notremember it if idea, nian 140 It -

state nationalities of Russia. of nationalities state took the form of an of form the took y stvo Ukrains’ stvo nforgivable sin of the Ukrainian faction Ukrainian the of sin nforgivable . It should It . 9 (1907). 9 d y.

After they send their recommendations the new conference conference new the recommendations their send they After kikh Postupovtsi kikh

. Meanwhile, the political situation was changing changing was situation political the Meanwhile, . set the question of autonomy of question the set - vd n Huhvk’ claim Hrushevsky’s and lved Democratic PartyDemocratic decided

unofficial organization the Society of Ukrainian of Society the organization unofficial 139

it could take a long couldatake it ł

h Uriin Radical Ukrainian the 238 put

- es Acrig o h note the to According pers. their project of the autonomy the of project their tt ntoaiis f usa along Russia” of nationalities state v Rada , TUP , eutn t pru te political the pursue to Reluctant

94 (1907). (1907). 94 , regarding the Ukrainian people people Ukrainian the regarding ) and raise the Ukrainian claims claims Ukrainian the raise and ,

which at

a wider ground wider a

: time

regained the former the regained

before this pro before this Democratic Party Party Democratic did not find any any find not did

union. and and pose pose R at

idna The

ject the the CEU eTD Collection 144 32(1975): 1 34: 143 142 141 which They Ukrainian and thecenter“‘all of the Savenko Anatoly leader its gave Duma third the to elections the during organization the of success The center N Russian up linked rest Duma the Duma. State the in Russia Little from deputies the that could bolster these ideas theoretical abstract the only left having 1904. before existed that intelligentsia organization

Anton Kotenko, Olga Martyniuk, Aleksei Miller, “Maloross…,” 437. 437. “Maloross…,” Miller, Aleksei Martyniuk, Olga AntonKotenko, 1909” of Crisis Political the and Party Nationalist Russian “The Edelman, Robert Lototsky, Strilets, f the of portrayed the Ukrainian activists Ukrainian the portrayed

aim increased the influence o influence the increased The rhetoric of the members of the of members the of rhetoric The Th

Ukrais’ka radikal’no Ukrais’ka

e new electoral law had dramatically changed the political composition of composition political the changed dramatically had law electoral new e was a member of the Kiev branch of the Kadet party Ivan Luchitsky.Ivan party Kadet the of branch Kiev the of member a was ed at to split off split to at ed movement ationalists. Storinky Mynuloho Storinky with depu of the Ukrainian movement as an amorphous association of the circles of of circles the of association amorphous an as movement Ukrainian the of - 54. 54. h rgt ig f h Otbit and Octobrists the of wing right the ties

reason to claim to reason from the region represented large landowners, landowners, large represented region the from

143 n nemnn te rai uiy f the of unity organic the undermining in A Turn to the Right and New Hopes New toA Turn theand Right

uh cnoiain f usa ntoait rus n the in groups nationalist Russian of consolidation a Such - Russian’ patriotic movement.”

, - the Little Russian population from Russi from population Russian Little the demokratychna partiia demokratychna 61.

was now absentwas now

f the f

stronghold the were Russia Little and Kiev that Kiev as a result of the Austrian an Austrianresult athe as of 141 reasoning

hs the Thus, Club Club

Club of Russian Nationalists in Nationalists Russian of Club 239 .

, 41 ,

was focused on the the on focused was

49. of Hrushevsky. of The o The

idw f potnte closed opportunities of window 144 of Party emerged newly the nly “conscious” Ukrainian “conscious” nly

“ All

A d Germanintrigue, d a accus - ny political force political ny , Russi

ay of many having i having Russian Review Russian ations of ations n nation an the region the mpos 142 who

The

the the ed ed m in . ” . ,

CEU eTD Collection 147 1912). 146 also: natsionalistov Andrusskikh People. Russian the of Union the of branch local the and Club Kiev the both 145 course th in part take to failed Luchitsky deputy Ukrainian the However, language. native the in schools primary in instruction thenative schoolsRussian in language. Duma 1908 28 March On language. Ukrainian the of quest the became debates the of issue key the autonomy, of question the of Instead question.” “Ukrainian the on debate general the in agenda their change to had Kadets Russian the alienate of to threatened nationalists rhetoric denunciative the hand, other the On rivals. conservative needed the they hand, On the one stronganti their and Russia funded by foreignpowers. U sarcastic a departmenton Separatism Shchegolev them on riinnto,bt representing but nation, krainian

The full text of the draft bill: “Bor’ba za za “Bor’ba bill: draft full the of The text Shchegolev, Sergei newspaper daily the see nationalists Kiev of rhetoric the For

, mainly the Kadets and Trudoviks, proposed a proposed Trudoviks, and Kadets the mainly ,

of the discussion. discussion. the of n uun 90 te tt Dm dsusd h g the discussed Duma State the 1910, autumn In right the of significance growing the Both

, ’s ” tak n h Uriin ciit, o ol denying only not activists, Ukrainian the on attack frin lnug ad culture and language “foreign”

rvkd hae dbt i 1912. in debate heated a provoked the Te kana Mvmn a a e Sae f South a of Stage New a as Movement Ukrainian “The press and had an an had and press . Vol. 1 Vol. . Ukrainskoe dvizhenie kak sovremennyi etap iuzhnorusskogo separatizma iuzhnorusskogo etap sovremennyi kak dvizhenie Ukrainskoe - He on He 3 (Kiev: Tipografiia “N.I. Kushnerev i Ko.”, 1909 i Ko.”, “N.I.Kushnerev (Kiev: Tipografiia 3

- Ukrainian stance posed a serious challenge for the Kadets. Kadets. the challengefor serious a Ukrainianstanceposed ly

support of “conscious” Ukrainians to support of managed to come in at in come to managed the

poedns f h Dm truhu te whole the throughout Duma the of proceedings e access to all Ukrainian publications. His book was was book His Ukrainianpublications. all to access h kana oeet sa riiil product, artificial an as movement Ukrainian the iazyk: publikatsiia dokumentov” dokumentov” publikatsiia iazyk:

moderate 147

. 240 145

groups of groups ulse i te ae ve same the in Published ,

146 hry ee deputies seven thirty -

wing h author The Kievlianin draft draft

end of end electorate. As a result, the the result, a As electorate. representation representation bill on education in education on bill nrl usin f the of question eneral , which was a mouthpiece of of mouthpiece a was which , Ab Imperio Ab

the h eitne f the of existence the okd n h Kiev the in worked - 1911). 1911). discussion, where discussion, withstand

2 (2005). 2 of the State State the of Sb rm Littl from

in ornik k ornik - , Russian Russian

Sergei

Little (Kiev, (Kiev,

their their luba ion e

CEU eTD Collection 1 (1912): 66. (1912): 1 151 150 218 Ibid., 1915. in party the from resignation his of cause the was This party. the of majority the from Struve alienated 149 148 andThis was theComplete theculture“Pushkin Laws.” ofCollection ( state” “Great the with linked was esta fully fact. accomplished an than rather making, the in only were nation Ukrainian the consequently and the culture that Ukrainian supposed Both assumptions. theoretical other on based was Struve Peter and Kistiakovsky Bogdan of debate the fact, empirical an as borders” “ethnographic the eve thefourthelections Duma. ofthe to Ukrainian the and Kadets the between alliance the question into call to threatened Yet, question.” opinion nation Ukrainian the of existence very the also but language, Ukrainian the of like the Duma. the in cause Ukrainian the prevented intentionally Kadets the that activists Ukrainian the of language. amendment an offered he

Peter Struve, “Obshcherusskaia kul’tura “Obshcherusskaia Struve, Peter Konstitutsionno i Konferentsii S”ezdy Lototsky, Pipes, Pipes, Unlike the Ukrainian nationalists, who treated the Ukrainian nation in its its in nation Ukrainian the treated who nationalists, Ukrainian the Unlike

hwvr dpre fo te eea ve o te aes n h “Ukrainian the on Kadets the of view general the from departed however, , - minded tue Lbrl n h Right the on Liberal Struve: blished, whereas for Struve, it was the cu the was it Struve, for whereas blished, The amendment was rejected by the majority, which aroused which majority, the by rejected was amendment The

Storinky Mynuloho Storinky - 219. 219. Struve’s publications seriously antagonized the Ukrainian groups and groups Ukrainian the antagonized seriously publications Struve’s Kadets

A Debate theRussianNation of onthe Limits initiated a public polemics, denying not only the expedience the only not denying polemics, public a initiated , 61 in - 148 63.

favor

214 , The situation got situation The - For Kistiakovsky, even the Russian culture Russian the even Kistiakovsky, For Demokraticheskoi partii. Demokraticheskoi i ukrainskii partikuliarism. Otvet Ukraintsu” Ukraintsu” Otvet partikuliarism. ukrainskii i eii gosudarstvom velikim

- 216. 216. of allow

h ves f tue n h “kana question” “Ukrainian the on Struve of views The 150 241

ing

lture of an accomplished nation thatnation accomplished an of lture

even even h isrcin n h Ukrainian the in instruction the Vol. 2, 377 2, Vol. worse when worse poue b ti nation. this by produced ) - 383. 383.

Peter Struve and Struve Peter

de 151 the suspicions the Russkaia mysl’ Russkaia fense

. was not was 149

of the the of

This s on s

CEU eTD Collection 155 154 153 138. (1911): mysl’5 Russkaia redaktsiiu)” 152 those used he time, same the At position. his substantiate to latter the of authority the to referred Struve Dragomanov, of ideas the about enthusiasm Kistiakovsky’s level ofculture. people, that apprehended Kistiakovsky “ parts, independent three into nation Russian the onlyaccomplishm an thought Kistiakovsky being. into come yet not has masses popular of culture the pheno modern a as nation the treated Kistiakovsky and Struve both Rus’, Kievan the of times the nationality Russian intelligentsia breaking was away

Ibid. Ibid. 142. Ibid., 137. Ibid., Ukrainets (Bogdan Kistiakovsky) “K voprosu o samostoiatel’noi ukrainskoi kul’ture (Pis’mo v v (Pis’mo kul’ture ukrainskoi samostoiatel’noi o voprosu “K Kistiakovsky) (Bogdan Ukrainets is a privilege of only the Great Russian people? Russian the Great only privilegeof isa language, and spirit by close is which intelligentsia, an having youropinion, in Or, Russia. Little speak they conscious its and intelligentsia terms ethnographic Russian the among only but Rus and nation “Russian these However, culture. Russian y Russian”

Struve had a different understanding of the task of intelligentsia. Knowing intelligentsia. of task the of understanding different a had Struve F a about concerned was who Struve, to contrast In who nationalists, Russian of views primordial to Contrary

learning their language and elevating the people in their language to a higher a to language their in people the elevating and language their learning or Kistiakovsky, the main task of intelligentsia was getting closer to the the to closer getting was intelligentsia of task main the Kistiakovsky, or Is it possible to imagine a greater gap between the people and intelligentsia, than intelligentsia, and people the between gap greater a imagine to possible it Is terms” ethnographic of “number a To

not metaphorically, but literally two different languages? Exactly this is happening in in happening is this Exactly languages? different two literally but metaphorically, not u oppose ou menon. According to Kistiakovsky, “… the true the “… Kistiakovsky, to According menon.

stay the stay had been had ent of intelligentsia.ent

a “significant historical fact: the existence of the Russian nation and and nation Russian the of existence the fact: historical “significant a ht the that

popular masses that form the peoples ofRussia.” formthemasses peoples that popular

forming

usa ntoa clue that culture national Russian

from thepeople.” from

through

155 -

“Great Russian,” “Little Russian,” and “White “White and Russian,” “Little Russian,” “Great 242

a long historical process, starting fr starting process, historical long a

154 sian culture” do not exist anywhere, anywhere, exist not do culture” sian

He wrote: es Mawie bhn these behind Meanwhile, ness. possible “fragmentation” of of “fragmentation” possible Only now i now Only Struve culture

153

huh ta the that thought eerd to referred t can arise.” can t

of Russia, as Russia, of when , was was , om

152 of of

CEU eTD Collection 158 157 156 former Th narodniks. and Marxists between argument the reminds Kistiakovsky and Struve Marxism. with engagement earlier Struve’s reflect the statehood, the language culture, and ofhigher neweco finally, thelanguage of of language the time one at is which language, colloquial and bookish kindred at time, and, the same more powerful, which of the are under pressure th “process the was masses” popular the among language Russian Little the of extinction and absorbtion of “process the that assumed Struve econom “natural” of influence the under made effort: a wiser cul “White invest Ukrai special A people. Russian the of branches three all of accomplishment common a was which a developed relatively a was there moment the at follows: as was “all of significance the literature recognized he where Dragomanov, of articles

Ibid., 71. Ibid., 70. Ibid., 75. partikuliarism…,” i ukrainskii kul’tura “Obshcherusskaia Struve, intelligentsia. With this they did a great service to their people, to its political and cultural cultural and political its spirit. to people, national of unity their a created it body to political the of service fragmentation dynastic a great Under development. a did they this With intelligentsia. to pretend ua lev tural

not so strong forces of forces strong so not

o Struve, For economicprocesses “natural” importanceof the of strongemphasis A 157 Russian” cultures Russian” ogt o rn i consciousness in bring to sought

and all and

raig snl ntoa language, national single a Creating l f h woe people. whole the of el in utr ws ahr n tngahc n. So one. ethnographic an rather was culture nian national - Russian language”Russian Ukrainians. for the

the the tt significance state ite usa lnug w language Russian Little . Instead they could endow these forces to develop a develop to forces these endow could they Instead . their intelligentsia to construct to intelligentsia their

n h ve o Srv, h Gra intelligentsia German the Struve, of view the In ,

a a ra ptitc nevr of endeavor patriotic great a was ic and social processes social and ic

hl peevn lcl euirte that peculiarities local preserving while

to the people, which it did not not did it which people, the to 243

as doomed for gradual extinction extinction gradual for doomed as In this sense, the dispute between dispute the sense, this In 156

Ingeneral, position Struve’s

at affects many dialects dialects many affects at parallel “Ukrainian” and and “Ukrainian” parallel nomic forms.” i mad it ,

linked to capitalism. to linked ll - Russian culture, Russian e the German German the

- seems to seems do not not do 158 es to sense possess

Russian Russian general

e .

CEU eTD Collection 161 160 159 emergence for hard could it make hand, one the politicians: was he that mean, not did which standpoint, movement from“people.” “aristocracy” tothe the ata equalization enoug attentive and sensitive not were they culture and literature of democratization of process the in Therefore, Do the the Struve people. position, the “narodnik” his for Dragomanov criticized from learn to intelligentsia the called latter, the Meanwhile

Ibid., 85. Ibid., Ibid. 77. Ibid., Pushkin learns from the woman that makes communion bread. And they don’t notice how the the how notice woman don’t they And bread. communion makes that woman the from learns Pushkin masses. the win classes higher ( d Polish rluo ad rgmnv contained Dragomanov and broliubov prosvirnia oub sedn mvmn fo te pol” o aitcay ad descending and “aristocracy” to “people” the from movement ascending

le harmthe le all to According to Struve, the political repressions against the Ukrainian culture, on on culture, Ukrainian the against repressions political the Struve, to According th consider to tried Struve Generally, Struve Struve, For democratism. and narodniks of ory

- Ukrainian war with Russia aiming to take the Ukraine of Russia… of Ukraine the take to aiming Russia with war Ukrainian that makes communion communion makes that

When reactionaries yell about “mazepinstvo” and display fa display and “mazepinstvo” about yell reactionaries When bread communion making woman and boy street a from learned Pushkin and Luther

of a separate Ukrainian nation along with the Russian one. If the “thought the If one. Russian the with along nation Ukrainian separate a of ), yet they also obliged the boy and the woman to learn from them… The language of of language The them… from learn womanto the and boy the obliged also yetthey ),

could provoke could assumed may conquer the lower o lower the conquer may

higher level Dobroliubov, Dragomanov and narodniks in general tend to see only how how only see to tend general in narodniks and Dragomanov Dobroliubov, - Russian culture. Russian

“statist

that the process of creation of national culture included both included culture national of creation of process the that

bread bread

(italics mine a thinking h to a phenomenon, which can be characterized as as characterized be can which phenomenon, a to h radical Ukrainian nationalism and, nationalism Ukrainian radical

learnsfrom 161 nes; similarly the language of the the of language the similarly nes;

”

Russian –

Pushkin. T.Kh).” 244

in complete agreement complete in ay lmns f aonk theory. narodnik of elements many

s qeto fo te tuy statist “truly the from question e

to realize the possible harm from harm possible to realize the 160 emphasizing 159

“ h dmcaim f both of democratism the ntastic pictures of Austro of pictures ntastic

reactionary fury does does fury reactionary the contrast between contrast the few

on the other hand, other the on

( with reactionary with izbrannye ) may )

- the the ”

CEU eTD Collection 162 so the were question,” theGermanin Switzerland, cultureItalian the exclude and didnot French ones. latt the yet nation we Switzerland of model the on state the of variant compromising a was it Austria, to had state multinational model? German the to according state national a be Russia and new the Would statehood. Russian of anfuture the into regarding it argument transferred they reorganization, territorial and language the on dispute dimension. another into cultures Russian and Ukrainian the of perspectives the “Little Russians” and two into culture Russian the of division b of questions our All trouble. national and state true a be… would which nation, Russian Ukrainianness, Ukra the of

national core and unitary high culture? At the same time, Kistiakovsky regarded a regarded Kistiakovsky time, same the At culture? high unitary and core national

Ibid. e once it a federati a into connected re relns ol se cmlt nnes a cmae t a esetv of perspective a to compared as nonsense complete seem would orderlands a

lity.” This lity.” The argument between Kistiakovsky and Struve brought Struve and Kistiakovsky between argument The “U the of discussion the to related events, significant most the of One er did not have to eliminate to have not did er inian intelligentsia would take roots in roots take would intelligentsia inian

to be transformed be to -

for Struve Struve for variant did not exclude the existenceof the exclude not did variant –

- into three cultures.” into called “Ukrainian days” in the State Duma in February 1914. February in Duma State the in days” “Ukrainian called

– rsre srn ntoa core national strong a preserve

this this

into a conglomerate of national regions, yet without yet regions, national of conglomerate a into n yt oe f h rgos had regions the of none yet on, would be the greatest and unprecedented unprecedented greatestand the be would Mutual

or assimilate other national cultures. Likewise, cultures. national other assimilate or 162

Reeducation 245

–

if the “White Russians” would follow follow would Russians” “White the if

popular soil and inflame it with i with it inflame and soil popular

the

all ?

- Or, hte te Russian the Whether Russian high culture, culture, high Russian , where the regions regions the where , the question on the the on question the by analogy with with analogy by

“dominant a split of theof split liberated krainian rm a From

CEU eTD Collection 166 48. 1983), (Philadelphia, 3 part 73. vol. Society Philosophical 165 2010). 164 163 center. the of deputies the among even discontent caused circumstance This Duma. the from m himself tsar the and parties right the of support the questions on relying government, many the Meanwhile Regarding government. Duma). Third the in center Th Octobrists. could that emerging, in seat his Guchkov Alexander leader their Moreover, aims. political their of understanding increased. Duma Fourth the of wing left the elections, the during government the of pressure forces of equilibrium relative a to way gave the of domination The circumstances. together with theKadets from Kiev. Hrushevs with meet to Kiev to went Miliukov Paul discussion Duma the of eve the On Affairs. Internal of Minister the and Ministers of Council the of Chair the to addressed was the “on Trudoviki o and Kadets the of inquiry the by initiated were debates These ccasion of the upcoming celebration of the memory of the poet Shevchenko,” which Shevchenko,” poet the of memory the of celebration upcoming the of ccasion Gleason, Willian Anatolii Smirnov, Miliukov,

166 The parliamentary debates over this issue took place in the changed political changed the in place took issue this over debates parliamentary The

ky and the members of of members the and ky Smirnov,

164 Gosudarstvennaia Duma Gosudarstvennaia Vospominaniia the

is group was very close to forming a left center (as opposed to the right the to opposed (as center left a forming to close very was group is h Octobrist The

Duma. Alexander Guchkov and the End of the Empire the of End the and Guchkov Alexander Gosudarstvennaia Duma Rossiiskoi imperii, 1906 1906 imperii, Rossiiskoi Duma Gosudarstvennaia

165 nld te aes Progressi Kadets, the include , 381 ,

t h sm tm, ihn h Dm a e alac was alliance new a Duma the within time, same the At - 382.

ore often tended to decide the state the decide to tended often ore oiin osdrby weakened considerably position ,

442 the Society of the Ukraininan Progressivists ( Progressivists Ukraininan the of Society the - 163 466.

right

- wing majority, which which majority, wing 246

between the left and right and left the between

t ad cran at f the of part certain a and sts

in: Transactions of the American American the of Transactions in: -

, 1917

they confronted the the confronted they Te ls a clear a lost They . -

related issues apart issues related (Cheliabinsk: Sotsium, Sotsium, (Cheliabinsk: in t in he Third Duma Duma Third he . Despite the Despite . - TUP wing

lost lost )

CEU eTD Collection 169 168 706 1914), tipografiia, Gosudarstvennaia (St.Petersburg: 167 pleased thi use to intended he Obviously, often He stenography. in skills his using speeches, the of notes detailed made Miliukov repressions. government of attempts activistan of Ukrainian the movement. Hrushevsky opened the meeting, declaring: the in place took meeting of apartment The Ukrainians. were Kadets the of seven yet Party, D Constitutional the of members 10 and TUP of representatives 10 were Hrushevsky inKiev. with meet to opportunity an as it used and party his of branch Kiev the of invitation accepte Miliukov Duma, the in discussion heated a foreseen Having ban. the T and Kadets the asked jubilee, the of celebration Littl in agitation organized earlier had who subvert to attempt the letter this In Nationalists. Russian Save Anatoly of letter the by

EvhenChykalenko, Miliukov, Gosudarstv Rossiia. Russian state, and all the declarations of the Russian press, that we have secret separatist separatist secret have we that press, Russian the of and intentions declarations the all and state, Russian any have not do we separatists, not are is we it that, from state: clear Russian the of organization federative a and Ukraine of autonomy parliamentarism, The next speakersnext The There meeting. this of details the provides Chykalenko Evhen of diary The A

the members of meeting. the

ban on the Ukrainian celebration of the Shevchenko’s jubilee was initiated initiated was jubilee Shevchenko’s the of celebration Ukrainian the on ban e cncos Ukrai conscious We, Vospominanii Fedor

receive the the receive

Shchodennyk ennaia Duma IV Sozyv. Stenograficheskie otchety. 1914 g. Sessiia 2. Chast’ 2 2 Chast’ 2. Sessiia g. 1914 otchety. Stenograficheskie Sozyv. IV Duma ennaia Steinheil 168 a,

Russia’s unity in favor of Austro of favor in unity Russia’s

German marks and Austrian kronen Austrian and marks German 381 recounted therecounted -

382. in, ih io exceptions, minor with nians, a member of the the of member a , nko to the government on behalf of the Kiev Club of of Club Kiev the of behalf on government the to nko vol. 1 (Kiev: Vydatnytstvo “Tempora,” 2004), 2004), “Tempora,” (Kiev: Vydatnytstvo 1 vol.

s data in his parliamentary speech, which speech, parliamentary his in data s ,

avenko accused the Ukrainians of Ukrainians the accused avenko se t rpa points repeat to asked

success of the Ukrainian movement and and movement Ukrainian the ofsuccess

247 Kadets in Kiev, in Kadets

- e Russia and a rising rising a and Russia e 707. 707.

rudoviks for the support to oppose to support the for rudoviks

plan

is a complete slander.” complete isa

are united on the principle of of principle the on united are -

Hungary. to separate to i odr o lrf the clarify to order in ,

who at the same time was time same the at who 167 ours

The Ukrainians, The 308.

elves separatism funds for the the for funds 169 subsequently

from the the from

emocratic

the

the d futile

and and m .

CEU eTD Collection 174 173 172 171 170 1905 in Kokoshkin t contrary, not did slogan this and time, present the until Slavs of aim the was autonomy for struggle claims. progres Russian the incite would it because state. unrealistic an offered unification. their of process the in federation a formed they before states independent of conglomerate a were Germany or America, autonomy position scholar published Miliukov dispute, this to According manner professor’s view a or Ukraine of autonomy with agree all at not Miliu Hrushevsky. of claims programmatic the to respond points specific the regarding

Kokoshkin, Kokoshkin, Ibid. Chykalenko, Iashchenko, Aleksander 312. Ibid., a eeaie eraiain f usa ol la i t disintegration. to it lead could Russia of reorganization federative a , iikv frhr etoe, ht hs da ol dmg te kana cause, Ukrainian the damage would idea this that mentioned, further Miliukov, 172

Miliukov’s speech caused a heated response heated a caused speech Miliukov’s speeches the When

regarding the organization of the Russian empire, which denied which empire, Russian the of organization the regarding

o strengthen its unity. its strengthen o for certain certain for

Oblastnaia avtonomiia i edinstvo Rossii i edinstvo avtonomiia Oblastnaia

him, Shchodennyk ly - federation was a means a was federation

1906 when he advocated the idea of decentralization.of idea the advocated he 1906when

con b Aeadr Iashchenko. Alexander by account claim, regions he identified his view on the federation with federation the on view his identified Teoriia federalizma Teoriia

312 elrd ht kanas ory understood poorly Ukrainians that declared

as they tended to to tended they as . ended

For him, the federative states, such states, federative the him, For ht he that 173

Mluo si ta h cud o mk comm make not could he that said Miliukov , In this statement, Hrushevsky repeated the rhetoric of rhetoric the repeated Hrushevsky statement, this In

rt dw i hs oe, e h fl te ed to need the felt he yet notes, his in down wrote the the

(Juriev: Tipografiia K. Mattisena, 1912). 1912). Mattisena, K. Tipografiia (Juriev: Ukrainians

of unification, rather than decentralization. than rather unification, of

creat 248

federative reorganization of reorganization federative , 3 171

ie ulc pno against opinion public sive - rm hs esetv, the perspective, this From 13.

e a feder a e intend to break up break to intend

by starting from the Society of United of Society the from starting h lte spotd centralist a supported latter The Hrushevsky. He argued that argued He Hrushevsky. kov emphasized that he that emphasized kov ation by breaking up bybreaking ation

the one in one the as the United States of States United the as Russia 174 the necessity of of necessity the

Miliukov wasMiliukov Russia. In his his In Russia. “federation.”

, but, on the on but, ,

the recently the Ukrainians Ukrainian

a unitary a 170 could

In ents ents the the

In a

CEU eTD Collection 177 176 175 was Octobrists wi link their emphasized and right aspire Austro not did groups, isolated Ukraine small the of independence for except movement, Ukrainian the co restrictions such with left The majority. the of support M opinions. 26 through doors of the Duma.” the that much so Miliukov stuffed have we laughing, Chyk them.” about argue not should politicians s he heard, self Ukrainian the of adversary the minimum.” Russ of reorganization federative of idea the accept finally would Kadets the that hope the expressing speeches, time. of short was he because feder of understanding an sa reply, is in evasive

th Ibid., 313. Ibid., 312 Ibid., Chykalenko,

of Feb of - a the Ukrainians and opposed and Ukrainians the wing politicians, and above all Purishkevich accused the Ukrainia the accused Purishkevich all above and politicians, wing lenko’s diary lenko’s - Hungary. The slogan of “autonomy” of Ukraine within Russia proved that. The that. proved Russia within Ukraine of “autonomy” of slogan The Hungary. The debates in the Duma debatesthe theinplacein of tookfourmeetingsThe course from

ympathizes - ruary 1914. In the course of these debates these of course the In 1914. ruary 175

313 oreover, the position of the right wing politicians did not acquire a decisive a acquire not did politicians wing right the of position the oreover,

Shchodennyk Finally, according to Chykalenko, Miliukov Chykalenko, to according Finally, .

Kapnist uld only provoke the Ukrainian agitation Ukrainian the provoke only uld end ying that the Kadets would mightwould Kadets the that ying

their ideas even more even ideas their a smlry s hy ged o upr te kana “program Ukrainian the support to agreed they as similarly ia, ed Hvn epesd i Ukra his expressed Having . ,

312 question this discuss not could he yet ation, by a phrase: “ phrase: a by th the revolutionary movement. The main The movement. revolutionary the th , and even more so, they did not seek to make it a part of part a it make to seek not did they so, more even and , .

177 - wing parties, wing

n h ed te kanas ae gi svrl short several again made Ukrainians the end, the In

th - determination, and now after the information he information the after now and determination, bn n h hvhno uie. hy rud that argued They jubilee. Shevchenko the on ban e

When the meeting ended, we said to each other each to said we ended, meeting the When . Yet, the Ukrainian idealsUkrainian the Yet, .

176 249 the

h nt o Fbur 16 February on note The

Trudoviks and the Kadets the and Trudoviks now

npie oiin n rset for respect and position inophile the deputies revealed a revealed deputies the agree with the Ukrainians on such on Ukrainiansthe with agree e odr hw e il pass will he how wonders he declared, for separatism. In their view, their In separatism. for

“he had never been never had “he so distant, that realthatdistant, so spokesman of the of spokesman

ns of ns t ht moment, that at sympathized

separatis

11 variety of variety 94 in 1914 th

has the for m -

CEU eTD Collection 180 179 178 votes of majority of law. state science the contradicted and incorrect was federation and autonomy of slogans the of use their that leaders, Ukrainian the prove to easier be would it Similarly, claims. Ukrainian friend repression claims. such for Russia’s for claims Ukrainian the repression police the to st separatist the that argued and culture and language their defend to Ukrainians the of attempts the advocated he hand, one the On strategy. motherland, whic the about spoke they time, same the at yet Russian people, Little the of strivings separatist the denied Russia Little from priests several Russianstatehood. view,againstdirected the his was which, in trend, he Shevchenko,

Ibid., 906. Ibid., 712 Ibid, otchety Stenograficheskie Sozyv. IV Duma Gosudarstvennaia Rossiia. the concept of “federation” from their program their from “federation” of theconcept is law state and term the off cut to the them lead would formulas political their of evolution further that assume, of science the which federalists “federation,” the anarchism. Bakunin’s not by inspired is is, in This invested movement the of founders the that meaning which “federation” living been had term traditional The position. this of understanding in varieties and shades Russia. for dangerous and detrimental be could ly, rather than rather ly, osdrn te iuto i situation the Considering di Duma the of result The state unity, although he declared that he understood the psychological grounds psychological the understood he that declared he although unity, state

- I do not share the strivings of autonomists of strivings the share not do I 713.

against the Ukrainian movement and prove that that prove and movement Ukrainian the against - autonomists He said:

for 70 years could not stay unchanged, could not preserve its initial meaning, the the meaning, initial its preserve not could unchanged, stay not yearscould 70 for re t iscae isl fo te kana mvmn s political a as movement Ukrainian the from himself dissociate to tried h was, in view, their basisthe n h ve o Mluo, f h Ru the if Miliukov, of view the In yet ,

hostile toward hostile

- . Ukrainians did not follow enough the development of this term. And term. this of development the enough follow not did Ukrainians

On the other hand, Miliukov decisi Miliukov hand, other the On ih eti cretos M corrections. certain with autonomy and federation, and even called them “dangerous” for “dangerous” them called even and federation, and autonomy

scussions was an adoption of an interpellation an of adoption an was scussions

te ua Mluo rsre t a to resorted Miliukov Duma, the n the Ukrainians, it would be possible to possible be would it Ukrainians, the

s. This This s. Yet, at the same time, I have to say that there are there that say to have I time, same the at Yet,

250 - for Russian fed

is my hope and desire. and myhope is eralists and I think their political program program political their think I and eralists

rivings, if they exist, were a were exist, they if rivings, oe f kanas for Ukrainians of love ninn of entioning sa gvrmn wud stop would government ssian - wide patriotism.wide vely dissociated himself from himself dissociated vely , 710 h Rsin oit was society Russian the studying - 711 178 180 a .

a on ban

In the same spirit,same Inthe I th I .

179 moderate sophisticated

t er small heir ink that that ink a

church church by the by action ,

I the its

CEU eTD Collection 183 182 181 evolution the well follow not did federalists “Ukrainian that statement Miliukov’s enemies.” future our to aliment the give and argue will friends, “ Kiev: in their meeting the for at words own arguments his Miliukov the reminded Hrushevsky provide only would Duma the in Ukrainians the with polemics public Miliukov’s that supposed however, Hrushevsky, federation, and autonomy regarding position own his have to Miliukov of right the the to close too appeared position Miliukov’s ideas. these of source a as Kostomarov to pointed latter He federalism. of question the in Ukrainians inspired who Bakunin, Part speech. his in details certain with he Besides, tactics. the of approve not did He him. to objections several expressed he Duma, the in speech Miliukov’s of significance positive the recognizing hi expressed itin Ukrainians. the among protest a caused speech Miliukov’s However, failed. intrigue” “Austrian an of outcome an was movement right the Octobrists. the of part the of position Ukrainophile with along results its brought center the in deputies the to addressed Miliukov, of rhetoric the Thus, church. the of affair” “inner the as eliminated was Shevchenko of name the in service

Ibid., 4 ob. p. Ibid., p. 4. 1. itemop. f.1879. 579. GARF. Chykalenko, a sy isd eey usa ( Russian centralist! every inside say, may order federative shou historian scholar a Yet, him. in spoke centralist Muscovite a just non and progressive Hrushevsky was more diplomatic. In diplomatic. more was Hrushevsky

- ig oiiin to politicians wing I do not know, why did he leaped out with it in order to persuade the Russian Russian the persuade to order in it with out leaped he did why know, not do I 181

Shchodennyk

does not lead to disintegration of the state, but on the contrary… Whatever you Whatever contrary… the on but state, the of disintegration to lead not does s diary: - progressive circles, that Kadets think above all of Russia’s of all above think Kadets that circles, progressive ,

319 - 320

. ovne h Dm mjrt ta te Ukrainian the that majority Duma the convince

katsap

), no matter how progressive he is, there sits a a sits there is, he progressive how matter no ), 182 clry Huhvk si, ht t a not was it that said, Hrushevsky icularly,

Generally, Hrushevsky was concerned the concerned was Hrushevsky Generally,

251 his letter to Miliukov on March 4 March on Miliukov to letter his viewpoint of Kapnist. Without denying Without Kapnist. of viewpoint

In a most negative form, Chykalenko form, negative most a In

ld know, that autonomous that know, ld

common enemies. enemies. common 183 The attempts o attempts The

epnig to Responding unity, or it is it or unity, did not agree not did Why we, we, Why th

1914, - of f CEU eTD Collection 187 289. 1997), ROSSPEN, 186 185 184 Ukraine he as party, the observed leave to have also would he but member, Kadet confirmed South the in Kadets the force wou decisions such because party, the of members the all for obligatory be would St Particularly, party, the leave to threatened Kadets the later, days them.” from dissociate to have would Kadets the claims, wider their on insist note 2014. 23 on Petersburg St. in conference party the at place took meeting This Vernadsky. and Rodichev Kokoshkin, Miliukov, including Kadets, the of Committee th with met Hrushevsky by led Ukrainians the of delegation further collaboration of Miliukov, with an enough.” have well not question this understood did federalists Ukrainian “you the whether time see, to no opportunity having that mentioned Hrushevsky term,” the

Ibid., 303. Ibid., Ibid. 5. p. Ibid. Protokoly Protokoly d : “P.N.Miliukov personally supposed that if the Ukrainians demonstratively demonstratively Ukrainians the if that supposed personally “P.N.Miliukov :

The h hp o Huhvk ws on elzd B te n o te ot, the month, the of end the By realized. soon was Hrushevsky of hope The

would not bear to oppose to would notbear

184 lre g large a

when when

shorthand

snrlng Kmtt Konstitutsionno Komiteta Tsentral’nogo n h cnlso Huhvk epesd h hp, ht ute meet further that hope, the expressed Hrushevsky conclusion the In ihi “akd o avoid to “…asked einheil would eliminate would both sides exchanged their principal state principal their exchanged sides both rowth of the Ukrainian movement, movement, Ukrainian the of rowth

report of the meeting of the Central Committee Committee Central the of meeting the of report

the Ukrainiansand theKadets.the - West region West

the .” 187 ir differences and establish and differences ir

if the Central Committee ignored Committee Central the if

eaie eiin ad eouin, which resolutions, and decisions negative to leave the party.” He stated, “he was “he stated, He party.” the leave to 252 - eortceki ati 1912 partii, demokraticheskoi

185 which

ments e members of the Central Central the of members e

pro, h lvs in lives who person, a common principles for for principles common the Kiev member Kiev the - - o 1914 25 of March March of 25 Mrh 22 March n

their needs. needs. their

(Moscow: (Moscow: 186

Two ings s of of s had had

ld a

CEU eTD Collection 190 189 188 Russia. of organization future the regarding differences irreconcilable Constitutional the in Ukrainians the including Ukrainians, governm enemy common their against directed and tactical be only could Kadets the and Ukrainians the between alliance the minimum,” the opening Ukrainian inuniversities.chairs of and courts schools, at language Ukrainian the introducing on bills the of preparation delegates and prevent federalism. Thatwould theKadets.” adeep cleavagewithin A.M.Ko And claims. the of maximum and minimum political the define perspective. wrong m the of participants the of viewpoint general a formulated Vernadsky Vladimir opinions, before.” took we positions the regarding forward concern a expressed provinces).” present with connected (not concession

Ibid., 321. Ibid., Ibid. 317. Ibid., Ukrainians and the Kade the and Ukrainians eeting, he “thought, t “thought, he eeting,

h otns ftedsusos bv ugssta dsieteitnin of intentions the despite that suggests above discussions the of contents The 30 March on meeting next the At Kadets the discussion, the of course In

liubakin ent. At the same time, between the majority of the Central Committee and Committee Central the of majority the between time, same the At ent. ee oue on focused were , except the one by Kokoshkin “a wide local self local wide “a Kokoshkin by one the except ,

request We need to formulate questions that are more realistic in order to to order in realistic more are that questions formulate to need We

“haven ed Miliukov ed hat at the moment the question wa question the moment the at hat

’ ts to cooperate in cooperate to ts al h gtee tee ok n an fiig o move to failing vain, in work there gathered who all t oe rcia iss practical more

not 188 to th

–

make public statements denying autonomy denyingautonomy statements public make

Commenting the Central Committee and the Ukrainian the and Committee Central the the Russian nationalists and “reactionary”and nationalists Russian the 253

realization of the Ukrainian “program Ukrainian the of realization particularly ues, however, , 189

fe a ute ecag of exchange further a After

on -

Democratic Party existed existed Party Democratic the situation the -

government in Ukraine in government s regarded through the the through regarded s ald o ugs any suggest to failed

they discussed the the discussed they o nw h like he now, for 190 Miliukov and Miliukov , Hru ,

shevsky

CEU eTD Collection uooy n fed and autonomy eyes ofprogressive public Russian opinion. c which terms, the of use “incorrect” an from partners Ukrainian his warned he politician practical a as Yet future. the in autonomy p Ukrainians the with dealing time, same “reeducate” would Kadets that impression an make to sought Miliukov question the of solution practical concerns tactical of out arguments principal the supported who choo to Ukrainian had he essence, In Kadets. the of members Ukrainian the of sentiments the considering uncomfortableposition, quite in Miliukov l he time, federalism and autonomy of principles the should Ukrainians, the with Hr autonomy. “broad for need the cent more a took Kokoshkin Fedor question national the a majority the a rty, Miliukov sought to demonstrate his disposition towards their claims for for claims their towards disposition his demonstrate to sought Miliukov rty,

the of advocates Ukrainian the and Kadets the between relationship The Conclusion

members of t of members f fr isl te ih t poli tee slogans these proclaim to right the himself for eft ushevsky, in his turn, insist turn, his in ushevsky, mong the leadership of the Kadets, including their main spokesman on spokesman main their including Kadets, the of leadership the mong

rto ws o inconsistent not was eration local self local htrc f tue Mroe, iikv tog he though Miliukov, Moreover, Struve. of rhetoric he party or party he

them and convince and them at least at - government,” but rejected the idea of national of idea the rejected but government,” was in the sphere of rhetoric. Speaking in the Duma, Duma, the in Speaking rhetoric. of sphere the in was see the break away break the see restrain t restrain , including the Ukrainian members of his own his of members Ukrainian the including , ed that the Kadets, if they sought they if Kadets, the that ed

regarding the Ukrainian case. At the same same the At case. Ukrainian the regarding

254

hemselves from hemselves spotd h cnrls psto. The position. centralist the supported , in

ould undermine their reputation in the in reputation their undermine ould to give up their radical claims radical their up give to

cooperating with the Ukrainians the the Ukrainians the with cooperating

n depe and

ralist stance. They recognized They stance. ralist of the Great Russian Kadets, Russian Great the of e either se

nded public denunciations of denunciations public

ulcy Ti put This publicly. o break to n the on

an alliance an

territorial changing with the the with avoided .

At the At CEU eTD Collection Kadets, decentralization in Rus in decentralization Kadets, their protecting in nationalities of claims supp to ready were Kadets The projects. utopian as saw they what discuss, acted and force political serious question was theywould or cells, their furtherin live to want would they whether decide, to have would residents the liberation the after where peoples,” of “prison the with Russia compared He union. federative voluntary suggested principle The th dividing “maturity.” their of irrespective empire, the in peoples national req that autonomy Ukrainian the establishing of program whole the developed Hrushevsky time, same the at Yet, Kadets. the with compromise a of possibility the allowed this moment, certain a to Up unclear, very still was t features the stage preserving this at Ukrainians the of program The nationality. self territorial of opposedKadets precise more became the question of national the position on Kadets the As status. autonomous an acquire to Ukrainians the of hopes un no therewas seemedthat it institutions, autonomous ofcompetence the of restriction of stipulations “non to circumstances.

a as activists Ukrainian the regard not did liberals Russian that seemed It - - tt” epe, wh peoples, state” ertra picpe H as ofrd h picpe f qaiy f l the all of equality of principle the offered also He principle. territorial e radicalized, that Russia

Initially surmountable gap between the Kadets’ idea of decentralization and theand decentralization ofidea Kadets’ betweenthe gap surmountable

the princi the - government, which would not be related with the needs of a certain a of needs the with related be not would which government, n empire into into empire n , the Kadets were seemingly ready to make certain concessions certain make to ready seemingly were Kadets the , hat related the program with Bakunin’s theory of federation. of theory Bakunin’s with program the related hat ple of national autonomy and tried to replace it with the idea the with it replace to tried autonomyandnational of ple floig h Poles, the following o it madereconciliationit impossible uired reorganization of the entire Russia along the the along Russia entire the of reorganization uired sia was the question that question the was sia n h principle the on natio want t want a triois that territories nal

utrl rights. cultural 255 o break away break o

claim f oiia raim refused realism, political of ,

lay on a different level. It was Itwas level. different a layon contradictions emerged. The The emerged. contradictions ed . Thi . ih ws t etr o a to enter to wish might e, n h ve o the of view the in Yet, uooy Wt al the all With autonomy.

with the Kadets s new statement of the of statementnew s . r the ort

to to

CEU eTD Collection leader of the party, had to define to had party, the of leader the as Miliukov, situation, this In claims. Ukrainian the regarding center party the of discontent their expressed who Ukrainians, conscious were branch Kiev the of members the of Many organization. Kadet main the from branch Kiev the Ukrainia the and Kadets the between question position marginal Ukrainians the between Dragomanov the Kistiakovsky, state as him presented He heritage. intellectual his of interpretation liberal a suggesting Dragomanov, of ideas the to referred he time, same the At institution. legislative central the in concentrated distri land of questions the while assemblies, was Kistiakovsky organization, regardingintelligentsia.Yet,ofculture the andculture popular as Ukrain the of legitimacy the defended Kistiakovsky Bogdan Struve,Into opposition nation. Ukrainian the of existence very the also autonomy,but Ukrainian only not of adversary staunch a be to appeared Finland, of Duchy Grand w Struve, Peter Particularly, party. took precedence the over na a moreof effective way administering tionalities in Russia. For Russia. in tionalities instructions Apart of this general position, it is possibleto is it position, general this ofApart hopes the I War World the before period the in Finally, s of

nationalities and terri , and from possible possible from and ,

in the Kadet party. party. Kadet the in a

defender

romantic theories of n te aes Yt h Yet, Kadets. the and

the Kadets the

’s project could become the basis the become could project ’s also of individu of torial decentralization torial decentralization his position. Particularly, he declared that the party the that declared he Particularly, position. his ho advocated granting advocated ho

a c a ns reappeared. Due to the threat of threat the to Due reappeared. ns

, abuse at the local level. At the same time, for for time, same the At level. local the at abuse the empire, rather resolving the empire, than the theories of the German theoreticians of law of theoreticians German the of theories the entralist. He supported cultural rights for rights cultural supported He entralist. h rl of role The

al freedoms al 256 Bakunin andKostomarov. but

ion and labor legislation were legislation labor and ion s iw i nt rvi, u t his to due prevail, not did view is discern other voices in the Kadet Kadet the in discern voices other

was both from the from both

edn tertca i the in theoretician leading Poland similar rights as the as rights similar Poland taken by ian national culture national ian

to restore the alliance alliance the restore to the,

for for

with the passivity passivity the with

Kokoshkin question of stateof question a

pressure of the the of pressure the question of the

reconciliation

separation of separation

to be be to local local both

CEU eTD Collection essential questions. p the avoid to sides differencesthe ideologicalurgedthe sides, both for possible and reasonable was compromise tactical the when situation, the on even Thus, party. the quit to threatened they otherwise public, position his make not would member Ukrainian The activists. wing right the of position the approached position Miliukov’s issue, this regarding Thus, were view, his in federation, and autonomy Ukrainia the of claims cultural the support to willing was

s of the Kadets had had Kadets the of s

257

o only not

utopian ns, while the slogans of of slogans the while ns, insist bt lo dangerous. also but , ublic discussion of discussion ublic ed

ht Miliukov that - CEU eTD Collection 1906), 50. 1906), 3 2 1 other. the on states, of union a as “federation” from and hand, “regio from it distinguish to order in “autonomy” not. was it when and appropriate theoreti Zemstthe of partthe liberal situation to lead would and movement to seemed movement constitutionalists Zemstvo the the by suggested of Laws, Fundamental leadership the of project the to response in meeting regions. their for autonomy forge to sought movements national the of representatives empire. the neglecting while Poles, the and opposed They meeting. the of results movements national other resolution, recognizing the autonom

GARF Kokoshkin, “Doklad organizatsionnogo biuro…,” 3323 biuro…,” organizatsionnogo “Doklad Kokoshkin, aak n priu aoni vbd i orzeia a nikh na vozrazheniia i svobody narodnoi partiiu na Napadki . As it was mentioned was it As

1 cal position, which would formulate would which position, cal f

. 579. 579. .

rceig from Proceeding that recognition of the autonomy of Poland would open a “Pandora’s box” box” “Pandora’s a open would Poland of autonomy the of recognition that When the Eyes Opened the Eyes When op. 1. item op. the disintegration of Russia along national lines. national along Russia of disintegration

1842

h ie o eult o al h pols n h epr, the empire, the in peoples the all of equality of idea the . p of the Liberal of the Liberal These projects had be had projects These n h empire the in earlier . . 1 heed .

, after the Russian the after , Chapter Chapter 5 y of the Kingdom of Poland, the representatives of of yrepresentatives the ofPoland, theKingdom of h wrig f h rgt ig f h Zemstvo the of wing right the of warning the vo movement sought to develop a comprehensiveadevelop to soughtmovement vo

ieie te proposed they Likewise, the ead o ohr ainl oeet i the in movements national other of demands privileges

ea to began

criteria 258 n ue 1905. June in :

- 3329. 3329. Theory Inner

en sent to the bureau of the Zemstvo the of bureau the to sent en .

a self nal to define to

omlt ter criticism their formulate - Polish meeting had adopted the the adopted had meeting Polish at the liberals offered liberals the at

Mso: iorfi G Lissnera, G. Tipografiia (Moscow:

Challenges

- government,” on the one one the on government,”

when the when 2 their own projects of of projects own their

The leadership of the of leadership The

a clear meaning of of meaning clear a hs te Russian the Thus, 3

Inre autonomy sponse to this to sponse

the Finns the

f the of

was was CEU eTD Collection Tipograffiia “Russ Tipograffiia 5 4 ( provincial “the that suggested 70 article the addition, In institutions. these of competencies the and zemstv or unions,” governing ( provinces Institution (“Local 7 chapter the mention role. prominent a played Kokoshkin Fedor where Union,” 1904. November in fi The vision. political projects earlier their to important is it empire Russian the of reorganization on constitutionalists “federation,”finally they which formulated. and challenge this to national movements definedless or more were concessions movements, w they concessions the of limits this that hoped movement constitutionalist Russian

Liberal’noe dvizhenie Rossii dvizhenie Liberal’noe Fedor Kokoshkin, “Avtobiografiia” “Avtobiografiia” Kokoshkin, Fedor In The

regional autonomy. The only The autonomy. regional order to understand the evolution of the views of the Russian Russian the of views the of evolution the understand to order gubernii responded liberals Russian the how demonstrate to is chapter this of aim except kikh vedomostei,” 1913), 87. 87. 1913), vedomostei,” kikh gubernskie

4 ), went too far too went for for

h atos f hs rjc wr a ru from group a were project this of authors The of Russian Fundamental Laws, which generally reflected their their reflected generally which Laws, Fundamental Russian of rst project rst uezdy From Self h Finns the , 83 , analyze - 90. 90. , zmto could zemstvos )

os volosti

s of the Russian Empire”). A Empire”). Russian the of s

of constitution was adopted at the Zemstvo meeting Zemstvo the at adopted was constitution of “Russkie vedomosti” vedomosti” “Russkie -

h im The h vrey f h ntos f atnm” and “autonomy” of notions the of variety the Governmentto Autonomy ( ud e ed t make to ready be ould n prily h Poles the partially and the constitu the

, .

reference to a similar notion may be found in in found be may notion similar a to reference The main problem was that wasproblem main The and

eil as were laws perial

259 cities

tionalists

conclude conclude

ee to were

1863 clarification . - 93 Sonk statei. Sbornik 1913.

, hr te iis f the of limits the where ), o eie h arrangement the define to agreement “ rticle 67 declared that the the that declared 67 rticle

[ establish n regard in

hs rjc d project This would the demands of the of demands the

s h “Liberation the seil self special ]

between h nati the niae the indicate

(Moscow: (Moscow: analyze id

onal one not -

CEU eTD Collection 9 gosudarstvo, 8 Ro (eds.) V.V.Shelokhaev Itenberg, B.S. Muromtsev” Andreevich “Sergei A.N.Meduchevskii, see: details more For version. the previous of articles ofcertain formulations the and structure the general preserved positivist more had project former (the law of supremacy He well. as project former the of authors 7 statei Sbornik gosudarstvo. 6 the to text the sent law. the within competence their about decisions ultimate make would law imperial Thecompetence project institutions. theformer ofthese preserved institutions. proper betwee agreements conclude could ones, provincial the with along zemstvos, regional the that mentioned a or provinces several of union a be would of list general the into “region” units administrative term the introduced edition new the that was 1905 July the arrangement or were regions self of creation the an

This version of the project was prepared by Sergei Muromtsev. However, his team involved the the involved team his However, Muromtsev. Sergei by prepared was project the of version This Ibid.

Pok onvoo aoa osiki mei” Gessen imperii” Rossiiskoi zakona osnovnogo “Proekt “Proekt osnovnogo zakona Rossiiskoi imperii, izmenennyi zemskim biuro” biuro” zemskim izmenennyi imperii, Rossiiskoi zakona osnovnogo “Proekt ssiiskie Liberaly ssiiskie other for regulating common issues common regulating for other 9

Having adopted the project in the first reading, the organizers of the meeting meeting the of organizers the reading, first the in project the adopted Having The

7 , 572 did not add anything new into the previous version. previous the into new anything add not did in activists city and zemstvo of meeting the at adopted project, second

to be based on temporary agreements. Moreover, it Moreover, agreements. temporaryon based be to - 573

(Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001), 283 2001), ROSSPEN, (Moscow: .

n each other each n the limits oftheir competence.the limits

. However, the authors of the project the of authors the However, . define limits of the competence the of limits define einl committees, regional - iial, h atos ee iet bu te iis f the of limits the about silent were authors the Similarly, oenn region governing

(St.Petersburg: “Pravo,” 1906), 540. 1906), “Pravo,” (St.Petersburg: (

as well as with provincial zemstvos provincial with as well as revorked the the revorked

. oee, h poet sue ta these that assumed project the However, s. o eea p several for niig hm to them inviting

unit equivalent to the province. They only only They province. the to equivalent unit - 260 304. 304. initial version in accordance with the principle of principle the with accordance in version initial

features). Nonetheless in the main, the project project themain, the in Nonetheless features).

I.V., Kaminka A.I (eds.) (eds.) A.I Kaminka I.V.,

. T . rovinces.”

he zemstvos zemstvos he did not identify not did

bounds established by the the by established bounds ed hi cmet and comments their send 6

hs i fc, implied fact, in This, 8 did not specify either specifyeither not did

The only difference only The formulation in their turn their in )

and to create the create to and Konstitutsionnoe Konstitutsionnoe Konstitutsionnoe Konstitutsionnoe

whether this this whether

that the could CEU eTD Collection 14 13 12 the of federalization of o “Doklad project Kokoshkin, Russia. entire anonymous an and autonomy, Ukrainian the of projects two Georgia, 11 1913, 10 issues. different yet linked, two as territorial Russia’s of ground the in reorganization. laid be could that principles general the being. representation equal guarantee fulland ofthe a in the of agreement nationa moment.” the at explained completely theses ofKokoshkin’s report. questions these in pursue would making the in party constitutional the which principles, the empire Russian the of decentralization territorial and question national He the to for theirborderlands. respective principle national regional corrections

Ibid. 3329. biuro…,” organizatsionnogo “Doklad Kokoshkin, v Rossii dvizhenie Liberal’noe of autonomy the of project the Poland, of Kingdom the of autonomy the of project the were These Fedor Kokoshkin, “Raboty zemskikh s”ezdov i ‘Russkie vedomosti’” vedomosti’” ‘Russkie i s”ezdov zemskikh “Raboty Kokoshkin, Fedor

express 92.

meeting of the zemstvo and city activists, which took place in Sep in place took which activists, city and zemstvo the of meeting Ther iis n dsic prs f h sae ertr… s las rsl o an of result a always is territory… state the of parts distinct and lities Kokoshkin Kokoshkin

epne, hc pooe rognzn te usa epr acrig to according empire Russian the reorganizing proposed which responses, . In. addition,

ed efore he refused to provide a detailed project and only sought to formulate to sought only and project detailed a provide to refused he efore ak o h bra o te meeting. the of bureau the to back

the mains the

;

they declared regard terested

the bureau suggested four resolutions that summarized themain thatsummarized resolutions four bureau suggested the

supplemented tream position of the Russian constitutionalists constitutionalists Russian the of position tream ed ,

395 that the national the 12

rganizatsionnogo biuro…,” 3323 biuro…,” rganizatsionnogo parties.”

11 396

“the national “the

His reaction tothese comments .

According to him, the autonomy as such did not did such as autonomy the him, to According

their claims with detailed projects of autonomy of projects detailed with claims their 14 question and administrative decentralization administrative and question

oee, o hm i ws mosbe to impossible was it him, for However, 13

261

n i ve, rcniito between “reconciliation view, his In and the regional questions could not could questions regional the and

territories and nationalities for territories and nationalities

T e ueu eevd a received bureau he - 3329. Rske ve “Russkie

Kokoshkin

regard oot” 1863 domosti” tember 1905. 1905. tember and set forth forth set and ubr of number

report the time the time ing

the the be be ed -

CEU eTD Collection 16 15 leaders the constitutional movement was ready toart borderlands, the in activists local the of opinion bureau the after Yet, matters. common certain resolve to zemstvos provincial of unions the of creation the namely autonomy, towards stage transitory con projects constitutional previous that mentioned He pri the along empire the reorganize or additional efforts and assist o view the in Moreover, schools. these subsidize th in schools higher and secondary allwere thelanguages,region. of inaparticular Besides,theestablishment used which the schools.” at as well as institutions, publicand state local in nationalities all of languages the of equalitythe nationality;3) to impediments the abolishing an 2) preservation nationality; of irrespective citizens all was question nationa cited He latter. the aggravate even could it Moreover,circumstanceunfavorableunder question. national the resolve

Ibid., 3335. 3335. Ibid., 3331. Ibid., an the local the an most c most citizens of the empire to learn Russian as a state a as Russian learn to empire the of citizens cnlcs ee rnfre t te rvne. o Kokoshkin For provinces. the to transferred were conflicts l Kokoshkin

omplicated, because it required, for example, that local officials could speak speak couldofficials local that example, for required,because omplicated,it

reduced to the following three fundamental questions: “1) the equality of equalityof the “1) questions: fundamental followingthree the to reduced national fe dvlpet f h lnug, ieaue ad culture and literature, language, the of development free d also spending communities reflected on reflected .”

the example of the Habsburg monarchy, where the the where monarchy, Habsburg the of example the

16 the local language would necessitate would language local the

15 the possibility of possibility the

could

According to Kokoshkin the third question was question third the Kokoshkin to According nciple, “which would approach would “which nciple, iculate their principaliculate their view of

afford. In this case the state would have to have would state the case this In afford. 262

f Kokoshkin, the state was obliged to obliged was state the Kokoshkin, f

es tablish - wide language, “without any “without language, wide iee te osblt o a of possibility the sidered ing

hip of the the of hip regional autonomies autonomies regional

greater expense greater

had federalization.” autonomy. te national the ,

ere the learned

Russian Russian of each each of

the ,

CEU eTD Collection 18 17 Kokoshkin far were which empire, the of defined of by thedecision judiciary institutions. be would case problematic each in law this of application The law. imperial single m Moreover,the for se i govern self local of surveillance the in rather but administration, active the in “not consist parliament would legislat central the from water post, customs, (the approach comm telegraph, centralized a required that administration, spheres local the of excluding questions of range whole the for institutions governing to possible be would it Kokoshkin, of view blurred government competency empire the of part ndependent judiciary authority. F authority. judiciary ndependent

Ibid. 3336. Ibid., lf - oenet ol approach would government , regulating ,

ing n hs ae fr oohi, h rl o lcl xctv atoiis would authorities executive local of role the Kokoshkin, for case, this In satisfied be could independence local of need the author, the For harder be would institutions local of competence The

institutions and the local administration would have to be decided by the by decided be to have would administration local the and institutions

considered A . - oenet n em o legality.” of terms in government te ae ie h asmd a assumed he time, same the t

on railways etc.). For him, him, For etc.). railways on be could agriculture,and their communications use” hunting, establish the generalestablish rules for the i te nttts f oa se local of institutes the if ,

ost a clear line with what was usually regarded as regarded usually was what with line clear a autonomy of ion and transferred to transferred and ion Russia’s regions it would be possible to set these limits bylimitsset a these to possible be would regions it Russia’s

. According to him, him, to According . or Kokoshkin, the limits of the competence of the the of competence the of limits the Kokoshkin, or remote h cmeec o atnmu institutions. autonomous of competence the

from the center. For such borderlands, borderlands, such For center. the from 263 sus s h “protection the as issues

local local

extend correct - 17 oenet ol acqu would government se

institutions h cnlcs ewe the between conflicts The autonomy was necessary, when a when necessary, was autonomy institutio

h cmeec o te self the of competence the understanding

to define for those parts parts those for define to ns. . However,

autonomy.

of forests and and forests of of the activity the of

f l of for the larger larger the for

the central the r greater ire cl self ocal exempt In the In

self 18 - - -

CEU eTD Collection 20 19 the actual ofthe needs population. territor the between inconsistency to due or basis national the on either conflicts various to lead could artificially units political create to attempt any whereas basis the as acceptable created in independence, of degree certain initially a units obtained autonomous the where Europe, Western of countries the in Unlike the of entire immediately principle this implement to impossible almost be would it self of creation the presupposed urban and zemstvos the of development the implied [consisted] more had laws local universal as thecivic thealterations in character (such legislation). the whereas issues, particular to more referred institutions self government, local of institutes the of decisions the and laws local the between difference region. the at legislation local distinct self border local and autonomy of semantic notions the between the Kokoshkin, for Thus, Poland. of Kingdom the in legislation all in equally treated region

Ibid. Ibid. 3338. Ibid.,

territory of the empire. the of territory Te xsig diitaie odr, n oohi’ view Kokoshkin’s in borders, administrative existing The . Russian which life, of spheres those of regulation legislative a required Kokoshkin declared, that that declared, Kokoshkin

t followed it both administrative both

empire

at o te mie H ctd h eape of example the cited He empire. the of parts i nt orsod to correspond not did f uh division such of rm i txs ht h dcso o lcl self local of decision the that texts his from local representative assemblie representative local Above all, this was because was this all, Above

20 and the legislative the and “ h iel of ideal the

Although Kok Although

. The author considered them them considered author The . 264

h histori the -

government was the functioning of a of functioning the was government usa hs rgos tl had still regions these Russia h po the oshkin did not define clearly, define not did oshkin decentralization iia organization litical s. However, he warned, that warned, he However, s. a bres f h regions. the of borders cal the territorial composition composition territorial the - oenet te latter the government,

.” ial division and division ial

19 throughout the the throughout

ol nt be not could If the former the If special civil civil special ,

- governing governing of Russia Russia of were not not were artificial

o be to the - ,

CEU eTD Collection 22 21 offer Kokoshkin latter. the of favor in up give central the would authorities local consequently, the which competencies, those only acquire to had below; institutions from center the to competences their delegate wasRussia result, a As competence. its of limits the define th that suggested autonomy for plans these B borderlands. autonomy, of projects the to liberals According tothe author, needs. lo the regarding information necessary the get would it after only and autonomy the about decision a make to had parliament central the only that indicated clearly “ p opening recommended Kokoshkin representation accomplished is goal major Russia’s until question this postpone h ntrl odr ad h nes f h lcl population local the of needs the and borders natural the rovided that rovided

Ibid., 3340. Ibid., 3339. Ibid., oflaws. kind such allow should constitution the Meanwhile, region. autonomous given a of establishing each gradually it do to possible is It future. nearest the

One should note that Kokoshkin’s report expressed a response of the Russian Russian the of response a expressed report Kokoshkin’s that note should One Kokoshkin mistakes avoid to order In

22 There is no need to establish regional autonomies on the whole space of the empire in in empire the of space whole the on autonomies regional establish to need no is There

to become

the central parliament would acquire the all the acquire centralwould parliamentthe

y with constitutional rights are established established are rights constitutional with analogy with the project of project the with analogy then a offederation form expounded a procedure for defining the autonomous regions. autonomous the defining for procedure a expounded

a so as soon as ,

“ n defin in

complete a

ea wy to way legal

. hc te aqie fo te nation the from acquired they which

e local diet would proclaim would diet local e According to this model, local units wouldunits According model,local tothis 265 Wac n te ein oohi proposed Kokoshkin region the ing

ed the opposite opposite the ed civi political liberation. political

ł rather than than rather aw Sieroszewski in the Polish case, Polish the in Sieroszewski aw time issuing a special imperial law on on law imperial special a issuing time l

freedoms create - round informa round o te hl empire whole the for a

state with autonomies with state uooos regions autonomous . formula. ” n te democratic the and 21

“ hs Kokoshkin Thus, [ As autonomy and autonomy tion regarding tion ] For him, t him, For

soon as the the as soon

cal cal he to al , ” ” ,

CEU eTD Collection 24 23 guaranteed.” [was] freedom social constitution democratic the “until obtained population” the of needs “actual the whereas parties,” and groups social particular of demands “the with deal to had constitutionalists Russian the Kokoshkin, autonomy for population the of need the regarding information adequate have not did movement constitutional concessions. institut central the case particular each in yet Kompetenz, them. approve would parliament central to legislativeassemblies wrote: the idea which theKadetsrega ofparallel advocatedlater legislation, defined eachregions. with agreements by special autonomous ofthe volume competencies ofthese had tobe Moreover institutions. regional the of favor in renunciate to necessary consider would institutions local

Ibid., 3339. 3339. Ibid., 3340. Ibid., n h atnm, h lw ol b rvsd n h empire law. imperial the by defined limits, the in autonomy enjoy the would the in revised delegations. elected an specially of meetings be local would the law between negotiation the autonomy, the on law imperial the from depart would further latter the of decisions the take if case the In region. to… autonomous have would legislation local the that, After assemblies. representative local the and central the between functions the divide

o usatae i po his substantiate To to aimed Kokoshkin see, can One a prescribed Kokoshkin agreements these For

Particular imperial laws on autonomy would also define the limits of the autonomy and and autonomy the of limits the define also would autonomy on laws imperial Particular

obtain extend

r h psil bres f h regio the of borders possible the or iin Kkskn rud ht for that argued Kokoshkin sition,

the competencies, which the central authorities would authorities central the which competencies, the their competence would come into force only after the the after only force into come would competencetheir

d central parliaments should be carried out by common common by out carried be should parliaments central d 24

ial, oohi akd h rpeettvs to representatives the asked Kokoshkin Finally,

Until the final agreement is accomplished, the region region the accomplished, is agreement final the Until differe

[was] accomplished [was] 266 hs te etr eand Kompetenz retained center the Thus, decisions regarding the arrangement of the the of arrangement the regarding decisions set

nt in each particular case as it would be wouldbe it caseas eachnt in particular

rule a

complex procedure that recalled that procedure complex

- that the attempts of local local of attempts the that wide parliament. Additional Additional parliament. wide 23 ions could make certain certain make could ions

and

the time being the the being time the

ns. According to to According ns. rding Finland. rding He the personal and and personal the could not could ,

the the be -

CEU eTD Collection 26 25 Poland. of Kingdom onlyThe Russia. the Therefore practice. in expert constitutional implement to hard was which model, complex a was legislation parallel depending region empire the Kokoshkin, to according legislations. of levels two the between competencies of spheres contradiction t The between laws. issue to allowed were institutions autonomous the limits given the Within center. the with competence the negotiate to region autonomous regions of reorganization groupssupport theempire able would to be Russian the that suggested autonclaimsof national support the movement would constitutionalists Ukrainian the of spokesman The 1905. May in constitutionalists Russian to addressed latter the which Hrushevsky, of request projects. utopian on based one the than rather a in yet afterwards, re In federation. or autonomy like conditions, Russian the support

Hrushevskii “Ukrainstvo i pytannia dnia…,” 299. dnia…,” i pytannia “Ukrainstvo Hrushevskii 3342. Ibid.,

In can be noted, in his project Kokoshkin rejected the idea of a symmetric symmetric a of idea the rejected Kokoshkin project his in noted, be can In

ih va with he local and the empire the and local he

rying degree of local of degree rying urgent urgent Russia; on reduced the reduced

form, which would meet the actual needs of the local population local the of needs actual the meet would which form,

particular Yet, Yet, sugges - wide democratic movement and restrain from any prior prior any from restrain and movement democratic wide question, f question,

instead he suggested the the suggested he instead for him, this autonomy had to recognize the existence of of existence the recognize to had autonomy this him, for ted postponing this issue until the general liberation in in liberation general the until issue this postponing ted

question of Kompetenz of question

competencies of competencies - wide laws was excluded due to the division of the of division the to due excluded was laws wide or Kokoshkin or -

wide laws had to be applied be to had laws wide

authority

- wide liberation movement. wide 267 turn, he promised to provide to promised he turn,

. 25 , was the issue of the autonomy of the autonomy the of of issue the , was

He admitted the possibility for each for possibility the admitted He the

hs pel emd o ees the reverse to seemed appeal This model of a state with autonomous with state a of model

region - Kompetenz al legislation al omy first, and the national the omyand first, At the same time, time, same the At differently . Nonetheless, this Nonetheless, . 26

. The idea of idea The

autonom in each in y ,

CEU eTD Collection Russian constitutionalists Russian activists city and zemstvo autonomies. Therefore, question. the of out constitutionali was center the to regions the of sovereignty inexistent Delegating beginning. was very the from created federation be to had Kokoshkin, of view the inap In states. independent formerly of unification of process the described which theories, legal German the with accordance self Russia. of liberation general the Semantically until autonomy on discussion the postponed populati local the for possibility requiredthe conditions Because these possible. autonomywasthe view, their in when, the Moreover, Finland). (excluding borderlands the th where the admin clear - special features of the Polish people, sought as nationalists special Polish present thePolish the to features of propriate concept for the Russian case, because there the autonomous regions still regions autonomous the there because case, Russian the for concept propriate government and opposed it to federation. The latter was latter The federation. to it opposed and government statement, official first the was report this constitutionalists Russian the For report Kokoshkin’s ey formulated the limi the formulated ey istrative borders an borders istrative

they linked their definition of autonomy to the notion of notion the to autonomy of definition their linked they sts Theoretical Autonomy Federation to Approach and ,

the only

in possible model possible and the resolutions adopted at the September meeting of of meeting September the at adopted resolutions the and

rvkd a provoked an “attempt to “attempt an d ts of ts

striving of the whole Polish population, rather than rather population, Polish whole the of striving n o xrs ter will their express to on autonomy, which they were ready to provide to provide to ready were they which autonomy, ue amoun huge

for disintegrate 268

Russia’s Russia’s

eot e frh h conditions, the forth set report o pbiain accus publications of t

reorganization a unitary Russian state” and state” Russian unitary a

implicitly ,

h constitutionalists the for

extended was state with state was understood understood h Russian the ing

local

. the

CEU eTD Collection 4 otvergaie on chto i Oktiabria 31 30 Massachusetts, (Cambridge, Emmons, Terence 29 28 edinstva” gosudarstvennogo i trebovaniiami narodnostei samoopredeleniia teoriei s sviazi v Rossii okrainakh ob “Vopros decentralization: of program Kadets’ 27 assemb mentioned notions. above the between difference the explain to aim his saw Kokoshkin Consequently, and “autonomy” “federatio of notions September. the in confused meeting opponents their the that at argued Kokoshkin adopted were which resolutions, the of essence the Octobrists’ of lines, federal along state the divide to attempt any condemned and empire Russian the of party separate a form majority the with break final the for pretext a as issue this used Guchkov Alexander movement constitutional the movement. zemstvo the within split serious a caused meeting the of core organizing regions. independent of union a by it replace -

5; 5; “Programma ‘Soiuza 17 Oktiabria’” Oktiabria’” 17 ‘Soiuza “Programma see: movement constitutional Russian the of trends two the between conflict the of essence the For Liberal’noe aak n priu aoni svobody narodnoi partiiu na Napadki Kokoshkin,

the

Ob avtonomii Pol’shi. Izdanie Soiuza 17 Oktiabria 17 Soiuza Izdanie Pol’shi. avtonomii Ob accusations recognizing Kadets ly, whereas the constituent parts of a federal state (the states or or states (the state federal a of parts constituent the whereas ly, The author declared that autonomous provinces enjoyed only a local legislative enjoyed provinceslocal onlyaautonomous that declaredauthorThe

In his article “Regional Autonomy and Russia’s Unity,” Kokoshkin Unity,” Russia’s and Autonomy “Regional article his In n” electoral campaign. dvizhenie v Rossii dvizhenie

bataa vooia eisv Rossii edinstvo i avtonomiia Oblastnaia and then equated the “federation” to abolishing of the state unity. unity. state the of abolishing to “federation” the equated then and ’

and their slogan of of slogan their and

h Frain f oiia Pris n te is Ntoa Eetos n Russia in Elections National First the and Parties Political of Formation The f i party’s his of

the autonomy only for the Grand Duchy of Finland. of Duchy Grand the for only autonomy the

of Octobrists. of

London: Harvard University Press, 1983), 87 1983), Press, University Harvard London: t

(St.Petersburg: Tipografiia “Tovarishchestva Pechatnogo Stanka,” b.d.), b.d.), Stanka,” Pechatnogo “Tovarishchestva Tipografiia (St.Petersburg: , 396, 482 396, ,

of Russian constitutionalists constitutionalists Russian of

31 in critics

Programmy politicheskikh partii Rossii partii politicheskikh Programmy

providing the autonomy f autonomy the providing

50; ,

- regional autonomy regional 29 495. 495.

The program of this party this of program The

n poe ta the that proved and

ceu p kkm rcia srmti Siz 17 Soiuz stremitsia prichinam kakim po I chemu K

269

(Moscow: “Pechiatnia S.P.Iakovleva,” 1906). 1906). S.P.Iakovleva,” “Pechiatnia (Moscow:

Okrainy Rossii Okrainy , 3.The example of the rhetoric against the the against rhetoric the of example 3.The ,

M 28 roe, h pritne f the of persistence the oreover,

A leader of a moderate wing ofwing moderate a of leader A became a crucial aspect of the the of aspect crucial a became

(the or the Kingdom of Poland Poland of Kingdom the or

22 (1906): 382 (1906): 22 latter - 129.

future Kadets) Kadets) future emphasized the unity the emphasized , 342 ,

misunderst - 343. 30

- The criticism The 384. cantons

ood rejected rejected and ) had had )

the

to to

CEU eTD Collection 34 33 32 Inessential and be will meansenforce an case, it enable this unity.” to thestate p its and state the between relationship author, the to According regions. the of characteristics ethnic and economic, geographic, which institution, legislative to reduced be to from Russia differentiate of idea the view, his in Besides, that denied Kokoshkin when K for Thus, authority. approv that was laws the and decrees mandatory between difference The subje the regarding “issue could dumas city and assemblies zemstvo that mentioned self local and autonomy regional states. non of provinces the from them distinguished that characteristics essential two

Ibid., 6. Ibid., Kokoshkin, authority. local the pro of interaction on with only based is state legislation local the a autonomies, federations In authority… central in the of participation Second, any without laws power… local issue institutions central the from independent governments,

they

12. 12. al According to Kokoshkin, there was no any clear juridical border between the between border juridical clear any no was there Kokoshkin, to According

“

of hr te oa nes a b stsid y oa lgsain a proper a legislation, local by satisfied be can needs local the where

is, hy no nt ny hi lcl eiltv asmle, u as ter s their also but assemblies, legislative local their only not enjoy they First,

32 blamed the supporters of autonomy for being federalists. At the same time, same the At federalists. being for autonomy of supporters the blamed

Oblastnaia avtonomiia i edinstvo Rossii i edinstvo avtonomiia Oblastnaia

a govern a recognition cts, which in the non the in which cts, or or minister, whereas the latter needed latter the whereas minister, or or okoshkin, the critics of the September meeting were wrong, wrong, were meeting September the of critics the okoshkin, eeain s uh ol udrie h uiy f Russia. of unity the undermine could such as federation a federal state federal a

would issue these laws in accordance with the peculiar peculiar the with accordance in laws these issue would the necessity of local laws and, consequently, the local the consequently, and, laws local of necessity the

gradual establishment of regional autonomies would autonomies regional of establishment gradual - oenet T poe hs ttmn, Kokoshkin statement, this prove To government.

arts could only be accomplished by autonomy. by accomplished be only could arts - .

zemstvo regions [were] regulated by laws.” by regulated [were] regions zemstvo For Russia the issue of decentralization had decentralization of issue the Russia For

270 , 5

- 6.

vincial institutions and the central central the and institutions vincial consent mandatory decrees mandatory former required former

of the supreme the of pecial pecial - 34 federal

the … 33

CEU eTD Collection 37 36 35 state the authority. legislative centra the by issued laws, the contradict could laws local the region, autonomous laws. AccordingLazarevsky, to se local of decrees mandatory between difference huge a the self local the from autonomy distinguished authority legislative independent of existence the that assumed ( state federative of part self local of notion the from both juridically delimited Ni Constitutional the of member another by whichunit, enjoyedthat could local legislativeissue thelocal authority laws. was this theoretician, legal German the For autonomy. through see can one time, same reasoning the Kokoshkin’s At federation. of notion the to it opposed l of concept the with it equated Kokoshkin intellectuals,

Ibid., 7. Ibid., Lazarevsky, Nikolai Jellinek, Georg k legislative authority. legislative qu any regarding laws the issue can legislation local the Meanwhile, acts. administrative were these because laws, li Lazarevsky olai Thus, suggested was “autonomy” concept the of interpretation different somewhat A right the of critics the from autonomy of idea defend to Thus,

ie eilto cud sals a adtr three mandatory a establish could legislation wide …mandatory decrees…issued by zemstvos and city dumas could not contradict to any to contradict not could dumas city and zemstvos by decrees…issued …mandatory for Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen den von Lehre Die estion in its competence, even if there are these or other decrees of the central central the of decrees other or these are there if even competence, its in estion

aaesy wti te iis f gvn competence given a of limits the within Lazarevsky, Avtonomiia . In his article “Autonomy,” he argued that autonomy could be be could autonomy that argued he “Autonomy,” article his In . 37

T he author he a very accurate implementation accurate very a non

- - (St.Petersburg, 1906), 5. 1906), (St.Petersburg, government. However, government. oeeg state sovereign

illustrated this this illustrated

- Democratic Party, a Russian legal theorist theorist legal Russian a Party, Democratic

271 ). 36

iial a Kkskn Lazarevsky Kokoshkin, as Similarly (Wien b

the example, according to which which to according example, the

in contrast to Kokoshkin, he saw he Kokoshkin, to contrast in , 1882), 1882), , - government and a constituent a and government Georg Jellinek’s Jellinek’s Georg

lf xcl a a se a as exactly - cl self ocal governing units and local and units governing 40 - er eid f primary of period year .

- government and and government definition of definition lf - governing 35

n the in - wing wing l

CEU eTD Collection not articulate this possibility, yet it followed from followed it yet possibility, this articulate not did Lazarevsky Although level). local the to functions these delegated had institutions central the if case, the (in authority executive the also but legislative, the only not part those to autonomy of concept the extended Lazarevsky Thus, it. to delegated had states particular which competencies, those only acquired offered Lazarevsky, provided competence, a and self the autono of notions the between in distinction Lazarevsky’s that means, This principle. than rather terminology, in was difference the Thus, regions. autonomous for exemptions the admitted nonetheless, which, states, whole the for laws general empire. the of regions various for legislation of practice differenta from proceeded Kokoshkin Thus, zemstvo Russian the in Similarly, issues the regulate non For regions. different for institu varying central the of competence the autonomies with state the in not was positions Kokoshkin’s and tw education utonomy. o or four yearso orfour respectively However, more essential was the way way the was essential more However, c A

government notthat clear. was institutions, , whereas the autonomous province could could province autonomous the whereas ,

oe aayi dmntae ta te ifrne ewe te Lazaervsky’s the between difference the that demonstrates analysis loser n i ve, uooy mle a om f self of form a implied autonomy view, his In y otat Lazaervsky contrast, By , which in autonomous regions would be controlled by local laws. local by controlled be would regions autonomous in which ,

for non for the opposite opposite the

y h cnrl authority central the by empire the laws, referring to th to referring laws, the empire - . zemstvo zemstvo

principle. principle. that much that provinces were issued by the central authority. central the by issued were provinces

- osdrd ht h cnrl author central the that considered autonomous regions the state laws would would laws state the regions autonomous

272

n hs sae, h cnrl authority central the states, these In Lazare significant. Both authors assumed that assumed authors Both significant.

his Fdrl tts acrig to according states, Federal . hre or shorten v sky defined the upper limit of limit upper the defined sky theoretical principle, which he he which principle, theoretical e sphere of competen of sphere e - s of states, which enjoyed which states, of s administration within the the within administration extend in wud be would tions

hs eid to period this ity issued issued ity ce of the of ce my CEU eTD Collection 40 39 38 its and Autonomy “Regional Kistiakovsky Bogdan of article the was autonomy Kokoshkin classifiedJellinek, Following autonomy. of notion the by supposed was it than independence, of degree enjoyed Finland Kokoshkin, of view the In state. federal a of part constituent own. its of an was Finland Lazarevsky, for institutions executive and legislativethe both had it that despite province, autonomous empire, Russian the to belonged Kompetenz same the ca in mentioned and Lazarevsky province particular, autonomous as In Finland Lazarevsky. qualified and Kokoshkin of theories the between can one point, this Regarding alter be could and institutions legislative central functioningof of result the on these units central authority. Eachof of interference any without constitutional, including laws, own its issue could terminologyLazarevsky of quite clear. not Forexample, he was wrote: distinguish to used

F 24. Ibid., 8 Ibid., eoy s h Bli rgo, rei, n Georgia. and Armenia, region, Baltic the as tegory autonomous provinces provinces autonomous that is provinces autonomous and states these between states” “separate provinces autonomous edor edor

central state. central Kokoshkin n hs asg, aaesy mle ta ec ui o sc a eeaie state federative a such of unit each that implied Lazarevsky passage, this In of notion the on liberals Russian the of debate the in contribution significant A - 9.

[T he

Accordin composite parts] composite , “ ,

hc c which Nemetskie

By contrast, the legal order of an autonomous province emerged a a emerged province autonomous an of order legal the contrast, By between cannot are the st the are t Lzrvk, nie aai, iln cud o b a be not could Finland Bavaria, unlike Lazarevsky, to g onstitute

professora have the rights on their own. their on rights have the

, autonomy which enjoy greater degree of independence a independence of degree greater enjoy which Finland as Staatsfragment. are province autonomous an to closest the them, Among ates. see

eea sae ( states federal

not only formal, but rather an essential difference essential an rather but formal, only not …” formed its formed

and

273 oune gosudarstva soiuznye federation.

own legal order legalown

these states have their rights, whereas whereas rights, their have states these 38

40 hs oe a nt, ht the that note, can one Thus, 39

eas te Kompetenz the Because )… , which did notdepend did , which

The distinctive line line distinctive The s compared with compared s

ed in any time. in ed semantic semantic greater

the the - CEU eTD Collection 43 42 41 the author, leg of spheres thesesubordinate to internationalist an of striving the expressed position this empire, Russian the of unity Yet, position. centralist his reflected the from legislation social and criminal, Kistiakovsky’s Thus, legislation.” civil international states.” federal in unification international and widely set be can partic In well. as the Moreover, Switzerland. and Germany like state, European modern institutions. autonomous of competence of autonomyfor Russia. but autonomy, of concept the define autonomy. of category the to more precisely thepeculiar forms of (“ and broad too was autonomy (1907). Limits”

Ibid., 17. 17. Ibid., 13. Ibid., predely” i ee avtonomiia “Oblastnaia Kistiakivsky, Bogdan rgetro gosudarstvo fragmentarnoe unification of civil and criminal legislations, rather than to ones’ particularization. These spheres spheres These particularization. ones’ to than rather legislations, criminal and civil of unification central representative institutions had to had institutions representative central itaosy fee t ex to offered Kistiakovsky

[No doubt] the contemporary industrial circulation and economic development lead to to lead development economic and circulation industrial contemporary the doubt] [No

unification unification 41 ular, he wrote: “ wrote: he ular,

In this article, this In rationally

f the of

42 ”) suggested an additional notion of a “fragmentary state” state” “fragmentary a of notion additional an suggested 43

. However, the main the However,

only if it is regulated by international legislation. legislation. international by regulated is it if only Kistiakovsky Jellinek’s Jellinek’s

ale h mnind h atmt t “rae an “create to attempts the mentioned he Earlier legislation social that truism, a become has it Now islation to universal human principles. human universal to islation social legislation legislation social ld te pee f civi of sphere the clude

state organi

rather to decide about the most appropriate form form appropriate most the about decide to rather rather than advocating the idea to preserve the preserve to idea the advocating than rather

For him, this was the general tendency of of tendency general the was this him, For optne f oa lgsaie assemblies legislative local of competence

em i hs iw alwd distinguishing allowed view, his in term, control the criminal and social legislation social and criminal the control 274

argued that Lazarevsky’s definition of definition Lazarevsky’s that argued zation, which zation, wouldbe wrong torefer

Moskovskii ezhenedel’nik Moskovskii endeavor of the author the of endeavor hud olw fe te one’s the after follow should

tep t ecue h civil, the exclude to attempt l

legislation from the the from legislation for Kistiakovsky, for

According to to According 4 (1907). 4 was

not to not

Th is CEU eTD Collection 46 45 44 authority, institutions central the of competence the of definition positive a presupposed projects These 1905. September in activists Ukr and progressive privilege conservative legislation, Kistiakovsky, landhol Duma.” project the from judging this, expect can One would revolutionRussian “situationthe the if maychange, him, accordinglegislation.Yet,to civil Russian the than progressive more was Code the that recognized Kistiakovsky a been had it only because Polish become not had Napoleon Code the view,author’s the agrarian as well form.” and content as by both reactionary social, is Poland of Kingdom and the in legislation civil the particularize to attempt an doubt “No Poland. of Kingdom the to even relations social and economic of sphere pid n h trioy f h Kndm f oad o mr ta a ude years. hundred a than more for Poland of Kingdom the of territory the on pplied

Ibid., 18. Ibid., Ibid. 17. Ibid., principles.” l of

egislation tend to to tend egislation develop strong creative potential in the sphere of civil and social legislation. social and civil of sphere the in potential creative strong develop At the same time, Kistiakovsky opposed the principles offered by the Polish Polish the by offered principles the opposed Kistiakovsky time, same the At the in legislation the provide to refused Kistiakovsky argument, this Following

ders would fight against the progressive civil and social legislation. social and civil progressive the against fight would ders 46 ainian projects, which had which projects, ainian s

. Such an autonomy would only be a means to protect these elites againstelites theseprotect to means a onlybe would autonomyan Such .

whereas n hs case, this In laws issued in bycenlaws issued in the 44

f h poica atnm aqie atoiy n h shr o civil of sphere the in authority acquired autonomy provincial the if all unmentioned is unmentioned lose Kistiakovsky elites

their national character and use to express universal human human universal express to use and character national their

n h brelns ol ue t o rsre their preserve to it use would borderlands the in been regarded at regarded been tral legislative tral legislative

sues had to fall by convention in convention byfall to had sues erd “h eegtc ioiy f h cas of class the of minority energetic “the feared, . They .

275 enumerated the functions of the central the of functions the enumerated

of agrarian reform in the first State State first the in reform agrarian of institutions

the meeting of zemstvo and zemstvo of meeting the .

the competence the He Thus, for Thus, wrote: 45 city

the In

CEU eTD Collection 51 50 49 48 47 “ him, For way. this in exactly Poland of Kingdom the authorities.” autonomous is [these] delegate and education and culture of issues the in institutions “ wrote: He people.” the and society of life “cultural to related laws local issue to right the had self from the latter. noted: He the if institutions, autonomous of competence the autonomy.” and federation of issues the regarding knowledge authors’ their of poverty extreme “an of witnessed Kistiakovsky, formeeting, September the at projects the contrast, By resthe whereasinstitutions, autonomous decentralization of form a such of unitary a from derived be to had regions autonomous inthecampautonomists ofcentralist Russian institutions. autonomous the of

Ibid. Ibid. 22. Ibid., 23. Ibid., 21. Ibid., 20. Ibid., issues, which, like social legislation, are regu are legislation, which,social like issues, self of principle self widest of delegation The a downplay - government,

hs Kistiakovsky Thus, Followingth

case. Moreover, case.

…it is wrong to forge the right of autonomous regions to issue own laws… and to to and laws… own issue to regions autonomous of right the forge to wrong is …it 48 It is natural and normal to limit, if possible, the competence of the central the of competence the possible, if limit, to normal and natural is It nother side of any autonomous arrangement, namely the right for self for right the namely arrangement, autonomous any of side nother

- government should government however, however, e

centralist

these projects “had to drive all the hesitant and unconvinced and hesitant the all drive to “had projects these

In particular, the author offered to define the autonomy of autonomy the define to offered author the particular, In - with one essential one with eue te ocp o atnm t te oin f local of notion the to autonomy of concept the reduced government to an autonomous region is necessary; moreover, the moreover, necessary; is region autonomous an to government sta

o itaosy hs ytm was system this Kistiakovsky, For imply the the imply nce s.”

, Kistiakovsky address Kistiakovsky, 47 a to had lated by the central legislation central the by lated t i t

According theRussia, scholar, tothe legal in creation of such institutions and and institutions such of creation ssues

276 difference, that autonomous institutio autonomous that difference,

should

mention only the competencies of of competencies the only mention civil legislation had to be excluded excluded be to had legislation civil state. T state.

belongto if one would not invest in the in invest not would one if ed herefore, the proponents the herefore,

the issue how to define to how issue the . the central authority central the 49

ex unnatural for the for unnatural ecution - government… government… us to sues…

of such such of ns 50 .

CEU eTD Collection 54 53 52 integration close presupposed zeal the shared Kistiakovsky’sarticle that notable, Itis regions. various cooperationof latter the him, For of necessity development. the economic by justified Kistiakovsky issues economic and social to related time, same the At regulate to assemblies legislative local of right the with supplemented which in state, decentralized symmetrical a into Russia reorganize to offered Kistiakovsky Kokoshkin, by proposed autonomies empire.” the of parts the all to a the limits, these in Moreover, nationalities. constituent and empire the of parts distinct of culture… no the guarantee would it besides, and, authority central the of forces the weaken not would it country; whole the and region particular each of development economic the impede not would regions the of autonomy the p and life cultural administration.” local of issues of the all manage sphere whole the regulate to diet regional and Polish the all, the of say, above autonomy,and, institutions, autonomous its of right the the imply should Poland, of Kingdom it, to belong not does which meaning, the autonomy roceededanothermeaning fromautonomy. of

Ibid., 24. Ibid., 23. Ibid., the principles of federative or decentralized state organization, or it is a is ofautonomy. slogan clear it but quite not popular, ofa the cover goals under or organization, state decentralized or federative of principles the either is autonomy to approach an such that clear, is 30 May on declaration its in this suggested Duma State the in faction Polish [The] cannot allegedly which treaties, international by it substantiate to the sometimes, sense; actual its in autonomy an than rather union,

25. Kistiakovsky The

autonomy is sometimes attributed the meaning, which is closer to the notion of a real real a of notion the to closer is which meaning, the attributed sometimes is autonomy utonomy would have an advantage, that it would be equally required required equally be would it that advantage, an have would utonomy his refusal to provide the local assemblies the right to issue laws issue to right the assemblies local the provide to refusal his

concluded his article wit article his concluded

hs ised f an of instead Thus,

277 h a statement, that “only in these limits these in “only that statement, a h 52

h lcl self local the He argued:He a consequence of an absolute ignorance of ignorance absolute an of consequence a

According to Kistiakovsky, the Poles the Kistiakovsky, to According rmal development of independent independent of development rmal

lose

advocates advocates asymmetrical - government would be be would government

their juridical force. … force. juridical their 53 means

of autonomy of

cultural issues. cultural th to forge other other forge to . However, it it However, .

tt with state

tend tend

and and CEU eTD Collection sobranie 27 aprelia 1913” aprelia 27 sobranie 59 58 1995). Press, University Burgess, Michael see: discussion 57 stroi Kanady Gosudarstvennyi 56 55 case. Finnish the to references certain regard text his in find to possible is it although conclusions Russia, direct any draw not did author The federalism. of practice many Kadets of representatives the throughthe the in part took Korf Besides, people. Finnish the of needs pressing the discussed and Finland of Duchy Grand the Finlaindia amo was he particular, In question.” “Finnish the union. political which federation, of attempts recent to and Helsinki (1908). “Federalism” book create who claims. cultural similarly However, Poles. the with terms equal on them regard to demanding nationalists, Ukrainian of

See for example: A.S. Korf A.S. example: for See Finliandiia SergeiKorf,

Idem. Idem. alleged that the autonomy in the economic sphere was an essential condition to condition essential an was sphere economic the in autonomy the that alleged

the Ukrainian nation. ofs ok “Federalism” book Korf’s and autonomy on view opposing an formulated Korf Sergei

Ko ouasvny sri Avstralii stroi Gosudarstvennyi l , in which the Kadets and Finnish activists advocated the special status of status special the advocated activists Finnish and Kadets the which in , onial’nye onial’nye

(1908 Federalism Federalism studied the juridical status of British colonies. British of status juridical the studied 57 This -

1910). 1910). He ie to aimed konferentsii

to cooperated made Obshchestvo Mira v Moskvie v Mira Obshchestvo British liberals to orga to liberals British (St.Petersburg, 1908). 1908). (St.Petersburg,

h mmes f l Hoaa h dfne ecuiey the exclusively defended he Hromada, Old of members the , “Aeroplany v sovremennoi voine” voine” sovremennoi v “Aeroplany ,

(Helsingfors, 55

his position position his consolidate

Korf

(Iaroslavl’: Gubernskoie pravlenie, 1911). For the details of the the of details the For 1911). pravlenie, Gubernskoie (Iaroslavl’: h Biih rdto o Federalism of Tradition British The Peace

with the Constitutional Democratic Party Party Democratic Constitutional the with

a a rfso o sae a i te nvriy of University the in law state of professor a was was devoted to the analysis of an international international an of analysis the to devoted was

tov. Vladimir Chicherin, 1911). 1911). Chicherin, Vladimir tov. Helsink in Society Hlsnfr: o. ldmr hcei, 92; Idem. 1912); Chicherin, Vladimir tov. (Helisingfors: different rti ad t dominions its and Britain

278 nize an all an nize . Vol. 3 (Moscow, 1913). 3 Vol. .

pacifist

from the standpoint of Hrushevsky, Hrushevsky, of standpoint the from g h fudr o te journal the of founders the ng

activity as well. i and i - Vestnik Mira Vestnik round discussion on imperial on discussion round 56

He developed the links links the developed , pt. 1. (London: Leicester Leicester (London: 1. pt. ,

paid

12 (1912); “Obshchee “Obshchee (1912); 12 n it a firmer a into and

federation in his in federation special atte special 59

regarding ntion with ing 58

CEU eTD Collection 62 61 60 According tohim, argument next his However, German the as well as colleagues his of framework the from depart parts composite the constitution. were which states, the and treaty, a of result a as emerged which constituent part ofa federalstate. hi for self of stage higher a only was autonomy the that Kokoshkin, with self of notions the distinguish to attempt his and Lazarevsky of article above cited the mentioned Korf non into themselves turning statehood, of attributes necessary all state a of part a or province distinct a of growth a initiates Ger confederations states. ofradically complex different ontheissueof perspective organization the generalizing chapter, this In book. the of chapter final the in formulated Korf federation of understanding general His Korf, Ibid., 80. 80. Ibid., 79. Ibid., unnoticed, many provinces release themselves from the tutelage of the state and acquire more acquire and ofself newstatefunctions the of tutelage the from themselves release provinces many unnoticed, can trend federative of growth and emergence of ay Hwvr te author the However, many. mself, he formulated the task to distinguish between the autonomy and a a and autonomy the between distinguish to task the formulated he mself, Federalism In opposition to Lazarevsky,to In opposition author the In

The recent history of states took another path. The further it it further The path. another took states of history recent The In accordance with accordance In , the , ,

78. 78.

German legal scholars scholars legal German oenet atnm, n fdrtv state. federative and autonomy, government, - ’s these states these government and new autonomous rights. new autonomous and government

view, the main contributors to the to contributors main the eiul calne te atr’ prah o h issue. the to approach latters’ the challenged seriously

the terminology of the German scholars, Korf called Korf scholars, German the of terminology the non

addressed Korf - sovereign states sovereign

considered xeine f ra Bian e offer he Britain Great of experience

relied on the practice of the unification of unification the of practice the on relied

279 get ay f xmls “hn life “when examples, of many great a

be traced within the state… Gradually and and Gradually state… the within traced be

the difference between the states, states, the differencebetweenthe . 61 62

tti pith tl i not did still he point this At , and they gradually acquire acquire gradually they and , theory of federal states and and states federal of theory goes… the goes… -

created by common by created sovereign states.” sovereign h ato agreed author The - federative theory. federative government. Yet, government.

more examples examples more

ed a a ed 60

CEU eTD Collection 66 65 64 63 And further owninterpretation offered of he notion his ofJellinek’s Austro the of lands distinct of development “the in place took their bodies, non acquired indirectFinland referencecase of intheempire. Russian tothe non Finnish the of the considered who ideas theoreticians, the and argument Korf’s between analogy an draw can one non and constitutional of monarch a of status the to bodies state independent became Australia and Canada of generals “ him, For states. these of authority proper a of characteristics autonomy. of competence argued the he change Moreover, could center the that notion theoretical the despite Canada, of constitution the abolish to authority central the of possibility auto Austro the meet contemporary not “[did] state the and province autonomous the between theoreticians

Korf, Korf, Germanson 83. Ibid., 81. Ibid., - - oy o non to nomy sovereign states; now they now states; sovereign state. Finnish sovereign - Federalism codn t Kr, t h mmn, hn aaa n te New the and Canada when moment, the at Korf, to According Korf’s in Therefore,

Hungary, where the parts of states gradually transformed themselves from from themselves transformed gradually states of parts the where Hungary, new constitutions the “from autonomous provinces the colonies turned into into turned colonies the provinces autonomous “from the constitutions new

, Gosudarstvenno constitutions

demands ,

84 - . oeeg states. sovereign

i tee rvne te xctv atoiy curd more acquired authority executive the provinces these in ,

of life of

- and their own subjects.” own their and pravovoe 65 .”

Consequently, this statement may be interpreted as an as interpreted be may statement this Consequently,

He mentioned the examples of Canada, Australia, and Australia, Canada, of examples the mentioned He issue opinion of the colonies, their position acquired a status equal status a acquired position their colonies, the of

Russian emperor to be a constitutional monarch of of monarch constitutional a be to emperor Russian polozheniie esd o e t be to ceased

63 their own laws own their

, In particular, particular, In

h tertcl itnto o distinction theoretical the

280 Finliandii

he 66

, 23. , , they have their own legislative own their have they , For the author, similar p similar author, the For sovereign state.” sovereign nttts f h mtooe and metropole the of institutes of a setc bu the about sceptic was Korf

- when the the when ugra empire.” Hungarian Staatsfragment 64

At this point this At German f governor

rocesses Zealand Zealand .

- , CEU eTD Collection 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 c a to way borderlands the in movements national that concerns their expressed autonomy to provincial units.” emphasized of range endless whole view, of point state.” a of notion the of construction juridical geogr “theKorf’s view, in case. this regarding opinion similar a expressed Kistiakovsky metropole. geographical by it explained and exception of avision trend development of historical institutes. state bee Ibid. See, for example, A.B. “Samoopredelenie narodnostei” narodnostei” “Samoopredelenie A.B. example,for See, Ibid. Korf, 23. avtonomiia…,” “Oblastnaia Kistiakovsky, Jellinek, 85. Ibid., notion of underdeveloped, fragmentary state (Staatsfragment), and later on “lands,” which are are which non towards autonomy from stages transitory somewhat “lands,” on later and (Staatsfragment), state fragmentary underdeveloped, of notion n

incorporated into other states, but had preserved the elements of their previous their of elements the preserved had but states, other into incorporated

Federalism Analyzing these theoretical theoretical these Analyzing an case British the considered scholars German the that mentioned Korf Staatsfragment Jellinek, For

Ueber

Not without reason, having considered the real situation, Jellinek had to creat to had Jellinek situation, real the considered having reason, without Not omplete secession from the empire. the from secession omplete a “general irrepressible process of growth of an independence of various of independence an of growth of process irrepressible “general a could

Staatsfragmente 68 in ,

72 88 eetees Kr’ itrrtto i iprat o hrceie his characterize to important is interpretation Korf’s Nevertheless,

between .

enforce transitory stages of development of state independence.” state of development of stages transitory aphical position of a province or a state cannot influence the influencethe cannotstate a provinceor a of position aphical

self , h fears the 11. offered by offered -

governing provinces and sovereign state we face a a face we state sovereign and provinces governing s constructions, one can note can one constructions,

implied the remnants of former states, which had which states, former of remnants the implied

f h right the of

and it would only become a first stage on the on stage first a become only would it and

liberals liberals –

from provincesfrom tonon 281 73

70 Okrainy Rossii Okrainy

However, in his theory, Korf did not did Korf theory, his in However, restricted a restricted -

remoteness sovereign state.” sovereign For him, “from social and political and social “from him, For - ig rtc o liberals of critics wing utonomy

9 (1906): 150 (1906): 9

f oois rm the from colonies of ,

67 that such an approach approach an such that

- sovereign states.

could not satisfy not could - 154. 69 Te latter The .

However, new a e

CEU eTD Collection item. 9. p.1. item.9. 75 74 ultimately federation the recognized and issues. national common formulate discuss to aimed which association, an rather but discipline, strict with party of people the involved faction this Shrag, Ilia and Courtenay de Baudouin Jan Lednicki, Alexander Duma State movements unification composition same the in state federative the into unite to want would empire Russian the of parts former to applied Yet, federation. contemporary states.” and nations all of federation common a union, universal cult common of basis the on states the of unification of trend with along went empires multinational fears. such share

APAN (The Archive of the Polish Academy of Sciences). I Sciences). of Academy Polish the of Archive (The APAN Korf, Federalism The relationship between the Kadets and the representatives of the national national the of representatives the and Kadets the between relationship The

, , impeded their joint initiatives in the Duma. the in initiatives joint their impeded

the issue of the the issueof the s regarding allowed

various r. Ultimately, ure. h Uin f uooit ad Federalists. and Autonomists of Union the federative unions were a transitional stage towards the universal universal the towards stage transitional a were unions federative idea of Russia of idea , 91. He opined that the process of separation of national states from from states national of separation of process the that opined He Fr of who Korf, For .

the functioning of a special faction in the first and the second second the and first the in faction special a of functioning the national

The particular

Kadets and the Russian case this theory did not suggest that that suggest not did theory this case Russian the unity wasempire ofthe not Russian ities, who belonged to different parties. different to belonged who ities, ’s Korf

reorganization questions Although

envisioned the realization of the idea of “a “a of idea the of realization the envisioned bv al prud h ga of goal the pursued all, above

the

Union of Automists of Union they , 282 , in general in ,

along the the along

- ocd poig iw, which views, opposing voiced 123 Materialy Aleksandra Lednickiego. Lednickiego. Aleksandra Materialy 123

To understand the nature and nature the understand To

the participants of the Union the of participants the principles of autonomy and autonomy of principles one b te Kadets the by Founded relevant at all relevant at

75 n i ve, the view, his In

This was not a not was This international international would be be would .

CEU eTD Collection Duma 76 the that declared, statute this of paragraph second The Federalists. and Autonomists of activity the to related oftheirsupport theideas programs.the limits beyond h members its because project, common any formulate to difficult it found Union the of participants and autonomy of projects specific their de its presented Union’s the t put to sought Duma. the in majority Russian Great self representativ the allow f Kadets. many were there members its among and politics independent worthwhile citing: pa following the Union the of aims the rom this passage that the Union played a role of a restraining factor, which did not did which factor, restraining a of role a played Union the that passage this rom

Aleksander Lednitskii, “Natsional’nyi vopros v Gosudarstvennoi Dumie” Dumie” Gosudarstvennoi v vopros “Natsional’nyi Lednitskii, Aleksander hs su, ihr u t a rn mmn, nufcet rprto, r weak or preparation, insufficient nationalities. other all detrimental moment, wrong a to due either issue, this the impatient to most that nationalities of decision unfavorable Consequently, thefor others. common was threat time samethe and which at issue, a regions was particular there of Otherwise, striving graduality. the of subject principle to need the all, above and, [w organization… aim - determination. Otherwise, determination. osiuinl Democrats Constitutional

(St.Petersburg: “Obshchestvennaia pol’za,” 1907). 161. 161. 1907). pol’za,” “Obshchestvennaia (St.Petersburg: ed According to Lednicki, the Union of Autonomists did not pursue an an pursue not did Autonomists of Union the Lednicki, to According suggest collection Lednicki’s of materials The

parliamentary to discuss and advocate advocate and discuss to These national and regional organizations composed a “Union of Autonomists of “Union a composed organizations regional and national These he activity of national groups in the Duma under their control their under Duma the in groups national of activity he d o olw h dsiln o ter epcie ate ad ol not could and parties respective their of discipline the follow to ad lrto a te lnr meig te uooit fie t articulate to failed autonomists the meeting, plenary the at claration as based on] the feeling and understanding of the commonality of the interests, interests, the of ofthe commonality understanding and the feeling on] as based

es of particular nationalities to go far in their claims of national national of claims their in far go to nationalities particular of es activity. the Union the

76 the latter threatened to threatened latter the

h rgt o ntoaiis and… nationalities of rights the

In particular, contrary to the Polish delegation, which delegation, Polish the to contrary particular, In a a opruiy o nlec idrcl o the on indirectly influence to opportunity an had

. One of these dra these of One .

At the same time same the At ssage from the from ssage initiate

283

any public discussion public any

fts is the statute of the Union of of Union the of statute the is fts

article cause a negative a cause a ,

one can one few

decentralization. of drafts of the the of drafts

Pervaia Gosudars Pervaia Alexander Lednicki Alexander

note that the Kadets the that note could defense . Moreover, Moreover, . reaction

One can infer infer can One raise a local local a raise

documents could be be could Such an an Such , ” . At least least At . which tvennaia tvennaia

of the the of the the is

CEU eTD Collection 80 79 78 77 the new Finally, Laws. Fundamental Russian the by established be to had latter the that said autonomywidest it thewhole.” principle a stateof the the Russian Regarding single as in of Instead national also but regional, the along only not united Union the the of Principles AlongerFactionAutonomists.” “Generalannounced:Union ofversion of ofdocument thethis of drafts the are documents two next The federation. atfederalpossible sucha as lines v the only along state Russian the of reorganization in [consisted] goal ultimate Its Union. the “self paragraph, third th in decentralization possible widest the of principle the Russia fulfil in to “[sought] Union

Ibid., p.10. Ibid., 10 p. Ibid., Ibid. APAN. immediately by the wayoflegislation. the immediatelyby parts… distinct the in both minorities… of rights the protect to have empire Russian the of not of… equality juridical complete a recognizes [theUnion] regions… ofseparate autonomy widest a of principle the follow should decentralization The administration… state of decentralization the of inviolability faction parliamentary The defense… and support mutual would not go beyond the principle of a wideofself a principle the beyond not go would Autonomists of Union the of faction national e

only individuals, but also various self various also but individuals, only

form of autonomyofparticular regionsformof In the second draft seems to be a revised version of the first one. It added that added It one. first the of version revised a be to seems draft second the In F

version contained ancontained additional paragraph: version I rom this statute, one can not can one statute, this rom - - 123 Materialy Aleksandra Lednickiego. item. 9. p.1 p.1 9. item. Lednickiego. Aleksandra Materialy 123 territorial unit have to be defined in accordance with the the with accordance in defined be to have unit territorial The geographical borders and the legal limits of the autonomy of each region region each of autonomy the of limits legal the and borders geographical The for basis regional on unites Autonomists of Union the of faction parliamentary The

- 10 ob. ob. 10 violability of the borders the draft draft the borders the of violability

t s eesr t poie h ctzn te right the citizens the provide to necessary is It

- borders of the Russian state… the Union claims for the widest widest the for claims Union the state… Russian the of borders government and regional autonomy [was] the immediate goal of goal immediate the [was] autonomy regional and government

79 will fully support the strivings of regional units, which which units, regional of strivings the support fully will

- determined collective units… The Fundamental Laws Laws Fundamental The units… collective determined reveal the meaning of the terms autonomy and autonomy terms the of meaning the reveal

- ast territory.” government. 284 on democraticbasis. on

pursued the idea of “indivisibility of of “indivisibility of idea the pursued regards regards

78 o clua self cultural for the principles of the unity and and unity the of principles the

will of its population… The The population… its of will - territorial principles. territorial whole ” 77

According to theAccordingto - state and in its its in and state determination or or

CEU eTD Collection 82 iii. 1913), M.M.Stasiulevicha, Tipografiia 81 party. political or confession religious a to belonging of question the as similarly and associations, of freedom the of issue the to reduced be could question any. to belong to not or nationalities several to individual.” eachparticular self and choice free a by defined be to had belonging “national that criteria, external with accordance in people identify T eachperson. choicepersonalof a of question anationalitywas ratheopinion, work this in that however, note, should Autonomy.” of Principles Territorial and “National title the under 1913 in only change the to due but 1907, in Autonomists” of “Volume the in publication a as it intended Union. the of principles general the of explanation detailed more a the of unity the stateRussian and topreventthe suppression of minorities. preserve to namely Union, the of principles main the contradict the time, same the At population. the of strivings the reflect regions. autonomous of competence the

Ibid., 15. 15. Ibid., Ivan Boduen de Kurtene, Kurtene, de Boduen Ivan d political situation the work on volume stopped. The brochure was published was brochure The stopped. volume on work the situation political d adun e Courtenay de Baudouin deCourtenayprovided Baudouin UnionJan the thefounderof The of brochure of understanding thelimits a of vague suggested note,bothprojects can As one

r than the generalr than theof theUnion. view Natsional’nyi i territorial’nyi priznak v avtonomii avtonomii v priznak territorial’nyi i Natsional’nyi 82

At the same time, he admitted that a person could belongcouldperson a that admitted he time, same the At ’s peculiar interpretation of autonomy suggested that that suggested autonomy of interpretation peculiar ’s

They only stipula only They adun e Courtenay de Baudouin

285

A ccording to the author, the national the author, the to ccording

biological or social. He argued argued He social. or biological

ted that these limits had to had limits these that ted strivings herefore he refusedto herefore he

Initially, the author the Initially, xrse hs own his expressed - determination of determination

did not have have not did (St.Petersburg: (St.Petersburg: regarded 81

One

CEU eTD Collection 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 Courtenay whole.” sovereign single a body, state single a form be would which regions, distinct politically ‘ “By Forthe goal. the “sentiments and strivings replace the all of cohabitation conditions. economi or geographic as well as principle ethnographic with accordance in regions Ukraine.” and Lithuania of rights’ ‘historical similar nationality.” two “a control to elite repressive of principle right this the that suggested claimed and regions distinct of rights” “historical of principle autonomy.” an provide to ground a as such as “nationality author, the For autonomy. of principle the of autonomy theidea exclusively regions. ofterritorial by autonomous Thus,

Ibid., 40 Ibid., Ibid. 32. Ibid., 31. Ibid., 29. Ibid., 25. Ibid., 24 Ibid., federalization’ adun e Courtenay de Baudouin However, for for However, brochure of part essential most The

the “historical rights” “historical the - - 41. 41. 25.

86 federative states should have equal amount of population. of amount equal have should states federative

remote eie, e rt ta “h ‘itrcl ihs o Pln clie with collide Poland of rights’ ‘historical “the that wrote he Besides, nta, he Instead,

future, the author considered Russia’s “federalization.” He wrote: wrote: “federalization.”He Russia’s considered author the future, of Russia we mean its disintegration into a number of states or or states of number a into disintegration its mean we Russia of Baudouin de Courtenay de Baudouin ebr o te tt ad t dsic parts.” distinct its and state the of members osdrd h “ih o eooi wlae n peaceful and welfare economic of “right the considered of the population of aof given thepopulation administrative region with

fee t rpae the replace to offered “the rights of a given historical moment historical given a of rights “the

Similarly,

was devoted to a practical implementation implementation practical a to devoted was united by a treaty. Altogether they would they Altogether treaty. a by united 286 , the autonomy was only an immediate immediate an only was autonomy the ,

Baudouin de Courtenay de Baudouin

89 He also refused to define the define to refused also He

su o national of issue codn to According - egd nml of animal legged cannot 83

87 T

e fee to offered He his adun de Baudouin

be r be

, however, , denied the denied - , territorial territorial ”

egarded egarded .” an namely 88 othe

c r CEU eTD Collection 92 91 education. 90 and culture of issues the to institutions autonomous of competence Staatsfragment called Jellinek which organization, regional of forms such notion this into inclusion presupposed liberals. Russian the of framework theoretical the within possible only reorganization. regi the beyond left he terminology. Moreover, German the use not did he although Bundesstaat, of model the with cent the institutions.” to up them give and rights political would sovereign regions their independent of some distinct renounce good, practical and state the of unity the of federalization peacefullyand would,final accomplish would it scenario, latter the followed Russia if whereas disasters,” and legislation.” woul they and for people obvious becomeconscious would arrangement federative of benefits the into or unite federation; to want would good, common pursuing parts, distinct these and forces cases: would Russia two “Either in only accomplished be could federation the view, his In self population. of principle mentioned above his to contradicts

Ibid., 43. 43. Ibid., 42. Ibid., 41. Ibid., ons

Thus, one can conclude, that Kokoshkin’s definition of autonomy of definition Kokoshkin’s that conclude, can one Thus, For

and

Baudouin de Courtenay de Baudouin 90 92 ahr ogt o omlt sm asrc principles abstract some formulate to sought rather

In the former case, the author predicted “aggravation of present of “aggravation predicted author the case, former the In

One can can One dissolve into distinct parts as a result of result a as parts distinct into dissolve see

ht h ato evsoe te eeain n accordance in federation the envisioned author the that consideration s

B cnrs, itaosy fee t lmt the limit to offered Kistiakovsky contrast, By . , Russia’s federalization implied that “for the sake the “for that implied federalization Russia’s , acmls ti arneet y en of means by arrangement this accomplish d

ly,“recover.”

287 the issue of the c the of issue the

- eemnto o te local the of determination

ompetencies of distinct distinct of ompetencies prevailing regarding

was not was

Lazarevsky centrifugal

Russia’s Russia’s turmoil the ral

CEU eTD Collection Autonomists. Autonomists. Courtenay circumstance. peculiar provide the of national movements, representatives the of part the on challenge external the with along Kadets liberals. Russian the of group very within vis the Kadets of position the weakened only not autonomy of meanings the of Proliferation synonym resul a As widening. further its provoke would Constitutional the of program the into autonomy of restrictednotion a even of inclusion that feared who Kistiakovsky), of expression the (by autonomists” disintegration of asa a into independent number regions transitory stage. Russia’s of possibility the admitted he Moreover, Russia. entire the of federalization Courtenay almost autonomy Finally, exception, an theoreticians, legal German the to Contrary self local from transition Refe rring to the experience of British colonies, Korf emphasized the process of of process the emphasized Korf colonies, British of experience the to rring Taken altogether, this discussion could on could discussion this altogether, Taken minut The Baudouin de Courtenay de Baudouin a

for - e to key à o was autonomy the rsne a report, a presented -

i te rtc fo te ih, u as isie new inspired also but right, the from critics the vis

Except for the concluding the for Except but as a natural and inevitable trend in the development of the states. the of development the in trend inevitable and natural a as but a part of of part a es of the second meeting of the Constitutional Democratic Party Party Democratic Constitutional the of meeting second the of es understanding n h sm way same the in encountered t h eeig eso o Jnay 0 1906, 10, January on session evening the At ra uin fdrtv sae o even or state, federative union, real a - oenet hog atnm t non to autonomy through government

highlighting the main principles of the Union of of Union the of principles main the highlighting and other autonomi other and l te is se o te a t te ia goal final the to way the on step first the nly the reaction of the leadership of the party to this this to party the of leadership the of reaction the the challenge from within. from the challenge

s oohi. oee, for However, Kokoshkin. as passage,

Thus, regarding the issue of autonomy the autonomy of issue the regarding Thus, he 288

suggested regarding suggested

the report does not require a detailed detailed a require not does report the ly enforce the concerns of “hesitant “hesitant of concerns the enforce ly t the autonomy might might autonomy the t sts, although vaguely, treated the the treated vaguely, although sts,

uoin projects “utopian” this process this - - DemocraticParty sovereign states. states. sovereign a

confederation.

adun de Baudouin

eoe a become

not as not –

CEU eTD Collection 96 95 94 Vestnik 93 admitted an exception a called, Kadets the Kadets’ referred. Miliukov which program to suggestions.” mentioned above statements definite more offer we nationalities other with negotiations during by [raised issue the for “As declared: representation…” genuine a of convocation second A Constituent the of convocation the until wait to need We people. the – principles these defend we will where is onlyquestion The regions… the of autonomy most “The statement: following the chapter.this here examination

Ibid., 162. Ibid., Konstitutsionno i konferentsii S”ezdy in the nearest Duma? However, the one is not a genuine representation, the will of of will the representation, genuine a not is one the However, Duma? nearest the in Ivan Boduen de Kurtene, “Po voprosu ob avtonomii i ravnopravii natsional’nostei” natsional’nostei” ravnopravii i avtonomii ob voprosu “Po Kurtene, de Boduen Ivan “constituent assembly”… i.e. assembly”… “constituent post humiliated” formal and to itself repressed confine will it or parliament, any in nationalities should be opened a legal way for establishing local autonomy and regional representative representative regional certai and regarding authority the population. of needs with autonomy the in accordance subjects, legislative of local execution in establishing participate to for rights the way with assemblies legal a opened be should st Russian entire the rightsfor

1 (1906): 32 (1906): 1 37. hs paragraph This with responded Kotliarevsky Sergei Committee, Central the of member The

il h [osiuinl eortc Pry eed atnm ad qaiy of equality and autonomy defend… Party Democratic] [Constitutional the Will 24. 24.

The final part offinal The part After the rights of civic freedom and and freedom civic of rights the After n untimely way to way untimely n - . In a more developed more a In . 33.

. One can it see suggested , might be, ad calendas graecas? calendas ad might , be, ate would be established, at the levelofstate the at established, would be ate Baudouin deCourtenay poning the practical solution until the convocation of the the of convocation the until solution practical the poning 95

demokraticheskoi partii. demokraticheskoi

Here, it is worthwhile to quote the relevant part of part relevant the quote to worthwhile is it Here, ay poetv mcaim” gis, ht the what against, mechanisms” “protective many provide an autonomy. an provide

from the next 25 from the next peculiar

Baudouin de Courtenay de Baudouin form

289 these ideas have ideas these

regular at f u program our of part

96 94

’s speech contained a question, speecha contained ’s

93 The next speaker Paul Miliukov Paul speaker next The Vol. 1., 161 1., Vol. th representation with constitutional constitutional with representation

paragraphprogram. their of O expression nly nly

been analyzed earlier in earlier analyzed been ], in our program and and program our in ], - for Poland for 162. 162. - wide legislation there there widelegislation

of “sympathy to to “sympathy of

is the issue of of issue the is ssembly or the the or ssembly

the Kadets the Ukrainskii Ukrainskii than , n

CEU eTD Collection 97 issues. relevant more other complicate would foreground the into autonomy faction parliamentary distinct a into Autonomists 12 May for exposed fur anyfrom them prevent to task the himself of limits the exceed not competence and legislative the stay central under control ofthe institutions. would assemblies local the that all, sought, above Kadets the form, abstract an in borderlands the to autonomy an promised state the in deputies Polish the of representation authors The that such competencies reflected “nee the subjects,” “certain to autonomies execution than authority. central the of control way.” “legal a opened autonom immediate an acquired Poland of Kingdom the if afterwards, Yet, representation.” democratic “regular a of convocation

Ibid. ol b itoue a atnmu arneet n h Kndm f oad udr the under Poland… of Kingdom the in arrangement uni state autonomous Russia’s ofpreserving condition an introduced be would fulfilled

f Fedor If contain not did Poland of Kingdom the about paragraph The case Polish the in as Similarly

his position his

Immediately after establishment of the empire the of establishment after Immediately f eiltv atoiy” ial, the Finally, authority.” legislative of th

mainly sought to preserve the unity of the state and secure the the secure and state the of unity the preserve to sought mainly

h lgsaie authorit legislative the 1906. oohi ws h ato o tee omls Mluo to for took Miliukov formulas, these of author the was Kokoshkin in the article “The Faction of ‘Autonomists’”, published in Rech’ in published ‘Autonomists’”, of Faction “The articlethe in T In particular, he he particular, In he authors of the the of authors

According to the program, t program, the to According moreover

ty and participation in the central representation… in the central participation and ty i the in y , the Kadets postponed the postponed Kadets the , ds of the population.” ds ofthe program ald msae h iiitv t single to initiative the mistake a called y,

the regional representatives had to prove prove to had representatives regional the 290 for ther alterations. T alterations. ther

region the rest the

- passage wide democratic representation… there there representation… democratic wide

envisioned t envisioned - ie eilto. hs havi Thus, legislation. wide

had and parts of the empire there empire the of parts

limited the competence of of competence the limited

only only argued that putting the the putting that argued he local assembles assembles local he

he leader of the Kadets the of leader he he autonomy under the under autonomy he to autonomy until the until autonomy “ these take

restrictions. part in the the in part

the F or him, him, or 97

rather

local only ng

CEU eTD Collection 99 391 2013), Trebovaniiu” “Knigapo (Moscow: 98 interpret pass this including Autonomists, obey…” to has one discipline rel alreadyAutonimists has to Having tootherstill parties. new one belong joinedparty, a Constitutional the threaten by inspired and intelligentsia to “sentimental” motives,thepopul rather thanby theneeds of confined was movement this that mentioned example for of, “immaturity” to a of “maturity” the autonomies potential politically detrimental. a autonomy an make to idea very the

Ibid., 392. Ibid., Pavel Miliukov “Fraktsiia avtonomistov” avtonomistov” “Fraktsiia Miliukov Pavel ate himself with the old one. Sooner or Sooner one. old the with himself ate be deprived of their personal oftheir personal deprived be either result, a As program. common a under drawn be to have now dreams sentimental of form a have rather others decisions by shared and abstract are other the instinct; national the by supported slogan this At the same time, Miliukov feared that a special faction of Autonomists could Autonomists of faction special a that feared Miliukov time, same the At to offered Miliukov that see, can One

“

A eadn the regarding the the ,

utonomy” pursue completely different different completely pursue people; age as a reminderageas of a hisparty. tofollow the discipline given .

is a very unclear principle, and the groups the and principle, unclear very a is For him, the him, For others

He wrote:He ns r peae b aiain and agitation by prepared are ones adun e Courtenay de Baudouin national movement. In movement. national character, or the other would be inflated… would be the other or character,

circulate - Democratic Party and wrote: “In the majority, the the majority, the “In wrote: and Party Democratic

, the Ukrainian movement. In particular, particular, In movement. Ukrainian the ,

volume nwn, ht ay ebr o te no of Union the of members many that Knowing, only

goals

- general program of the whole faction could be be could faction whole the of program general 392. o brb: ultitceki krnk, 1905 khronika, publitsisticheskaia bor’by: God

among . Some of these these of Some . later

of regional competencies had to depend on depend to had competencies regional of , than serious political tasks. All these varieties varieties these All tasks. political serious than , 291

take a particular approach to each of the of each to approach particular a take

the groups of of groups the one has to face a question, which party which question, a face to has one

this passage, one can find an allusion allusion an find can one passage, this blne t te aes oe may one Kadets, the to belonged , take an origin an take

all goals - , round discussion in press; the the press; in discussion round

which unite themselves under under themselves unite which intelligentsia ation.

some of these tasks would would tasks these of some r psd y h life the by posed are 98

from books. books. from

… Finally, the the Finally, …

O Miliukov nes nes

and and are - 1906

CEU eTD Collection the claims ofnational theborderlands. movements in regarding flexible less Kadets the made party the within unity the preserve to need the to offered They program. the of version autonomy. meaning adopted the narrowed wanted and party the time, same the At empire. the right the of criticism lin this Following allies. their representa the satisfy it that despite changes, further from notion this preserve to strove Kadets representative local that con under implied stay would assemblies it Moreover, term. this of widening excluded which autonomy, of notion the offered liberals Russian the challenge, this to response refer rights, autonomous movements national other that found liberals Russian the program, their into autonomy Polish the of slogan the include to agreed Once Conclusion

postpone

o margi to - it wing parties, who accused the latter in the attempt to disintegrate to attempt the in latter the accused who parties, wing tives of the national movements, which the Kadets the which movements, national the of tives

until ig o h picpe f qaiy f l ntoaiis In nationalities. all of equality of principle the to ring the final the aie those nalize

refused to regard to refused e, the Kadets sought to defend their position from the the from position their defend to sought Kadets the e, trol of the central parliament. central the of trol leadership of the of leadership establishment of the constitutional order. Thus, order. constitutional the of establishment

f its of

292 h laesi isse o te initial the on insisted leadership The

the the

projects, which either widened or or widened either which projects, autonomy to be primary be to autonomy

Kadets

began to demand similar similar demand to began feared a split within the within split a feared The leadership of the of leadership The regarded

could issue and issue

not

as CEU eTD Collection 3 2 Ros 1 to whenever nations other suppress hypertro a presupposed nationalism of type of circles the in born been had nationalism this Miliukov, For “voluntarist.” was nationalism of type Another nationalism this of observation” “objective an conduct to possible was It process. historical objective an natio natural a was nationalism their own fault nationa the with ground reason the understand they Did revolution. r experienc the with. interacting been had they movements national the regarding Kadets the of views the of evolution the summarized he which

vlto 1905, evolution Ibid Ibid ae Miliukov, Pavel

a disease: but even detrimental for the nationality, which became ill with this di thecase be could this with ill became which nationality, the for detrimental even but sii) . . , 120.

(Moscow: Gosudarstvennaia publichnaia istoricheskaia biblioteka Rossii, 2005). 2005). Rossii, biblioteka istoricheskaia publichnaia Gosudarstvennaia (Moscow: In his book, Miliukov book, his In published Miliukov Paul 1925 In

1) 1) useful, not be could feeling national the of hypertrophy cases, of number general a In

the e, which the Russian liberals acquired liberals Russian the which e, or national feeling feeling national asoa’y vpo. Poshzdne asoa’ot i asoa’y vpoy v voprosy natsional’nye i natsional’nosti (Proiskhozhdenie vopros. Natsional’nyi

when did s el s of as well as and theycertain forcesput theexterior blame circumstances? on or :

l movements in the borderlands? Did they see th see they Did borderlands? the in movements l

treat it it treat the develops intelligentsia considered nal feeling of the masses, which was an expression of of expression an was which masses, the of feeling nal

possibil n a in the Conclusion Conclusion

into the striving striving intothe

scholarly scholarly reaction

e two types of nationalism. of types two the

. , which , 1 3 phy of the national feeling and tended to to tended and feeling national the of phy

This work is important as an indicator of indicator an as important is work This 293 Miliukov compared this national feeling national this compared Miliukov wy hy ol nt id h common the find not could they why ,

book

to manner for

imposed

in called the World War I and the new new the and I War World the

annexations in foreign policy… foreign in annexations

the

years that followed after the after followed yearsthat s sca phenomenon. social a as The it upon it sease. For example, this example, For sease. ainl Question, National

the people. Such a Such people. the The f The

is failure as failure is irst type of type irst

in 2

CEU eTD Collection 4 government] tendencies nationalist aggressive of employment systematic a such that predict radical intheir selfish interests. nationalists on, Later Russia. failure the and and government the to them of some radical; more became borderlands the in movements national the circumstances repressio these of path the followed government nationalities the forces, liberation the of moderate the Russia, in movement liberation the of trend general a u were movements these Until clearstatement. a formulated Miliukov state wasdestructive and reprehensible by nature. states. own their contrary, the On such. as statehood the against borderlands. implied situation a designate

Ibid begins a struggle against the state, b) when nationalism ignores the higher interests of spiritual g that spiritual creativity… lifeand of interests higher the ignores nationalism when b) state, the against struggle a begins person, normal . , , 120 Further, bringing the examples of various national movements in Russia, Russia, in movements national various of examples the bringing Further, I

ti qoain i i notable is it quotation, this n h Rsin tt, hc ws ne atc o te ainlss n the in nationalisms the of attack under was which state, Russian the . However, during the the during However, . - 121. 3) 3) 2)

the the feeling of national pride or offence pushes ot pushes offence or pride national of feeling the in pursuit in that mean not does This would lead to a new burst of intolerancesenti of separatist burst andnew a lead to would

began to pursue to began

to identify to national feeling becomes attached to the to attached becomes feeling national into the background, background, the into However, his

hn ainls opsd tef o h state the to itself opposed nationalism when

it f culprits of list of the o beyond the interests of a certain nationality…” certain ofa the interests beyond o

interests interests the Russian nationalists for nationalists Russian codn to according wrongly understood interests of the Russian nation. In nation. Russian the of interests understood wrongly

separation from Russia. Thus Miliukov laid the blame the laid Miliukov Thus Russia. from separation

period of of period namely a) when nationalism puts itself itself puts nationalism when a) namely that would be common to different to common be would that

the ae o include to came

that Miliukov Miliukov that national movements national reaction that reaction Miliukov

According to According 294

relics n ot cases most in

, the the struggle against the existing existing the against struggle the her feelings and needs of a modern modern a of needs and feelings her

of the past. of

followed the followed oeg pwr ta used that powers foreign radicalization of nationalisms of radicalization sd h word the used Miliukov ir

in the borderlands the in claims

hy ogt o create to sought they 4

, “i above

temporary defeat temporary

t was not hard to nothard to t was H . nited together in together nited eand rather remained nationalities in nationalities

the state and and state the mentsamong e “ disease apparently [by the the [by of n were ” to to ” the the

CEU eTD Collection 6 5 assumptions. initial liberals’ the criticized ( government autocratic Russian may trends ideological other of representatives moder the of principles fundamental the of law were and individuals thesupremacy thattherightsall thenations. of Convinced overcome, easily be would representative “re this of common struggleagainst “autocrat degree the case to Moreover, case from varied assumptions. incompatibility initial their of incompatibility Russi betweenthe than toanalyze rather others, on blame the lay to tried he contrary, the On opinion. public Russian blame warof separatism foreign and actual led to theintervention powers from separation pro of nationalism state… Russian the of nationalities the

Ibid. Ibid. 141. Ibid., - educate” their allies among the national movements. The liberals, The movements. national the among allies their educate”

seem rather strange, strange, rather seem

for The main The This The

the failure of failure the se

dissertation

asgs indicate passages iikv was Miliukov the liberals’ the illusion an liberals and the national movements national the and liberals an - oenet ate ld rm uooim oad eaaim the separatism, toward autonomism from led parties government the national movements national the

argued of the liberals the of given the fact the given

if the Russian authorities Russian the if own mistakes. ,

sue t assumed

ht iikv i not did Miliukov that that one of the reasons of failure of the dialogue dialogue the of failure of reasons the of one that hc relyi which ically

- bureaucratic” regime consisted in consisted that the main opponent of the liberals the of opponent main the that a te ecse” f h ntoa feeling national the of “excesses” the hat 5 cvlzto, h liberals the civilization, n

, which which , H may 295 e ed

However further further

n h Rsin ainlss openly nationalists) Russian the on to o acp tee supin. This assumptions. these accept not

find a common language with the the with language common a find ae h tcia alac i a in alliance tactical the made

guarantee their belief in the possibility to to possibility the in belief their concluded te ersnaie o the of representatives the , believe consisted

more or less probable orless more d

h liberals the the legal equality of of equality legal the

in ht “whereas that ignored the fundamentalthe

whose typical whose

ee to were that the the that –

. the the the ” . 6

CEU eTD Collection declaration of the emperor Ale emperor the of declaration institution central own its with Russia, of province Empire’s definedby tobe bodyhad this of competence the legislative body. Moreover autonomous an of status a acquired Finland admini central of competence of sphere the unilaterally define to state Russian the of right the signified Finland oversovereignty Russia’s that argued latter The law. theoreticiansof of supporters the The differently. dispute principal them interpreted they although assumptions, theoretical similar and Kadets were forconstant existence. struggle ina consist world the that belief world the with of principled their was liberals the of oversight major the Thus, from devoid to order in activists their educate leaders. Polish the of defended case Polish the ally. natural their as protectgeneralagainst their privileges theflo foughtto which anachronisticforces, theywith thoughtdealtmovementthat liberation iln ofrd t offered Finland Nevertheless,

the interests of the privileged the of interests the

the advocates of a special status of Finland based their their based Finland of status special a of advocates the the strative institutions on the territory of Finland. According to this theory this to According Finland. of territory the on institutions strative view of view took place took the s. The The s. a special status of Finland and their opponents among the official the among opponents their and Finland of status special a ainl oeet i movements national

The liberals considered such nationalisms progressive, even if even progressive, nationalisms such considered liberals The

the Russian liberals perceived perceived liberals Russian the The liberals were willing to cooperate with them, hoping to re to hoping them, with cooperate to willing were liberals The rdmnn political predominant the e ot ucsfl xml o a dialogue a of example successful most he rpnns f hs iw rudd hi agmns n the on arguments their grounded view this of proponents Russian liberals. Partic liberals. Russian

ed not between the Kadets and Kadets the between not

of separate nations nations separate of xander I to the Finnish estates. In their interpretation, their In estates. Finnish the to I xander s te borderlands the n trata and impeded their dialogue with the rest the with dialogue their impeded and trata

296 w of socialw of development. force,

the the

ularly, the ularly, “hypertrophy of national feelings.” national of “hypertrophy understood

failure to estimate the force of the the of force the estimate to failure the nationalists in the borderland the in nationalists the h Nationa the

the wih wer which ,

y nationalists, but between but nationalists,

as organic units organic as disregarded the disregarded l Democratic Party, Party, Democratic l .

In this case, the the case, this In

e incompatible incompatible e arguments

, which , latters’

the the

on on in s -

CEU eTD Collection ground a juridical status juridical a ground politicians principles, any without possibilitytheminpractice. toimplement free a had right the by supported government, The 1910. in question” discus parliamentary the during any influence had political forces sufficient political these of None circumstance. practical a by complicated been not had it if ideal almost seem would Finns the and liberals Russian the between without altered be not could Finland present within Finland of resolution run long the In institutions. legisl parallel Finns the prac in However, state. separate a than rather Jell of view original Finland of status the of interpretation another offered issue, this state institution practice, In non yet separate, In time. any at status Finland’s defined declaration this The liberal theoreticians of law, who formulated the position of the Kadets on Kadets the of position the formulated who law, of theoreticians liberal The Th ie en, h Kdt avctd fra recognition formal a advocated Kadets the being, time – Pls cs esnily ifrd rm h Finnish the from differed essentially case Polish e

appealed

any alterations in the status of status the in anyalterations ad re hand this statement this ation, hoeia cnrvris and controversies theoretical s might ofthe occur withthe only consent h faeok f usas e cntttoa institutions constitutional new Russia’s of framework the poiin o this to opposition - sovereign, state in accordance with terminology of Georg Jellinek. Georg of terminology with accordance in state sovereign, garding Finland. Meanwhile, Meanwhile, Finland. garding

inek. ih the with to historical to for Poland Poland for

In p In implied ,

the position of the Kadets the of position the

articular, for Kokoshkin, Finland was a was Finland Kokoshkin, for articular, uul osn o te usa ad ins legislative Finnish and Russian the of consent mutual rights of the Kingdom of Poland of Kingdom the of rights

, that any changes of the competence of the Finnish Finnish the of competence the of changes any that h Fns advocated Finns the that would be similar to that of that to similar be would that the Grand Duchy’s Grand the

as a kind of a gift, which could be taken back taken be could which gift, a of kind a as Finland could take place only by onlyplace take couldFinland

297 the

tice he advocated similar principles similar advocated he tice

ultimate decision on the status of of status the on decision ultimate h lbrl cud only could liberals the boiled down boiled

consent. Such a compromise compromise a Such consent. Finnish the - wing

da ht iln ws a was Finland that idea in n h “Finnish the on sion

one . It . and centrist majority centrist and institutions. institutions.

and claimed and

that the status of of status the that

. Yet, the Polish Polish the Yet, . Finland. Yet, this Yet, Finland. to was closer to the to closer was Staatsfragment postponing the postponing

defend the way ofway the .

o the For on this on

the

as ,

CEU eTD Collection understanding of autonomy and federation and autonomy of understanding positions ideological initial time, same the At partner. were any agreements, serious regarding theconcept attempts. Meanwhile, government. the with directly bargain to sought and partner serious a as Kadets the regard not did Poles the because Duma. the in delegation Polish the educate” pol the situation, this In country. it contrary, the on but disintegration, Russia’s to lead not did right the Kadets, limits the the themselves, Poles the of position liberal the with ground common Duma suppor without provinces parliament central Finns the to Poland of Kingdom (mainlyin the of borders the beyond lived minority Polish significant a that fact the to due complicated more was autonomy Polish the of exponents the onl was

Russian likewise eae i became

A y one among one y the Polish demands Polish the - ttempts to reach an agreement between the Ukrainian groups and the Ka the and groups Ukrainian the between agreement an reach to ttempts wing of what the Kadets understood under understood Kadets the what of the the

liberals. en t frg te osblt of possibility the forego to meant Wester complicated, because the the because complicated, Russian Russian vle i te usa pltc. hs made This politics. Russian the in nvolved ;

this this T a n provi n time was lost. The Poles and the Kadets did not manage to make notmanage theKadetstomake did and Poles was The lost. time

he Poles asked Poles he whole range of arguments of range whole parties, parties, t. ol ma leaving mean would For these reasons these For weakened th weakened nces). Therefore, for the Poles to insist on a status similar similar status a on insist to Poles the for nces).Therefore, However, in which t which in i s

cy . However, this interaction was complicated by the the by complicated was interaction this However, . who

of the Kadets was reduced to reduced was Kadets the of se for

latter ideological premises ideological the Poles were no more successfu more no were Poles the hey tried to prove that the Polish autonomy Polish the that prove to tried hey too much too former’s ,

the Ukrainians referred to the tra the to referred Ukrainians the 298

, the Polish Polish the ,

of autonomy of

did not regard the regard not did

term the T sending their representatives to the the to representatives their sending the that hese attempts were unsuccessful, unsuccessful, were attempts hese

own and r co ir

were also incompatible also were the Poles the

their claims went far beyond far went claims their position in the polemics with polemics the in position autonomy. - representatives . nationals nationals

helped to helped diverged from those of those from diverged t necessary it

used

former the A . The position of position The .

n h Western the in attempts to “re to attempts ccording to the to ccording

strengthen the the strengthen

as a serious serious a as in the State the in

to find a a find to i s in l dition of dition . In their their In . dets uch - CEU eTD Collection force. and impossible was this that thought right The interests. common possibility the assumed They possible. was this that argued liberals The state? constitutional a into it transforming while empire Russian the of integrity the preserving of task movements regime Yet, sta of questions the of solution practical a to discussions theoretical “re to hoped Kadets the time, same the At agreements. tactical of possibility the exclude not alth Ukrainians, the with alliance continuous a of possibility the reduced allowed t although case, Russian the for irrelevant was federation of idea the view, from stage transitory a as federation the regarded experience, German the to referring theorists, legal Kadets’ by defined was competence of sphere whose in wide view, their In statehood. of understanding Kadets’ the with compatible hardly was theory This of from up, bottom latter The Dragomanov. and Bakunin the n hi ve, t a psil ol atr ieaiain f the of liberalization after only possible was it view, their in - state From their point of view, t view, of point their From educate” the Ukrainians. For this, as they thought, they needed to move from from move to needed they thought, they as this, For Ukrainians. the educate” . In view of view In

stitutions. For the Kadets, the For stitutions.

o the for - of statehood , with the exception for the Finns the for exception the with , wide institutions. The latter were understood as a federation of federation a as understood werelatter The institutions. wide

find the the autonomy

ing the

local communities local

meant meant a ground for uniting the nations nations the uniting for ground a failure of the dialogue between the liberals and liberals the between dialogue the of failure a

union of states towards a unitary state. unitary a towards states of union

a legal order order legal a h aoe etoe sense. mentioned above the - wing opponents of of opponents wing he national movements national he autonomy was autonomy that implied the delegation of delegation the implied , by way of of way by , embodied

the borderlands could only be be only could borderlands the 299 , the central state institutions. state central the

one

the the attribute of the of attribute the

may wonder how feasible was feasible how wonder may , above all, in the activity of state of activity the in all, above , larger association larger liberals, the Russian nationalists, nationalists, Russian the liberals, in the empire on the basis of of basis the on empire the in

would want to separate the the separate to want would The difference of theories theories of difference The

sovereignty from sovereignty

The te reorganization. te

Russia s local a local ,

all refore, in their their in refore, up to the level level the to up ough this did this ough

the national the Besides the the Besides communes. retained political n he Kadets he uthorit

ies the the the the by - , CEU eTD Collection regime? Generally, it is possible to conclude that that conclude to possible is it Generally, regime? with struggle common a in aims common formulating natio the and liberals the between rapprochement theoretical can nations the between compromise a of result a as integrity the Therefore borderlands. certain of separation circumstances admits it experience political practical of “re to Kadets the of hope The admit. to ready under the conform not did autonomy of understanding their and aims Their liberals. the of beliefs initial the with compatible the of exception between nationalities borderlands the right the with dispute compromise to ready were they whether was, stake at question The movements. national the of behavior political the on depended ways, right the and liberals the between debate the of d outcome Russia’s to lead inevitably would liberation the parties, wing give. Russia from borderlands was unrealistic was hs iw usind h vr ie o “ieae Russia,” “liberated of idea very the questioned view This

The analysis of the three cases three the of analysis The ask might One that

character uh thing a such of did not lead to lead not did Finn in principle. in the .

in Russia. in Russia. - s wing parties, the liberals sought liberals the parties, wing , the national movements followed the aims that were hardly hardly were that aims the followed movements national the ,

world mr seii qeto: a i psil to possible it was question: specific more a no matter how much autonomy much how matter no existed for some time, emerged in absolutely specific specific absolutely in emerged time, some for existed At th At war, disintegration, but rather to strengthening the inner ties ties inner the strengthening to rather but disintegration,

was e same time, time, same e

when not

in realized standing of autonomy that the liberals were were liberals the that autonomy of standing

this

oeg occupation foreign 300 -

educate” the national activists by means means by activists national the educate” dissertation demonstrated that demonstrated dissertation

, which, however, does not mean that mean not does however, which, , the constitutional Russia, if Russia, constitutional the there were serious impediments impediments serious were there a movement nal question of preserving Russia’s Russia’s preserving of question on

to prove that the autonomy of of autonomy the that prove to the the center would center the hi iiil clai initial their - ig oiiin, n many in politicians, wing “autocratic e to led ee ls is purely its lose never s since since

snerto. The isintegration. on the ground of of ground the on

- o te right the for bureaucratic” the ms. be achieve e facto de only one only with ready to ready I the n

the

on ir a -

CEU eTD Collection Kadets, in their turn, represented themse represented turn, their in Kadets, of case the in only one become could t though even dialogue a for side adequate Kadets the Poles, the for Thus, revolution. the against struggle the in ally conflicts inner byweakened auton of question the Russia with negotiate to sought which state,” foreign a of “delegation a as themselves perceived koło Polish case that means This identical. not are game it However, ac in what, Moreover partners. both for same the be must rules reached point certain a with autonomy half other game. the of participants both for beneficial mutually be would that non a imagine to possible understanding an p to agree oftactics. onthelevel not did movements national the and liberals way the arthner it becomes it would be disadvantageous for both sides. However, such a compromise compromise a such However, sides. both for disadvantageous be would What does this mean in the context of the present study? present the of context the in mean this does What T

only i only rah n gemn ec sd hd o ae n adequate an have to had side each agreement an reach o and its aims. its and towards towards - way, way, cordance with these rules, would be favorable for each of the participants. the of each for favorable be would rules, these with cordance may well n the case, when both sides are sides both when case, the n more difficult the participants may find a point of equilibrium (for example, example, (for equilibrium of point a find may participants the was was uh n gemn. h polm a ta te ia am o the of aims final the that was problem The agreement. an such happen that the notionthe that happen ever reached. ever However, However, - competence zero sum game, when there is a possibility of a compromise a of possibility a is there when game, sum zero ,

would be willing to make concessions in order to find an find to order in concessions make to willing be would

to reachan agreement. neither in the Polish, nor in the in nor Polish, the in neither To

of use the use each lves as the future government of government future the as lves

a the hey

complete defeat of the government. The The government. the of defeat complete 301 of the sides plays its own game, in which in game, own its plays sides the of that each

coincide, which only left only which coincide,

aware of the “rules” of the game. These These game. the of “rules” the of aware local institutions). Diverging from this this from Diverging institutions). local omy. The Poles assumed that Russia, Russia, that assumed Poles The omy. as

terminology of the “game th “game the of terminology

sisted pursuing the Polish aims. Polish the pursuing sisted ,

both parties should should parties both side

holds holds about The members of the the of members The Ukrainian case such such case Ukrainian ecpin of perception By meeting each each meeting By

the rules the an opportunity an

the liberated the were not an not were understand eory,” i eory,” may

of They

the the t is t the be an , CEU eTD Collection remain relevant Ukraine and Russia in events formulating meaningless implement were b only actors main the stage, the this in that is answer federation The transformation? and autonomy of projects any decision. side each because impossible, autonomy any Kadets, the to according Therefore, Ukraine. of population the represent to right their Kade the of view the In intellectuals. of group a only were wh nation, Ukrainian the of representatives as themselves itself against struggle common their in Russians of allies natural the were Poles the that thought they time, same the Poland of the futurestatus discussed and Russia

ak f uooy was autonomy of talk not the way fe icmail wt ec ohr Mn o the of Many other. each with incompatible often Wh s A

of the entire the of

imilar situation situation imilar at n practice. in

initially

for no idea can be implemented w implemented be can idea no for

conclusions could be made in order to understand the significance of the of significance the understand to order in made be could conclusions in the it appearedit vn nelsi poet n ie cn e elzd A te lat the As realized. be can idea no projects unrealistic even

space of the former Russian former empire.space ofthe p opulation of the Ukraine. I Ukraine. the of opulation However the occured

premature until until premature egan to egan in the eyesof Thus, autocracy.

did not consider the other side as authorized to make make to authorized as side other the consider not did demonstrate

, this does not mean that these these that mean not does this , in emerg the Ukrainian case. The Ukrainian activists saw saw activists Ukrainian The case. Ukrainian transformation transformation

e its counterpartits te da o fdrto ad autonomy and federation of ideas the , 302 and various projects various and n could one

ithout ithout each party in this this in party each as if they had the righttheythe if ashad

n this s this n otx of context this this

se see a clear striving striving clear a see . was

ituation

preliminary stage. preliminary ereas projects ts, they they ts, u beginning. but , for the Kadets, they they Kadets, the for ,

that they formulated they that ,

dialogue perceived perceived dialogue

usas political Russia’s a compromise wa compromise a were still to decide to projects were were projects

had to prove prove to had also also

for W ad to hard At this this At

ithout it such .

est At s

CEU eTD Collection Osvobozhdenie ezhenedel’nikMoskovskii Kriticheskoe Hromads’kaDumka Finliandiia Periodicals Uchrezhdeniia Gosudarstvennoi dumy Gosudarstvennaia duma. SozyvZakonodatel’nye 2. zaiavleniia, vnesennye osnovanii na st. 55 Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tipografiia, 1906 Rossiia. Public Documents f. 727 f. gosudarstvennyiRossiiskii istoricheskii archiv (RGIA) f. Rossiiskii 579P.N.Miliukovf. f. FederatsiiGosudarstvennyiRossiiskoi arkhiv (GARF) Leo Mechelin (FinnishArkistolaitos Archive) National Dokumenty Aleksand Archiwum Nauk Akademii (APAN) Polskiej Archives

1062. M.A.Taube 279 523 Konstitutsionno

Emmanuil Nolde Peter Struve

Primary Sources

Gosudarstvennaia Duma: Stenograficheskie otchety. SozyvI,II, III, IV.

gosudarstvennyi arkhiv sotsial’no

obozrenie Collection (Box 93)

- a Demokraticheskaia partiia

Lednicki

ego (No. III

Bibliography .

St.Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tipografiia, 1907

- 123)

- 1914 -

politicheskoi istorii (RGASPI) istorii politicheskoi 303

St. St.

CEU eTD Collection 1905 ______. St.Petersburg, 1901 Borodkin M.M. politychnykh partii Bogatopartiina Ukrains’ka derzhava. Programny dokumeny pershikhukrains’kikh Universitete ______. upravleniiu Dumy P.N.Miliukova 13maia1908 goda pri rassmotrenii zaprosov poFinliandskomu ______Finliandskogo Berendts E.N. Unive Otto.Bauer, 1 (1906). ______. “Po voprosu obavtonomii ravnopraviii natsional’nostei” Ukrainskii Vestnik M.M.Stasiulevicha, 1913. ______. Wybó Baudouin deCourtenay, “AutonomiaJan. Polski” In: Idem. odwagę Miejcie myślenia… pism Balicki, Zygmunt. politika Bakunin, Mikhail “Federalism, sotsialism antiteologizm” i Idem, Filosofiia,sotsiologiia, Published Vestnik Evropy Ukrainskaia zhizn’ Ukrainskii v vedomostiRusskie Russkaia sprava:Ridna visty Dums’ki Rech’ Rada Przegląd Wszechpolski Prawda Pravo Okrainy Rossii

. . Warszawa:

rsity Minnesota of Press, 2000. pismr publicystycznych 1898 z lat

Moscow: Izdatel’stvo “Pravda,” 1989

mysl’ .

Sources . _ St.Petersburg, 1910.

T St.Petersburg, 1901 estnik . .

he Question Nationalitiesof and Social Democracy Kratkii obzor finansov finansovogo i upravleniia Velikogokniazhestva K Sovremennoe polozhenie russkogo dela na finliandskoi okraine Ob istochnikakh finliandskogo prava. Pervaia lektsiia, chita St.Petersburg, 1900.

Natsional’nyi territorial’nyi i priznak vavtonomii. St.Petersburg: Tipografiia Juridicheskoe polozhenie Finliandii. Zametki popovodu otzyva seima 18

Ośrodek Politycznej, Myśli 2008. finliandskomuvoprosu. Stat’i po povodu rechi chlena Gosudarstvennoi “Egoism narodowy wobec etiki” In: Idem, Parlamentarizm. Wybor . .

Kiev: “Poshuk,” 1992.

- 1927

. .

Kraków: Ośrodek My 304

Minneapolis, London: śli Politycznej,śli 2007 nnaiaImp. v SPb. .

St.Petersburg, 99 .

CEU eTD Collection ______. Die Lehre von denStaatenverbindungen Jellinek, Georg. Allgemeine Staatslehre. Berlin: Verlagvon O. Häring, 1905. Jelenev F. 1912 Iashenko, A.S. ______. Tvory u50 tomakh ______. Illiustrirovannaia istoriia Ukrainiskogo naroda pol’za,” 19 Grushevskii, Mikhail. Ocherk istoriiukrainskogo naroda “Nauka,” 2001 ______Petersburg: Tipografiia V.Bezobrazova, 1 Gradovskii, Aleksander. Sistemymestnogo upravleniia zapade na Evropy v i Rossii Wybór myśli politycznych społecznychi Grabski, Władysław. “Myśli oRze St.Petersburg, 1891 Gorenberg, M.Teoriia soiuznogo gosudarstva v trudakh sovremennykh publitsistov Germanii Gessen, Vladimir. Avtonomiia, federatsiia natsional’nyi i vopros “Pravo,” 1906. I.V.,Gessen Kaminka A.I (eds.) No. 16(1908) ______Germanson R.G. juristov R. Erich, avtonomiia Pol’shi podannym pressy Drel’, Raznitsa mezhdu russkim osvoboditel’nym dvizheniem i programmy. Svod ob’’iasneniia i programmy ______slovo,” 1882 ______Tipografiia A.M.Gran’, 1905 velikorusska ______. i Pol’sha Istoricheskaia Tipografiia “Rabotnika” i “Gromady,” 1881 Mikhail. Dragomanov, Dmowski, Roman. Germaniia, Rossiia pol’skii i vopros “Pokorenie Finliandii R. Danielson ______. Chykalenko, Evhen. .

______.

St.Petersburg, 1908 Uchenie oFinliandskomgosudarstve 04 Gosudarstvenno .

. “Vol’nyi soiuz” . Politicheskaia programma obshchestva Soedinenie Finliandii s Rossiiskoi derzhavoiu. Po povodu sochineniia K.Ordina sochineniia povodu Po derzhavoiu. Rossiiskoi s Finliandii Soedinenie .

. . “Gosudarstvo provintsiia” i Idem. Sochineniia . “Statia 2rossiiskikh osnovnykhzakonov finliandskaia i konstitutsiia” Teoriia federalizma.Teoriia Opytsinteticheskoi teorii prava gosudarstva i

ihi Aesnrvc Bknn Kritiko Bakunin. Aleksandrovich Mikhail Gosudarstvenno Tvory .

Shchodenn . ” . St.Petersburg, 1890

Kiev: Rada, 2003. - . rvve oohne iladi ovscei inostrannykh osveshchenii v Finliandii polozhenie pravovoe

– yk (1907 .

“Vil’na spilka.” Opyt ukrainskoi politico Konstitutsionnoe gosudarstvo. Sbornik statei - pravovoe polozhenie Finliandii czpospolitej” Autonomia, Reforma, Edukacja obywatelska. .

Lviv: “Svit,” 2002 .

Warsaw: Tipografiia okruzhnogo shtaba, 1906 .

– 878 Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1988

1917). Kiev: Tempora, 2004. v. 1. . v.1. .

Genève: Tipografiia “Gromady,” 1884

St.Petersburg, 1893 305

“Zemskii Soiuz . .

v. 1. . . St.Petersbur

Wien, 1882 St.Petersburg: “Obshchestvennaia

- igaihsi ocherk biograficheskii . .

St.Petersburg, 1913 sovremennym pol’skim i St.Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo .

. St.Petersburg

St.Petersburg, 1892 a demokratiia ia . g

. , 1909 ” Genève: “Vol’noie - sotsial’noi .

, 1906. St. .

Petersburg: Jur’ev. . . .

St. . . .

Genève: Pravo .

Kazan, .

CEU eTD Collection Lototsky, Oleksander. Storinky Mynuloho St.Petersburg, 1864 Lokhvitskii, Aleksander. Guberniia, ee zemskie pravitel’stven i University of Torronto Press, 1996 Ab Anthology Ukrainian of Thought from 1995 1710to Lindheim, and Ralph s’’ezd RSDRP. Mart 1898 goda. Dokumentymaterialy i ______. (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1970) Lenin, “Pravo,” 1909 ______. Lazarevskii, Nikolai. Avtonomiia Kozicki, Stanisław. Historia Ligi Narodowej Korkunov N.M. ______. ______. ______. SergeiKorf, Korevo, Konstitutsionnoe gosudarstvo. Sbornik statei 1905 ______. vlasti ______. 18. ______. 40 (1905) voprosu ______Moscow: Tipograffi Kokoshkin, Fedor. “Avtobiografiia” “Russkie vedomos inostrannykh juristov. SPb., 1908” ______. ______. Kistiakovsky, Bogdan. St.Petersburg: Tipografiia “Tovarishc chemuK pokakim i prichinam stremitsia Soiuz 17Oktiabria i chto onotvergaiet ______. Ueber Staatsfragmente ______. Obshchee uchenie ogosudarstve ( 1910) . .

Moscow, 1896 Vladimir

o Nikolai.

pravakh .

Federalism .

. Kolonial’nye konferentsii voprosuK o juridicheskoi prirode gos “Proekt ob’’asnieinei programmy sotsial Zakonodatel’nye akty perekhodnogo vremeni. 1904 Gosudarstvennyi stroi Avstralii Oblastnaia avtonomiia i edinstvo Rossii “ “ “R.Erich. Gosudarstvenno “Oblastnaia avtonomiia ee i predely” Moskovskii ezhenedel’nik 4(1907) Gosudarstvennyi stroi Kanady Finliandskoe Velikoe Kniazhestvo

“O prave natsii na samoopredelenie” Idem,Izbrannye Nemetskie Doklad Doklad po Finliandskomuvoprosu

natsional . ia “Russkikhia vedomostei,” 1913.

. Luckyj, George S.N. (eds.) Towards and Intellectual History Ukraine. of

Georg .

organizatsionnogo St.Petersburg, 1908.

’ professora nostei

Jellinek kakmyslitel’ chelovek i .

St.Petersburg, 1906 .

Kriticheskoe obozrenie

detsentralizatsii hestva Pechatnogo Stanka,” b.d. . i Heidelberg

peterburgskie . . -

Iaroslavl’: Gubernskoie pravlenie, 1911 pravovoe polozhenie Finliandii v osveshchenii Warsaw, 1934.

biuro . .

London: “Myśl Polska,” 1964 St.Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia pol’za, 1905

. Helsingfor

Helisingfors: . 306

St.Petersbu s . ’’

, 1896.

. St.Petersburg, 1910 St,Petersburg, 1890

ezdu

upravlenuia

udarstva organov i gosudarstvennoi .

chinovniki ti” 1863 . . .

Moscow: Tipografiia O.L.Somovoi, Torronto, Buffalo, London: The - Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1958

demokraticheskoi partii” Pervyi zemskikh , 1909, vol. IV. s:

v.3

tov. Vladimir Chicherin, 1911. rg: N.K.Martynov, 1908

tov. Vladimir Chicherin, 1912. . nye uchrezhdeniia

- Moscow, Moscow, 1911 1913. Sbornik statei.

i ”

zakonodatel Russkie

- i 1908

gorodskikh

proizvedeniia .

. St.Petersburg:

. vedomosti

. ’

stva .

. deiatelei

” Pravo .

, .

po .

CEU eTD Collection ministrov “Po voprosu o merakh nasluchai besporiadkov P Polnoie sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi 2 Partiia sotsialistov Partiia “Soiuz 17Oktiabria” Jaroslavl’, 1903 Palienko, N.N. Suverenitet. Istoricheskoe razvitie idei suvereniteta eiei pravovoe znachenie St.Petersburg, 1889 Ordin, Kesar'. Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1905 Ob otmene stesnenii malorusskogo pechatnogo slova 1906 Ob avtonomii Pol’shi. Izdanie Soiuza 17Oktiabria K.Kowalewski, 1907 Nowodworski, Franciszek. Koło polskie wPierwszej Izbie Państwowej Rosyjskej Lissnera, 1906. Napadki na EssaysOther Mill, John Stuart.“Considerations on Representative Government” Idem. On Liberty and ______. Trebovaniiu” 2013 ______. 2005 voprosy v Rossii). M Miliukov, P.N. Mikhnovsky, Mykola. Samostyina Ukraina (Lviv: Drukarnia Udilova, 1900) ______. etim zaglaviem zasluzhennym professorom N.D. Sergeevichem ______. Perevedena dopolnena i primechaniiami po russkim dokumentam ______. Mechelin, Leo. Précis dudroit public du grand “Osvobozhdeniie,” 1905 Materialy povyrabotke russkoi konstitutsii. Izdanie redaktsii “Osvobozhdeniie St.Petersburg: “Obshchestvennaia pol’za,” 1909 Martov L.,Maslov P.,Potresov A. Obshchestvennoe dvizhenie v Rossii v nachale XXveka Liberal’noe dvizhenie v Rossii, 1902

ol’skii vopros v gazete “Rus.’” . .

Rossiiskoi

partiiu narodnoi svobody vozrazheniia i na nikh .

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008 Pokoreniie Finliandii. Opyt opisaniia po neizdannym istochnikam K voprosuK ob avtonomii osnovnykh i zakonakh. Kritika broshury, izdannoipod Konstitutsiia Finliandii v izlozhenii mestnogo senatora L.Mekhelina. Nepriemlemyi proekt, sostavlennyi russlim soveshianiem

. Vospominaniia God bor’by: publitsisticheskaia khronika, 1905

Natsional’nyi vopros. (Proiskhozhdenie natsional’nosti n i - . revoliutsionerov. Dokumenty materialy i

oscow: Gosudarstvennaia publichnaia istoricheskaia biblioteka Rossii, . imperii

- 1906 .

1901 Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2000 .

Moscow: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1991 St.Petersburg: Izdanie gazety 1905 “Rus’”, god .

- Imperii. 1905 .

Moscow .

Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001 Sobranie vtoroe -

duché Finlandeduché v - , 1914

307 2000 Finliandii .

Moscow: .

St.Petersburg: Tipografiia .

vol.3 . v.1 ” . . .

- Osobye Moscow: Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1996 2 “Pechatnia S.P. Iakovleva,” .

St.Petersburg, 1833 -

. Helsingfors 1906

Berlin, 1903. .

St.Petersburg, 1888

. zhurnaly Moscow: Moscow: “Kniga po

Tipografiia G. .

. Helsingfors, 1909 atsional’nye , 18 .

v. 1

Soveta . ” 86 .

Paris, . .

. Warszawa:

. v. 7.

v.1 . . .

CEU eTD Collection Vitte, Sergei. “Obshchestvennaia pol’za,” 1906. Vasilevski, Leon.Sovremennaia Pol’sha i politicheskieee stremleniia Ukrains’ka suspil’no Po Tyrkova (1900 Taube, Mikhail. Petrograd: 18 Tagantsev, Nikolay. Perezhitoe. Uchrezhdeniie Gosudarstvennoi Dumyv 1905 sostavlennyi Svod zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii, poveleniemgosudaria imperatora Polskiego Studnicki, Władysław. Konstytucya Rosyjska prawno i ______. Russkaia mysl’ 1(1912) Struve, Peter. “Obshcherusskaia kul’tura ukrainskii i partikuliarizm. Ukraintsu” Otvet Stecki, WJan. sprawie autonomii Królestwa Polskiego Shipov, Dmitrii. Vospominaniia i Dumy operezhitom “Pravo,” Sovremennyekonstitutsii. Sbornik deistvuiush v.1 S”ezdy konferentsii i 1902 Sergeevskii N.D. Sbornik deistvuiushikh konstitutsionnykh zakonov “Rossiia. Osnovnye Gosudarstven ______. Wilhelm Die Riehl, bürgerliche Gesellschaft Rossii Nation. Wien, 1899. Renner, Karl [Pseudonym: Synopticus], Zur Österriechischen Nationalitätenfrag ROSSPEN, 1998. Protokoly Tsentral’nogo Komiteta Konstitutsionno St.Peter Protokoly konferentsii rossiiskikh natsional’no i 1995 Programmy politicheskikh partii Rossii konets XIX liticheskikh Issledovanii, 2007. - 3. . .

skoe zakonodatel’stvo X –

sburg: Tipografiia Prokhorova, 1908

1917) -

Villiams, Ariadna. Na putiakh k svobode 1907. .

Warszawa: Nakładem E. Księgarni Wende i SP, 1906 .

- St.Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia Tipografiia, 1892 Vospominaniia. Tsarstvovanie Nikolaia II. . aia Gos. aia Tipografiia, 1919

Patriotica. Politika, kul’tura, religi Mos v

Grazhdanskoe obshchestvo “Zarnitsy” vospominaniia o .

K voprosuK ofinliandskoi avtonomii I osnovnykh zakonakh

1 v. 1 - cow, 2007 2.

- politychna dumkapolitychna v Dokumenty 20stoletti: mat i Konstitutsionno

- 3

- XX vv.XX

nye Zakony 1906” 23aprelia Sovremennye konstitutsii. - Demokraticheskoi partii. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2000. Moscow: Iuridicheskaia literature, 1994 .

. . St.Petersburg: Tipografiia A.E.Landau, 1883 tragicheskoi sud’be predrevoliutsionnoi Rossii

Stuttgart, 1851 ikh konstitutsionnykh aktov.

- sotsialisticheskikh partii. 16 308 ia, sotsializm . .

Moscow: Moskovskaia Shkola Demokraticheskoi St.Petersburg: “Pravo”, 1907 –

nachalo XX vv. Moscow: ROSSPEN, .

. - Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2007

państwowe stanowisko Królestwa Kraków: G.Gebethner Spółka, i 1907 Berlin, 1922. .

Moscow: “Respublika,”Moscow: 1997 . .

Part 1. Nikolaia Pervogo .

partii. Moscow: erialy St.Petersburg:

St.Petersburg: . . -

20 aprelia 1907 B.M. St.Petersburg, – . e: e: Staat und

1906 . 1983

v.1 .

. . .

CEU eTD Collection Donchenko, S.P. Liberal’ni parti 2007 Dameshek, Lev, Remnev, Anatolii (eds.), Sibir’ v sostave Rossiiskoi Imperii and the Russian Underground, 1899 Copeland, William R. The Uneasy Alliance: Missouriof Press, 1972 Liberals, 1899 Copeland, William R. “Relations between the Finnish Resistance Movement andthe Russian University Press Color of SelfLocal Conroy Univ Chmielewski, Edward. The Polish Question in the Russian St 1988. Carr W. AHistory Germany of 1815 Kritika 7,3(2006) Burbank, “AnJane Imperial Rights Regime: Law and Citizenship in Russianthe Empire” Słownik biograficzny Brzoza, Czesław, Stepan, Kamil Posłowe Polscy w parlamencie Rosyjskim, 1906 Nationality in the Victorian Age Boyce D. George O’Day, and AlanGladstone (eds.), and Ire 1900 Duncan.Bell, The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and Future the of the World Order, 1860 d Bedeker, Khans. “Razmyshleniia o metode istorii poniatii” Idem.Istoriia poniatii, istoriia 2004. natsional’naia politika v gody pervoi mirovoi voiny (1914 Bakhturina, Polaków Adamski, Łukasz. Nacionalista postępowy: Mychaiło Hruszewski ego i poglądy na Polskę i German Critique 53 (1991). Abraham Secondary Sources 5, 12i 13 maia 1908goda Zaprosy pofinliandskomu upravleniiu. Gosudarstvennaia Duma. Zasedanie 1,5 i 15 fevralia, ROSSPEN, 2006. Zakonotvorchestvo dumskikh 1906 fraktsii Cambridge:Baehr. Polity Press, 199 Weber, Max. The Russian Revolutions. Edited and translated by Gordon C. Wells andPeter zemskikh obshchestvennykh i uchrezhdenii Vasil’chikov, Aleksander. O samoupravlenii. iskursa, istoriia metaphor ersity of Tennessee Press, 1970. . .

Princeton andOxford: Princeton University Press, 2009 ,

Mary Schaeffer . ,

Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN,2011 - G Government, and State the Council before and during World I War ary Aleksandra. Okrainy Rossiiskoi imperii: gosudarstvennoe upravlenie i - 1904” Charles E. Timberlake (ed.) Essays onRussian Liberalism . “Max . “Max Weber: Modernist Anti

Warszawa: Wydawnictwo sejmowe, 2001 .

(ed.). ado, 1998 . .

St. Petersburg, 1909 Moscow: NLO, 2010

Emerging Democracy in Imperial Late Russia: Case Studies on . i Ukrainyi (1900

Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010 .

- 5 1904

–

1985 .

Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1973 - . 1917. Dokumentymaterialy i

. St.Petersburg: Tipografiia Pratz, 1872

Collaboration between Finnishthe Opposition London, Baltimore, Melbourne: Edward Arnold, Sravnitel’nyi obzor russkikh inostrannykh i -

Pluralism Polish Question” andthe New .

- . 309 1919)

Dniprodzerins’k, 2004 .

–

land: Politics,land: Religion and 1917 gg.) ate Duma .

. Moscow: Moscow: ROSSPEN,

Knoxwille: . Moscow: .

Moscow: NLO, . . Niwot: Niwot:

- University 1917. .

v. 1 .

. -

- CEU eTD Collection of Maxof Weber, Carl Schmitt andFranz Neumann Kelly, Duncan. StateThe of the Political: Conceptions of Jussila, Osmo. Velikoe Kniazhestvo Finliandskoe 1996 Identity the in Austrian Empire, 1848 PeterJudson, M. Exclusive Revolutionaries: Liberal Politics, Dissertation: Ohio State University, 1971 GlennJanus, Alfred. The Polish Koło, the Russian Du 1863 Faith.Hillis, Between Empire and Nation: Urban Politics, Community, andViolence in Years of Tsarism. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1998. Heuman, Susan. Kistiakovsky: Struggle the for National and Constitutional Rights in Lastthe 1772 Hagen, William W.Germans, Poles and Jews. NationalityThe Conflict thein Prussian East, Central Asian Studies, 2008 and Hagen, Mark Bloomington andIndianapolis: 2007 von Hagen, Anatolyi and Remnev Russian Empire: (eds.) Space, People, Power, 1700 Hagen, Mark. “Federalisms Pan and Nineteenthin Century Germany Gross, Michael B. The War Against Catholicism: Liberalism andAnti Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005 Germany’s Unifications: Two Anticipations, Experiences, Responses ______. “How did German Federalism ShapeUnification?” Speirs R.,Breuilly (eds.) J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001 Green, Abigail. 1886 Freeman, William Edward. The National Democratic Movement the in Kingdom Poland, of Press, 1986 Freeden, Michael. NewThe Liberalism. A Press, 2001 Russ The Sheila. Fitzpatrick, natsional’nostei” AbImperio, 4(2001) Ferro, Mark. Engman, Finliandtsy Max. v Peterburge Self Emmons Russia Emmons, Terence Doroshenko, Dmitro. Naris Ukrainy. istorii - Ukraine, 1914 Government . - - -

1907 1914 1903 . Cambridge, Massachusetts, London:

Terence, Terence, . . .

. . PhD Dissertation, Yale University, 2009 Chicago andLondon: The University Ch of PhD Dissertation: University Colorado, of 1974

p. 15 . War in aEuropean borderland: Occupations Occupation and Plans in Galicia “Voina, revoliutsiia, imperiia: Vremennoe pravitel’stvo problema i Fatherlands. State . - . - 31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982 Vucinich Wayne S. 1918 The Formation Political of Parties and the NationalFirst Elections in

Seattle: Herbert J.Ellison Center for Russian, East European, and .

a Rvlto. eod Edition. Second Revolution. ian .

Ann University Arbor: Michigan, of 2004 - Building andNation - . movements

–

(eds.).

. 1914 .

St.Pete .

n Ideologyn Socialof Reform

Lviv: . Harvard Universit

The ZemstvoThe AnExperiment Russia. in Local in Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, .

rsburg: “Evropeiskii Dom,” 2008. : Re: 310 . . “

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Helsinki: Ruslania, 2009 Svit,” 1991.

. -

imagining Empire” Jane Burbank, Mark ma Question the and of Autonomy. hood in Nineteenth icago Press, 1980

Politics and the State in the Thought .

Social Experience and National

y Press, 1983. .

xod Ofr University Oxford Oxford: .

- Houndsmills, Catholic Imagination .

Oxford: Claredon .

- Century Germany . .

- 1930 Kiev, PhD

CEU eTD Collection New Haven London: and Yale University Press, 2013 Müller, Werner.Jan Contesting Democracy: Political Ideas Kritika 13,2 (2012) Morrison, Alexander. “Metropole, Colony, andImperial Citizenship in Russianthe Empire” University Presses, 1981 Reconstruction of Russ Mohrenschildt, Dimitry Von. Toward a United States of Russia: Plans and Projects Federal of 20 Miller, Alexei, Dolbilov Mikhail (eds.) Zapadnye okrainy Rossiiskoi imperii Nineteenth Miller, Alexei. UkrainianThe Question. RussianThe Empire Nationalism and the in PAN,Wydawnictwo Neriton, 2008 Micińska, Magdalena. Merriam C.E. History of the Theory of Rossiiskie Liberaly ______. “Sergei Andreevich Muromtsev” B.S. Itenberg, V.V.Shelokhaev (eds.) nachala XX Medushevskii, Andrei. Dialog sovremene (2002) Lukianov, Milhail. “Conservatives and“Renewed Russia” 1907 Harvard University Press, 2012 ______World War I Lohr, Eric. Nationalizing the Russian Empire: CampaignThe Enemy against during Aliens 1998 Conroy (ed.) Emerging Democracy Late in Imperial Russia theof Nationalities Question in Lastthe Years of Russianthe Empire” Kujala, Antti. “The Policy the of Russian Government Toward Finland, 1905 perioda Sdvizhkov,Ingrid Schir Kotenko, Anton, Martyniuk, Olga, Aleksei. Miller, “Maloross” Aleksei Miller, Denis Semantics of Historical Time Koselleck, Culture. History andCommunity Korhonen, Outi. International Law Situated: An Analysis of the Lawyer’s Stance Towards Kling Press, 2003 Polish Kier Wise, Andrew. Aleksander Lednicki: aPole among Russians, a Russian among Poles. 1994 (eds.) Anatomiia Revoliutsii. 1917god Ketola, Eino. “Russkaia revoliutsiia nezavisimost’ i Finliandii” V.IU. Cherniaev, Ziva Galili 0 6 . . .

e, Matti. Imperskaia Finliandiia -

Russian ReconciliationRussian in Revolutionthe of 1905 .

Moscow: NLO, 2012 . Russian Citizenship from Soviet Empire to Union Reinhard. “Begriffsgeschichte and Social History” Idem, Past: Futures On the . Century .

. Moscow: Novyi Khronograf, 2010

Cambridge, Harvard Mass.: University Press, 20 . .

Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001 Budapest, New York: CEU Press, 2003 Inteligencja na rozdrożach, 1864 ia ia in Nineteenth the Century le le (eds.) “Poniatiia oRossii.” istoricheskoiK semantike imperskogo .

. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004

The Hague: The Kluwer Law International, 2000 .

St.Petersburg: Izdatel’skii Dom 2005 “Kolo,”

Sovereignty since Rousseau v Rossii: massy, partii, vlast’ m: rossiiskie konstitutsionalisty kontsa XIX

. .

311

London and Toronto: Associated

- 1918 .

New York: Columbia University . in in Twentieth

. Niwot: University of Colorado,

. 03 Warszawa: Instytut Historii

Cambridge, Massachusetts: - .

1914” Slavic Review 61,4 .

. Kitchner, 2001

St.Petersburg: “Glagol,”

Mary Schaeffer - Century Europe .

. M – .

1917: A Case oscow: NLO, . .

–

CEU eTD Collection Empire in the Mirror of the State Duma” Ilia in: Gerasimov, Kusber Jan and Alexander Semyonov, Alexander. ““The Real and Live Ethnographic ofMap Russia”: The Russian Kiev: 1999. Sarbei. V.G. (ed.) “Ukrains’ke pytannia” v Rosiis’kii imperii ( Press, 2012 Riga, Liliana. BolsheviksThe Russian the and Empire University Press, 1995 Rawson, Don C. Russian Rightists and the Revolution 1905 of Buffalo, London: University Toronto of Press, 1987 Prymak, Thomas M.Mykhailo Hrushevsky: Politics The National of Cu 1864 Porter Century Poland Porter, Brian. When Nationalism Began Hate.Imagining to Modern Politics in Nineteenth 1904 gg. Polvinen, Tuomo. Derzhava Okraina. i N.I. Bobrikov Ukrainian History Plokhy, Serhii.UnmakingImperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky Writing andthe of Princeton andOxford: Princeton University Press, 2005 Pitts, Jennifer. A Turn to Empire: Rise The Imperiaof London : Pipes, University Press, 1970 Pipes, Richard. Struve: Liberal on Left,the 2003 przemian ustrojowych monarchii habsburskej (1866 Stanisław.Pijaj, Między polskim patriotizmem ahabsburskim lojalizmem. (1971) Petrus, Joseph A. “Marx and Engels on Nationalthe Question” The 1861 Pearson, and En Palmowski, “Liberalism Jan. Government andLocal in Nineteenth Late London: C.Hurst and Company, 1981 Paasvirta J. 2001 Prostranstvo vlasti: istoricheskii opyt Rossii vyzovy i sovremen statusa Finliandii v rossiisko Novikova N.I. “Osoboegosudarstvo provintsiia: ili problema gosudarstvenno (1999) Contemporary Liberalism: the Case Bauerof and Renner” Journal Politicalof Ideologies 4 Nimni, Ephraim. “Nationalist Multiculturalism Late in Imperial Austria as a Critique of - . - .

1917 1900 ,

Richard. . gland” The

Thomas

Thomas St.Petersburg: “Evropeiskii Dom,” 1997 Harvard University 1908. Press, . . .

Finland and Europe: International Crises in Period the of Autonomy1808 San Francisco: ResearchMellen University 1991 Press, Cambridge: C

v. 2. . . Struve: Liberal on Right,the 1905

The Zemstvo Emergence andthe of Civil Society Late in Imperial Russia,

New York, Oxf .

. Russian Officialdom Crisis: in Autocracy andLocal Self

Historical Journal 45, 2(2002). Toronto, Buffalo, London: University Toronto of Press, 2005 . .

ambridge University Press, 1989 - finliandskikh otnosheniiakh” Anan’ich B.V., Barzilov S.I. (eds.) ord: Oxford University 2000 Press, .

1870

- 312 1905 .

1944

- .

1871)

l Liberalism Britain in and France . . -

Cambridge: Cambridge Univers Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard . . general

Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, . .

Kraków: Instytut Historii UJ, kinets’ XIX .

- nosti. Sborniknosti. statei Cambridge: Cambridge guberna . . Journal Politicsof 33, 3

- lture tor Finlaindiitor 1898 Century Germany – - Polacy wobec Government,

pochatok XXst.) .

- Toronto, pravovogo .

. Moscow, –

ity . 1914

- , 3 –

CEU eTD Collection on the We Weeks, Theodore R.Nation andState Late in Imperial Russia. Nationalism andRussification Umbach, Maiken (ed.) Sejmowe, 2003 Trzeciakowski, Lech. Thompson, B.John Princeton University Press, 1981 Thaden, Edward. Russification in the Baltic Provinces and Finland, 1855 organizatsiia, diial’nist’ Strilets’, V.V. Ukrains’ka Radikal’no Stolleis, Michael. Public Law Germany in Redescriptions: Yearbook of Political Thought andConcept Stenius, Henrik. “The Finnish Citizen. How a Translation Emasculated Concept”the New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 197 Starr Press Ltd, 1999. Smith, Jeremy. Bolsheviks The National the and Question, 1917 ocherk Smirnov, Gosudarstvennaia Anatolii. Duma Rossiiskoi imperii 1906 Skinner, Quentin. Visions of Politics Rossiiskie liberaly Shelokhaev, V.V. “Fedor Fedorovich Kokoshkin” B.S.Itenberg, V.V.Shelokhaev (eds.), t Semyonov Empire (eds.) Speaks Languages Out: Rationalization of and Self he Russian Empire ,

S.Frederick .

Cheliabinsk: Sotsium, 2010 stern Frontier, 1864 .

. Decentralization and Self

. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001

Studies the in Theory Ideology of Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2009 Posłowie Polscy w Berlinie, 1848 German Federalism, Present, Past, Future .

( ki nets nets XIX stolittia –

1914 .

- . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200

demokratychna partiia: vytoky, ideologiia, De Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1996 .

New York,Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2001 - 2. Government Russia,in 1830 –

1939 rik)

313

Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990 – Kiev, “Kyi

1928 ual History 8(2004) .

- Warszawa: Wydawnictwo . 23

Palgrave . vs’kii universitet, 2002 - Lo 1917. ndon: ndon: Macmillan - - 1914 1870 , 2002 Istoriko - Description in .

. Princeton:

Princeton, .

- 2 pravovoi .

. v.1.