A. A. Blok received an invitation to the post of editor in the Emergency Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government (CHSK) in March 1917, while in Petrograd on leave from the engineering and construction squad, which was preparing reserve positions for the troops of the Western Front in the Pinsk region. The poet served his military service on the margins of the imperialist war, first as a timekeeper, and then as the head of a construction party. The opportunity to cooperate in the CHSK, to get acquainted there with the innermost secrets of the overthrown regime, with unique historical materials seemed very tempting to the Block. It was not without reason that he wrote to his mother that accepting an invitation "means sitting in the Winter Palace (the seat of CHSE. - B. L.) and being informed of all the affairs"'. At the urgent request of the CHSK, the military authorities seconded the poet to the commission, and he was able to take up his duties in May. You can find a lot of interesting information about the commission in the Block's diaries, notebooks, and emails during its work at the CHSK. This is explained by the poet's passion for a new business and the breadth of his public interests. An erudite, thoughtful and subtle observer, Blok tried to understand the essence of the events taking place in Russia "through the heat of the soul, through the chill of the mind".

The CHSK was approved by the Provisional Government on March 4, 1917 (hereafter-old style dates) under the Minister of Justice. A. F. Kerensky, who held this post and the position of Prosecutor General, considered the CHSK to be his brainchild. Justifying his entry into the bourgeois Provisional Government before the Petrograd Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies, Kerensky, who fancied himself the "saviour" of the revolution and Russia, said: "I had representatives of the old government in my hands, 2 and I did not dare to let them out of my hands,... accepted the offer made to me and joined the Provisional Government as Minister of Justice" 3 . At the disposal of the Prosecutor General, the CHSK was to submit final investigation reports and send transcripts of the testimony of senior figures of the former tsarist administration. Kerensky appeared at the CHSK during the most interesting interrogations. Its chairman, the Moscow lawyer P. K. Muravyov, fellow (deputy) chairmen, Senators S. V. Ivanov, S. V. Zavadsky, and other members of the judicial department formed the business part of the commission's presidium, and its public part was represented by F. I. Rodichev (cadet) - from the State Duma, N. D. Sokolov (Menshevik) - from the State Duma. Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies and permanent Secretary of the Russian Academy of Sciences S. F. Oldenburg (cadet). 59 investigators were assigned to the CHSK, and there was a board of editors of shorthand reports of the CHSK consisting of writers A. A. Blok, M. P. Nevedomsky (Miklashevsky), L. Ya. Gurevich, and V. P. Knyazhnin, who was later introduced to it. Former dignitaries were brought to the Winter Palace for questioning, although more often they gave their testimony in the office of the Trubetskoy bastion of Petropavlovsk-

1 Alexander Blok. Collected works in 8 volumes, vol. 8, Moscow, 1963, p. 481.

2 The tsarist ministers arrested during the February Revolution were initially held in the State Duma premises and were under the jurisdiction of a commission composed of lawyers who were members of the Duma.

3 "Russkoe slovo", ZLI. 1917.

page 111

lovskaya fortress, where 91 years earlier the Decembrists K. F. Ryleev, P. I. Pestel, S. G. Volkonsky were interrogated.

Blok got carried away with his new job. "My case is terribly interesting," he wrote on May 14, "but it is really difficult and takes a lot of time and all the effort." 4 In a few more days: "I continue to delve into the history of this endless line of Russian Rougon-Maccars, or Karamazovs, or something. This fascinating novel with a thousand characters and fantastic combinations, in the spirit of most of all Dostoevsky,.. it is called the history of the Russian autocracy of the XX century " 5 . The author of the never-finished poem Retribution," full of revolutionary forebodings " - a panorama of Russia during the last two reigns - could not fail to appreciate the opportunity to see and hear "what almost no one sees or hears, what few people have to observe once in a hundred years." 6 Initially, the Unit's duties consisted of editing transcripts of interrogations. Drafts of verbatim reports by mid-June 1917 exceeded 2 thousand pages. Before the Constituent Assembly, which was originally scheduled to be convened in September CHSK was supposed to finish its work, there were about two months left, and then the Unit was entrusted with "managing all transcripts from the literary side" and attracting assistants to complete the work.

Later in exile, A. F. Romanov, a member of the CHSK Presidium, tried to discredit the transcripts of CHSK interrogations and cast a shadow on their editing. "The future researcher," he wrote, " must... treat these transcripts with extreme caution. They were not signed by anyone, were not presented to any of the interrogators, and were edited by four writers, including Blok, later a singer of Bolshevism. " 7 It is necessary to distinguish between the evaluation of transcripts of interviews in the CHSK from the standpoint of forensic investigation and from the standpoint of historical research. The signature of the interrogated person certifies the identity of what was recorded and said during the interrogation. The absence of it deprives the transcript of the interrogation of judicial evidence (this purpose was served by the interrogation protocol signed by the person under investigation). But even an unsigned transcript does not lose its informational significance for the historian; the authenticity of the information contained in it is by no means confirmed by a signature, but is verified by comparison with established facts, with other testimonies, etc.

Former chairmen of the Council of Ministers (the investigation covered the period from 1905 to 1917), ministers and chief administrators, the highest military and police officials of the capital, as well as members of the State Duma - its chairman M. V. Rodzianko, leaders of the Duma bourgeois-monarchist opposition P. N. Milyukov, A. I. Guchkov, who became ministers of the Provisional Government, testified before the commission. governments, and some others. Representatives of the so - called "dark forces" were also involved in the investigation - persons who did not hold public posts, but actively participated in court and government intrigues, for example, the maid of honor A. A. Vyrubova, a reactionary journalist and Prince M. M. Andronnikov, a businessman suspicious of his "German" connections. In total, 59 people were interrogated in transcripts. To monitor the progress of the investigation (in addition to the prosecutor's supervision), a monitoring committee was created consisting of representatives of the Petrograd and Moscow bar associations. There was also a commission of legal scholars to review legal issues and complex cases encountered in the practice of CHSK. The procedural violations hinted at by A. F. Romanov could hardly have gone unnoticed. Finally, if the defendants ' failure to sign verbatim reports of the CHSK was indeed a procedural violation, then why didn't he eliminate it himself, while in charge of the CHSK management, and start talking about it five years later, in exile?

4 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 8, p. 491.

5 Ibid., p. 493.

6 Ibid., p. 491.

7 A. F. Romanov. Emperor Nicholas II and his government. Based on the materials of the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry. "Russian Chronicle". Book 2. Paris. 1922, p. 37.

page 112

As for the alleged" editing " of the transcripts, an acquaintance with those of them that are sealed with Blok's signature and are now stored in the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the USSR Academy of Sciences refutes Romanov's slander. The work on the text did not go beyond the elimination of descriptions, spelling and punctuation errors, and the division of sentences by meaning. In the margins of the transcripts, the editor only formulated subheadings describing individual stories and episodes, making a list of topics that formed the basis of the interrogation. But they did not affect the letter, the meaning, or the style of the testimony. Even the special wish of the chairman of the CHSK regarding the transcript of Ramolik's interrogations, I. L. Goremykin, is "to make it literary, correcting it... his speech" - did not change the position of the Block, as is clear from the draft transcript, he makes a minimum of corrections that are absolutely necessary and " neutral "in relation to the meaning of 8.

After editing the transcripts, Blok was involved, as well as other literary editors, in writing the CHSK report. Later, he took up the compilation of the chapter of the report "The Last Days of the old regime", thus becoming one of the first historians of the February Revolution. His work in the CHSK influenced the poet's political views. His familiarity with the materials of the investigation revealed more and more to him the reactionary nature and immorality of the stupid and self-serving pre-revolutionary noble-official, military-police and church hierarchy. Hatred of it drew Blok closer to the "common people," to "democracy girt by the storm," as HE liked to say, repeating T. Carlyle .9 Blok's diaries, notebooks, and letters tell us "how anger matures in our hearts.. how the spirit of the people breathes in everyone" (from the Prologue to "Retribution").

Inaccessible to the public at that time (the course of the investigation was previously classified), but the data of the investigation known to Blok allowed him, as he himself thought, to more accurately judge modernity, to understand it more deeply. In response to his wife's letter (from Pskov), filled with hostility to the "left", Blok wrote:: "If you had seen and known what I know, you would have reacted differently; your point of view is somewhat philistine, you need to rise above it." 10 Six months of work in the CHSK played a certain role in the political formation of the author of "Twelve". But it wasn't a straight path.

The Bloc's attitude towards the Provisional Government (as far as it was reflected in its participation in the CHSK) remained loyal. The block editor tended to "self-censor" the CHSK if the prestige of the government demanded it. An example is the "Rodzianko incident". In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the former chairman of the State Duma, having learned in April 1914 about the provocateurism of a member of the social-Democratic faction Malinovsky, was satisfied with his removal from the Duma without any noise, without exposing the provocateur. Considering Rodzianko's political role under the new regime, the Bloc advised excluding this episode from the CHSK report. "The report requires shortening in the sense of "censorship": so far I mean only one place "where Rodzianko's name is mentioned" in connection with the Malinovsky case; perhaps fear is unacceptable, but personally I found this place very dangerous, since everything that is not fully verified can easily appear in the eyes of outsiders - proven"and . But the newspaper Pravda demanded that Rodzianko be brought to trial for harboring a provocateur!12 .

Another case in which a Block editor expressed concern about the prestige of the Provisional Government is related to the publication of a manuscript by S. E. Kryzhanovsky, who was a comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs in 1906-1911. These are notes found during a search that were not intended for prying eyes by an accomplice to government crimes: pressure during elections to the State Duma, bribery of Duma members, government subsidies to the right-wing press ("reptilny fund"), etc.-

8 Alexander Blok. Notebooks. M. 1965, p. 342; IRLI, f. 654, op. V, d. 59, ll. 1-18 (transcript of Goremykin's interrogation edited by Blok).

9 T. Carlyle. The French Revolution. Book 2. St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 31.

10 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 8, p. 496.

11 Ibid., vol. 6, Moscow, 1969, p. 445.

12 "Pravda"", 30.VI; 4. VII. 1917.

page 113

a cop because of the "intimacy" of his origin. "A. S. Tager (who oversaw the production of investigative actions - B. L.) cleverly and cruelly says that for political purposes (not only legally) it is absolutely possible to print even an autobiography, even letters from perlustration (if this is of political interest)... "We will not do this," Blok goes on to write; my conclusion is that we will act gently and tactfully, in accordance with the political situation, which requires that new accusations against the new regime should not arise. " 13
Initially, Blok was even somewhat enthusiastic about the CHSK staff (they were mostly professional lawyers). He referred to them as "the fighting ones that the country is now looking at, because they are very electrified themselves, strong radiation (of Ants)" 14 . Later, the assessment of CHSC figures changes. And not only because the Bloc had time to take a closer look at them, but also under the influence of the general aggravation of the situation, the polarization of political forces in the country. The poet's attitude to the unrest in the garrison of the Peter and Paul Fortress, which occurred on the basis of the soldiers ' distrust of the investigative authorities who conducted the case of former tsarist ministers, is characteristic. On June 10, when trying to comply with the order of the Minister of Justice of the Provisional Government to release former Finnish Governor-General Zein from custody and transfer him from the Peter and Paul Fortress to the detention facility on Furshtadtskaya Vyrubova Street, the soldiers refused to hand over the prisoners .15 When the former Minister of War Belyaev was transferred to Furshtadtskaya, Blok said, "an armed attack on the bastion was almost made; there are 5,000 garrisons in the fortress, 2,000 of them are Bolsheviks..." The poet attended a rally gathered about these conflicts. "Muravyov made a big speech, demanding power and trust in his actions." 16 "The comrades replied that everything went well-until next time," 17 according to Blok's skeptical remark. The fact is that there is still a lack of confidence in the garrison committee. "The soldiers and Manukhin (the doctor of the CHSK who supervised her detainees - B. L.) told me, "Blok wrote," that the garrison is not easy. They don't trust the committee, and they don't give prisoners who are prescribed milk or eggs... Manukhin and the commandant went to see Lunacharsky, so that he could at least influence them. There is one deep Russian truth in this seemingly absurd situation. A Russian person (a part of his soul) judges not for deeds, but for how people wore themselves. So this is "sit on our soldiers 'food" 18 .

Critical assessments of the CHSK in Blok's notes and letters have been sharpened since mid-June, and especially since the Provisional Government's shooting of a demonstration in Petrograd in early July. The words of the poet's condemnation of the intelligentsia (in a letter dated June 19), who did not understand the socialist psychology of the people, were written, as Blok himself believed, "under the impression of a palace in which (as opposed to a fortress) I hate to be there - this is the realm of disorder, gossip, tricks, confusion " 19 . And in the diary entry three days later, a political condemnation of the sub-commission for drafting the CHSK report appears: "In our editorial committee, the revolutionary spirit was not present. The revolution didn't spend the night there." These thoughts of Blok are directly related to his disturbing observations of events on the streets of Petrograd. "In the city, cadets are openly raising their heads-drummers, imperialists, bourgeois, stockbrokers, Vechernie Vremya . Really? Again - in the night, in terror, in despair? " 20 .

In the atmosphere of persecution of the Bolsheviks that had flared up since the July events, the work of the CHSK intersected with the actions of the investigative commission established by the Menynevist-SR Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet and investigating, according to Blok, "German money for recent events" (meaning the demonstration of July 3 - 5). "Mensheviks, members of the Central Committee and the Executive Committee come to the commission-

13 Alexander Blok. Collected works, vol. 7. Moscow, l. 1963, p. 285.

14 "A. A. Blok's Letters to relatives". Vol. II. M.-L. 1932, p. 362.

15 "New Life", 11. VI. 1917.

16 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 7, p. 260.

17 Ibid., vol. 8, p. 501.

18 Alexander Blok. Notebooks, p. 359.

19 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 8, p. 503.

20 Ibid., vol. 7, p. 268.

page 114

miteta-Liber, Dan and one more. Muravyov calls me to the fortress, and we drive a large group of cars... Vissarionov, Kurlov, Spiridovich, Beletsky and Trusevich are successively summoned " (the highest ranks of the police - B. L.)21 . "All of them didn't tell us anything we needed to know."22 Participation in the anti-Bolshevik investigation of the executive committee commission, although in the passive role of secretary, was apparently painful for Blok. Perhaps it was a turning point that ultimately led to the separation of the poet from most of his colleagues from the CHSK. The next day a significant note was added to the letter in which Blok describes the above-mentioned interrogation of police officials:"It is very difficult for me to sit between two chairs politically." 23
In July, the casemates of the Peter and Paul Fortress were replenished with new prisoners-Bolsheviks, arrested in connection with the events of July 3 - 5 and initially held in the "Crosses". Transfer to the fortress aggravated the regime of detention. This, and on the other hand, the softening of the regime for the former loyal servants of tsarism who were there, and the CHSK's evasion of the investigation of the tsar, reflected a general sharp shift in the political course of the Provisional Government. Makarov (Minister of Justice in 1916 - B. L.) "it is harmful to sit in the fortress... Relatives have raised their heads and are pressing on. Other music started playing, " Blok writes. And then: "The commission has decided not to question Nikolai Romanov (the Constituent Assembly; and we remain within our 'three classes'). " 24 And further: S. V. Ivanov (and S. F. Oldenburg) do not agree with the chairman for a long time in relation to prisoners (they have less politics). Now this is again emphasized. When I write down all the little things that I can observe, however, I write down how " history turned out." I want to emphasize how this is noticeable even in small things (not to mention large ones). " 25 Not experienced, as he himself admitted, in politics, but socially sensitive, the poet saw a turn in the socio-political life of the country that followed the July days. The end of dual power has come, and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie has been established. In the language of the poet, who perceived the impulses of social life as musical rhythms - "the music went different"!

The Block's records address the CHSK's authority over the former tsar. Although Kerensky justified his entry into the Provisional Government by not wanting to let the representatives of the old government out of his hands, he was preparing something quite the opposite for the former emperor. Three days after the formation of the CHSK (March 7), in a speech to the Moscow Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies, Kerensky let slip a plan to send Nicholas II and his family to England, and immediately, while Milyukov, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government, conducted corresponding negotiations with the British government. The indignation of the workers and soldiers caused by this plan is well known. To prevent its implementation, the Petrograd Soviet on March 9 "re-arrested" on its own behalf the tsar, who had been placed by the Provisional Government in the Tsarskoye Selo Alexander Palace .26
The question of the investigation and trial of the former autocrat came up more than once. Blok, who was present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets, noted that they "asked, among other things, whether we were engaged in the case of Nikolai Romanov"27 . The maneuvering of the Provisional Government in deciding the fate of the royal family could only increase the anger of the people. "The tragedy (of the Romanovs - B. L.) has not yet begun ..." 28; on the trial of Nicholas II, opinions were exchanged in the CHSK, since there was no positive decision of the Provisional Government, which postponed all the most pressing issues until the Constituent Assembly: "In our commission, P. K. Muravyov wandered around the bush about this issue, without raising it and, so to speak, stirring it by

21 Ibid., p. 275.

22 "A. A. Blok's Letters to relatives". Vol. II, p. 385.

23 Ibid.

24 According to the table of ranks, the position of chancellor corresponded to the "first class", the second - to the minister, and the third - to the minister's companion.

25 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 7, pp. 289-290.

26 See M. E. Solovyov. A failed escape. Voprosy Istorii, 1973, No. 10.

27 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 7, p. 263.

28 Alexander Blok. Notebooks, p. 346.

page 115

for various reasons." "I said that the sovereign, according to Russian law, is not subject to trial for his actions, in any case. I was joined by some other members of the presidium, and the question was thrown out, but not abandoned, " recalled Zavadsky, a friend of the chairman of the CHSK. A respectful attitude towards the former emperor was revealed in the refusal of the CHSK to search his palace chambers. "The left part of the commission raised the issue of conducting a search of the sovereign's house. The other members of the Presidium strongly protested against this measure and prevailed. " 29
Kerensky, who played the role of a revolutionary Nemesis, in fact pursued a course of leniency towards representatives of the old government. This was primarily reflected in the selection of "representatives of popular anger" - figures of the CHSK and its investigative apparatus. If the figure of the chairman of the commission, the Socialist-revolutionary lawyer Muravyov, known for political trials in the tsarist courts, could initially inspire the "revolutionary intransigence" expected from the commission, the same could not be said of comrade Chairman of the CHSK Zavadsky, who was a prosecutor of the Petrograd Judicial Chamber under tsarism and was elevated to the rank of senator a month and a half before the February Revolution. However, Zavadsky stayed as a fellow chairman of the CHSK only until mid-May. But he was replaced by B. N. Smitten, who was also a prosecutor of the court chamber under tsarism. CHSK investigators were chairmen of district courts, members of judicial chambers, officials of prosecutor's supervision, and judicial investigators. "I had to turn to the help of even those whose names are from the then point of view... they were considered odious. It goes without saying that they tried to do this on the sly, fearing the Soviet of Soldiers 'and Workers' Deputies, " 30 recalled A. F. Romanov. It is not surprising that in the CHSK, with such a "respectable" composition, a lenient attitude towards those under investigation prevailed.

Even before taking up his new position, the Bloc had to meet a sharply negative opinion, but on the right, about the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry. Senator A. F. Kublitsky-Piottukh (a relative of Blok's), whose legal opinions Blok usually listened to, described the CHSK as "a scandalous institution: they will hang - later the expression is softened-people who are legally innocent"31 . What was the basis of this opinion? The concept of "legal innocence" refers to the rule that an action cannot be punished if it was not considered punishable at the time of its commission. The dignitaries of the autocracy, therefore, had to answer according to the laws of their time. "Such an opinion (which I deeply disagree with)," Blok wrote, " exists even among the commission itself. It is held by professional lawyers " 32 . For the commission, "it turned out to be absolutely possible to take the point of view of the law that existed in the last days and months of the old regime," the chairman of CHSK 33 officially stated . But this rule of lawyers is true only when applied to a stable socio-political system. It becomes unacceptable in the context of the revolution that has taken place. "After a perfect revolution... it is impossible to turn overthrown laws against the defenders of these very laws. This is the cowardly hypocrisy of legality, " wrote Karl Marx34 .

CHSK investigators were also bound by the statute of limitations. It was "impossible" to bring to criminal responsibility for obviously illegal methods of investigation, for example, one of the former leaders of the security department, General A. I. Spiridovich, since the criminal statute of limitations had expired. Such dogmatism of lawyers from the CHSK constantly favored both the highest tsarist dignitaries and ordinary provocateurs. After the February Revolution, the names of traitors to the revolutionary underground were established. They should have been punished. But the tsarist legislation did not know the crime of "provocation". In this case, it would be possible to apply "complicity in

29 S. V. Zavadsky. On the great kink. "Archive of the Russian Revolution", vol. XI. Berlin, 1923, pp. 49-50.

30 A. F. Romanov. Op. ed., pp. 3-4.

31 Alexander Blok. Notebooks, p. 321.

32 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 8, p. 497.

33 "The Fall of the tsarist regime", vol. I. M.-L. 1926, p. 8.

34 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 6, p. 256.

page 116

crime" or "incitement", because agents of the okhrana, infiltrating underground organizations, "participated" in the anti-government struggle. However, an amnesty was granted for political crimes. In order to find a way out of the "difficult" situation caused by the general principle of judging by the laws in force at the time of the act, the Minister of Justice of the Provisional Government, P. N. Pereverzev, who succeeded Kerensky in this post, ordered to involve provocateurs under part 2 of Article 314 of the Criminal Code, which spoke of abuse of power, which had particularly important consequences what, however, had to be considered a provocateur as an official. The artificiality of this construction once again emphasized the impossibility of remaining on the basis of the criminal legislation of the former regime, and even more so of its norms on state crimes, after the overthrow of tsarism.

What was Blok's attitude to the stubborn dogmatism of the CHSK lawyers, which was becoming more and more apparent as the investigation progressed? How did he assess it politically? Even at the very beginning of his work at CHSK, he wrote:: "I can already see that the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry stands between the anvil of law and the hammer of history." 36 This conflict between the revolution and the law, so clearly expressed by the poet, was resolved under the Provisional Government in all respects not in the way that the poet "imagined". According to Blok, "it is clear from the current situation that the commission, having processed all the material it receives, must submit it to the permission of the representatives of the people." But "everyone revolts" against this opinion: "According to instructions, the commission submits the results of its work to the Provisional Government."37 The actions of the tsarist ministers, not as illegal, but as anti-people, should, according to the Bloc, be compared not with the letter of the law inherited from the old regime, but with the will of the revolutionary people - the sovereign legislator ("with the permission of the representatives of the people"). For the commission's lawyers, "legal norms represent a sacred and inaccessible place: a place inaccessible even to" extraordinary circumstances." Of course, there is not always a subtle desire for counter-revolution. " 38
Blok contrasted the conservative dogmatism of lawyers with the position of "ordinary people", "democracy girded by a storm", to which he considered himself: "We, the 'common people', also thought to forgive or not to forgive the old Count (Fredericks) (Minister of the court, one of the closest persons to the tsar - B. L.) - his fingernails, that he was 'not guilty of anything'. It's not easy to say goodbye. "Hey, you Count, go only so far!", " Only four steps!"39 . M. V. Babenchikov, a young writer invited by Blok to help edit transcripts, told how Blok reproached him "for his unacceptable verbal softness" in relation to some of the "victims" of the old regime. Personally, Blok knew no "mercy" in this sense, and believed in the" accuracy " and immutability of historical retribution .40 Blok did not sympathize with the softness shown by the CHSK leaders. From the interrogation of the veteran "gendarme wolf" of the former director of the police department Beletsky by the chairman of the CHSK Muravyov, Blok recorded the following dialogue: "Beletsky:"A personal break, a spiritual one, I understood a lot." Chairman: "You're disarming us." That's how the conversation gets blurred, "Blok notes," Beletsky goes to the left, the chairman goes to the right (this is, of course, paradoxically said, but there is some truth to it). " 41
The inevitability of retribution, foreshadowed, however vaguely, in Blok's pre-revolutionary poetry, was now to find its concrete embodiment in the political practice that life had so unexpectedly confronted the poet with. But even in his literary "sentences" Blok did not become a Marat of Russian bourgeois democracy.-

35 "Pravo", 27. VI. 1917.

36 Alexander Blok. Notebooks, pp. 321-322.

37 Ibid., p. 322. Subsequently, the CHSK prepared its report not to the Provisional Government, but to the Constituent Assembly.

38 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 8, p. 497.

39 Ibid., vol. 7, p. 257. V. B. Fredericks complained to Muravyov that when he was transferred to a general hospital, the soldier who was guarding him stopped him with such expressions and with "you".

40 M. Babenchikov. Al. Blok and Russia. Fri. 1923, p. 74.

41 Alexander Blok. Notebooks, p. 331.

page 117

as the following sentimental records attest: "No one can be judged. A person in grief and humiliation becomes a child. Remember Vyrubova, she lies like a child... Remember how childishly Protopopov looked at Muravyov-from bottom to top like a guilty boy. " 42 Returning to these reflections, Blok wrote: "Those who repent among them (and have they repented?) still have to go through many stages of purification, they are at the very bottom of the ladder."43 "Spiritual sobriety in him always overcame the" doubts "of the intellectual and the" master, " recalled Babenchikov 44 .

Blok's work on transcripts, since he had committed to writing a chapter of the report entitled "The Last Days of the Old Regime," inevitably went beyond the scope of editorial work itself. Notes in his diary, notebooks, and letters, and extracts from transcripts made by Blok for himself, indicate that he collected material and studied the top officials of the pre-revolutionary Russian administration. The testimonies of its leaders provided ample material for this. The highest agents of the tsarist government, for all their individuality, were a peculiar type that greatly interested Blok: a caste of "priests" and "magicians" of the administrative and police service, people with a special moral image, mental makeup and professional jargon. The arrest and investigation, it would seem, provided them with both leisure and a reason to look back on their experiences, to reflect and reassess their values. But for the most part, they dodged and lied, trying only to justify themselves. "When they choke with tears or say something very important to them, I always look at them with a special, attentive feeling: revolutionary," Blok 45 wrote . The interrogation scenes were captured by Blok, an artist and future historian of the February Revolution. In Blok's notebooks, diaries, and letters, there are many remarkable sketches of "games - sometimes cats with cats" (among the interrogators were people who were very experienced in the investigative part).

Encouraged by the legal dogmatism of the CHSK, which gave them hope, the tsarist dignitaries put forward in their defense arguments raised in a kind of canon - the eternal alleged conflict of legality and state expediency, opposition to the abstract postulates of theory - the imperative requirements of practice, and most importantly, they referred to official subordination, that is, sanctioned by law, to the servitude of their actions. A comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs in 1911-1915, I. M. Zolotarev, as Blok noted, responded to the accusation of grossly introducing the provocateur Malinovsky to the State Duma:: "There is theory, there is practice." He "did not delve"into the legality of perlustration. There is also his reference to "state necessity" and similar practices in other countries .46 The director of the police Department in 1916, General E. K. Klimovich, claimed, Blok notes in his notes, that "I did nothing dishonest. It may be against the law, but you know what it means if an officer doesn't obey the minister. " 47 "The authority of the minister replaced the laws," Blok 48 notes, however, on another occasion . The last Minister of Internal Affairs under tsarism, A.D. Protopopov, according to Blok's observation, "looks slyly at the question of legality, there is a slyness in his eyes. "49 The" interest " of the government stood above legality, the protection of which has always been considered the highest purpose of the court. The Minister of Justice, I. G. Shcheglovitov, when preparing the scandalous Beilis trial (1913), "promised to put the case in court in such a way that it would be safe for the government," Blok writes and concludes:"Shcheglovitov's terrible role"50 . Former Chairman of the Council of Ministers Goremykin dismissed the charge of violating the rule of law because of the dubious nature of this very concept and again referred to subordination: "It is very difficult to distinguish between what is legal and what is not."-

42 Ibid., p. 340.

43 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 7, p. 274.

44 M. Babenchikov. Op. ed., pp. 74-75.

45 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 8, p. 501.

46 Alexander Blok. Notebooks, pp. 353, 357.

47 Ibid., p. 338.

48 Ibid., p. 364.

49 Ibid., p. 368.

50 Ibid., p. 336.

page 118

Conno. There may be different interpretations." "A servile man," Blok wrote down in his notebook the argument of self - defense of the former head of the tsarist government, 51 who referred "to his "servitude" in matters of law"52 . And finally, at the very top: "The Emperor," Blok wrote, " did not take the oath of inviolability of the basic laws of 1905. Therefore, in the State Council (Stolypin) - an opinion on the constituent rights of the throne. The manifesto was therefore not considered an obligation. " 53 Summarizing his observations, Blok noted:: "In no country would an examination of representatives of the highest authorities have produced a picture so brilliant from a purely literary point of view; only the old Russian government could, with a few exceptions, have been distinguished by such a poverty of argumentation, such vulnerability on the part of the formal, such weakness of will, such undifferentiated judgments... The majority have no sign of conviction in the correctness of the ideas and actions that they professed and took three months ago. " 54
The final stroke in the picture of the collapse of the bureaucratic machine of the last decade of the Romanov reign was the shame of Rasputinism. "The terrible influence of Rasputin, the terrible shattering of ideals," notes Block 55 .

Interesting in this connection is his attempt to describe the tsarist administration, its upper and lower ranks in political and moral terms, and also to put this subjective factor in a number of reasons that led to the fall of the regime. "The old Russian government," he wrote, " was divided into irresponsible and responsible. The second was responsible only to the first, and not to the people. This order required people who were believers (faith in the anointing), courageous (undivided), and honest (the axioms of morality). With the exorbitant development of Russia in depth and breadth, he demanded even more and more imperiously - genius. All these properties have long been absent from the bearers of power in Russia. The upper classes became smaller, corrupting the lower classes. All this went on for many years. In recent years, according to the authorities themselves, they have been completely confused. " 56
The initial enthusiasm for working at the CHSK (Blok even put aside poetry for it) gradually gives way to disappointment. "Alexander Alexandrovich was becoming more and more deadly tired. He would mope, grow gloomy, and lock himself up in stubborn silence," Babenchikob, who often spoke to him in August - September 1917 about editing transcripts, 57 The reason for Blok's decline in mood, to use his own metaphor, noted in "other music", which had become increasingly insistent since the Provisional Government's shooting of the July demonstration. Blok was no longer as enthusiastic about working at the CHSK as he had been before. "The commission is hanging by the neck," he wrote on August 30, 58 . There were disagreements about the nature of the report that the CHSK was supposed to present to the Constituent Assembly. In this issue, which is the main one for the Block Editor, he disagreed with the CHSK management.

In accordance with the appointment of the CHSC, its absolute ultimate task was to draw up an indictment for the trial of certain individuals. However, since these individuals were ministers and general managers, and their crimes stemmed from the nature of the political system, it became necessary to bring charges against the overthrown regime as a whole. The relationship between personal accusations and accusations against the government system was controversial, and the volume and style of the report was therefore controversial. Professional lawyers focused on the forensic side. Personal accusations were to become the basis, while accusations against the political system were to become the general background of the criminal acts of ministers, as if they were the preamble of each indictment. This report structure

51 Ibid., p. 327.

52 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 6, p. 444.

53 Alexander Blok. Notebooks, p. 376.

54 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 6, pp. 443, 444.

55 Alexander Blok. Notebooks, p. 334.

56 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 7, p. 254.

57 TsGALI SSSR, f. 2994, op. 1, d. 4, l. 40.

58 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 7, p. 308.

page 119

defended by F. I. Rodichez. A proposal was put forward (A. S. Tager) along with the personal accusations of the ministers, and instead of the CHSK report, draw up an indictment against Nicholas II, which would focus all the political aspects of the case 59 .

Blok, on the other hand, believed that the most important part of the report should have been "the verdict to the old 300 - year-old regime." The report was conceived by him as "a political report, concise, skirting details in the name of the main goal (accusations against the old system as a whole)." The criminal prosecution of individuals can "stand in parallel". By blaming the system first, and then the officials, "we will avoid," Blok wrote, " the greatest danger: to exaggerate the meaning of names, which, as it were, confirms the legend, creates a purely visual error... I will concretize with an example: Protopopov (even) is a person who is terribly interesting from the point of view of psychology, history, etc., but not at all interesting politically. So to speak, not he was, but "he was", like any of them. If we once again mention this small name, which is associated with so many fascinating non - political facts, we will do a disservice-both to the people who will continue to think about its significance, and to the commission, and to Protopopov himself."60 According to the Block, the political aspect of the CSCE report should decisively prevail over the "business", criminalistic one. Politics is the leitmotif of the report: "It must combine a business point of view with a revolutionary appeal.. it should be imbued with all the Russian revolutionary pathos from beginning to end, which would reflect all the anxiety, all the hopes and all the majestic romanticism of our days."61 . From the point of view of volume and style, this is a " two-hour speech... speech is essentially military, i.e., outwardly cold, general, and important (Pushkin), not plentiful in details, but inwardly hot, imbued with the heat of life."62
The report flowchart suggested by the Flowchart was initially met with a positive response. The first protocol of the sub-commission for the preparation of the report states:: "This should not be a historical work, but a report that falls into two parts: 1) materials on the report and 2) a report in the strict sense of the word." The "materials" should include: a) decisions of investigators on bringing to criminal responsibility, b) all the most interesting documents, c) ready-made essays on individual issues. The report should be "a relatively short outline that highlights the most striking political findings of the commission" 63 . But after the report was drawn up by Professor of History E. V. Tarle, who was introduced to the CHSK in connection with the appointment of S. F. Oldenburg to the post of Minister of Education, the extensive program of the report proposed by Tarle was opposed to the Blok plan. In his diary entries, Blok somewhat exaggerates, saying "about the gray program, which was not illuminated from the inside," which Tarle 64 put forward . This judgment only indicates the atmosphere of discussion on this issue. In the dispute over Blok's report, his fellow editors, writers M. P. Nevedomsky and L. Ya.Gurevich, supported him. A well-known Pushkin scholar and historian of the revolutionary movement in Russia, Professor P. E. Shchegolev, an active member of the CHCE Presidium, sympathized with the Bloc's plan. The CHSK Presidium approved the Tarle program.

The length of the report was set at 25-30 pech. l., not counting the special indictment part concerning the persons whose crimes were investigated. Chronologically, the starting point of the investigation was October 1905. Tarle was assigned to write the introduction to the report, and the general editorial staff was assigned to him. In the documents of the CHSK, the plan of the report (draft), compiled according to the Tarle program, was preserved. The plan included a preface devoted to the formation and activities of the CHSK, and three parts: the first of eight chapters describing tsarism and its struggle with the people, with the State Duma and public organizations: workers', co-operatives, unions of zemstvos and cities, the national movement, the press, etc.

59 See Alexander Blok. Notebooks, p. 370.

60 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 7, p. 288.

61 Alexander Blok. Notebooks, page 365.

62 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 7, p. 288.

63 TsGAOR USSR, f. CHSK (1467), op. 1, d. 220, ll. 1-2.

64 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 7, pp. 290-291.

page 120

Chapter 9, "The Last Days of the Old Regime" (written by Blok). Part two consists of six chapters devoted to the characterization of the methods of struggle of the autocracy with its enemies: the police department (general characteristics), perlustration, provocation, the reptilian Fund, the Union of the Russian People and similar organizations, the court as an instrument of political struggle. Part Three consists of two chapters devoted to the characterization of the supreme holders of power, irresponsible "dark forces" and government ministers . By adopting such a plan, the commission, from the Bloc's point of view, has shifted from a militant political position to an academic, historical and research position, which, in its opinion, is inappropriate in the program of activities of the Constituent Assembly. "The more [members of the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry] will be ...to vulgarize their "ideas" (which have hitherto been shallow), the more wretched will be the appearance of the commission before the Constituent Assembly. At best, it will be a "business" phenomenon, i.e. impersonal; at worst, it will be a laughing stock for the Russian people, who will not condemn it, but will turn away and forget it... The Commission will take itself to the background; from where the soloists sing, it will go to where the chorus girls gossip. " 66
The transcripts of the interrogations, which contain the richest material for history, should also be published in one way or another. But it wasn't just "history"that required the most extensive publication of transcripts. Some of the negative qualities of the tsarist administration figures reflected in the transcripts were to some extent inherent in the upper strata of society and even penetrated, according to Blok, into the mass of the people. "If you love Russia, you can treat these qualities differently: you can love with indignation; you can forgive with contempt. But first of all, it is necessary to show these properties in all their unadorned appearance, illuminating their bearers with a bright light in front of the people. It seems to me that such a bright light is shed on them by the shorthand recording of their own words, unadorned"67 . The commission, on the other hand, favored a shortened, simplified and, so to speak, "popular" publication of transcripts of interrogations. Blok objected: the publication "should not descend to the masses, but it should have properties capable of raising the masses to itself... the book should not bear the stamp of cheap popularity, adaptation " 68 . Blok's point of view was described in the commission as "aristocratic", to which Blok, not remaining in debt, replied in his diary: "You reproach me with aristocracy? But an aristocrat is closer to a democrat than the average "bourgeois" 69 .

"The work in the commission was on the wane," Babenchikov recalled. "Gradually, the core of its members split and the usual intrigues began... Blok was the most interesting figure among the commission members. At one time, he was supported by N. K. Muravyov, who, like most representatives of the old legal profession, had a somewhat old-fashioned respect for writing and writers. But Muravyov, who was soft by nature, did not know how to defend his views, and his" non-resistance to evil "greatly hindered Alexander Alexandrovich in his editorial work." 70 Intrigues really annoyed the poet 71 . But that was not the decisive factor in his attitude to CHSK. Along with the divergence on the issue of the report, the political and legal position of the CHSK became increasingly unacceptable for him, which led to the failure of the investigation. Interrogations were coming to an end in the CHSK. But not a single trial, except for Sukhomlinovsky (V. A. Sukhomlinov-a former Minister of War, who was under investigation since 1915), was held. "The Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers ' Deputies draws attention to the activities of this commission, wondering why so far not one of the arrested dignitaries has been brought to justice," wrote a Petrograd newspaper in mid - September .72 But this was not surprising when installing the CHSK to be guided by pre-revolutionary ugos-

65 TsGAOR USSR, f. 1467, op. 1, d. 222, ll. 37-38.

66 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 7, p. 273.

67 Ibid., vol. 6, p. 444.

68 Ibid., pp. 444-445.

69 Ibid., vol. 7, p. 283.

70 TsGALI USSR, f. 2094, op. 1, d. 4, ll. 28-29.

71 See A. A. Blok's Letters to Relatives. Vol. II, pp. 393-394.

72 "New Life" 12. IX. 1917.

page 121

These laws excluded political charges (for anti-national acts) and forced investigators to look for crimes of a general criminal nature in the activities of ministers.

How, for example, did the investigation into the cases of dignitaries closest to the emperor end? The former Minister of the Court, Count Fredericks, the palace commandant, General V. N. Voeikov, and the head of the palace guard (formerly an associate of Colonel Zubatov in the Moscow security Department) Spiridovich were charged with official forgery in order to exempt from conscription persons with whom they were in friendly or commercial relations, because the defendants considered them to be part of the state cooks, palace guards, etc. were charged with this type of preventive measure-detention in custody - was replaced by release on bail 73 . Former Interior Minister A. N. Khvostov was charged with embezzling 1.3 million rubles of government money. The former Minister of War was charged with crimes punishable by imprisonment in correctional facilities 74 . One of the most prominent figures of the Okhrana, the initiator of the bloody massacre of Minsk workers in 1906, a comrade of the last tsarist Minister of Internal Affairs, General P. G. Kurlov, was transferred "for health reasons" from pre-trial detention to house arrest75 . The CHSK made a decision (and the Provisional Government approved it) to release Beletsky and Shcheglovitov from prison. But the socialist revolution prevented this decision from being implemented .76
The reason for the insignificance of the 8-month results of the work of the CHSK was explained, as Shchegolev wrote in 1925, by the coherence of the commission "hand and foot with the existing code of laws and the well-honed and sophisticated legal thinking of all its members" 77 . Behind this professional connectedness of lawyers, Blok saw a direct reluctance to adopt the active-democratic point of view of the revolutionary popular legal consciousness. "History goes on, something is happening; and ...they adapt to not create. " 78 This failure of the commission to perform its task remained largely unnoticed due to events such as the overthrow of the Provisional Government, on whose instructions the CHSK acted, and the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, for which the CHSK prepared its report.

The Socialist Revolution found the CHSK Presidium sitting under the same roof as the Provisional Government. The news that the Winter Palace was surrounded by Red Guards and that Kerensky had run away made the commission "follow Kerensky's example,"according to a participant in this meeting," and also run away before it was too late. " 79 After fruitless negotiations with the Winter Palace defense headquarters on saving documents, as well as on guaranteeing the personal safety of CHSK members, it makes a decision: "In view of the impossibility of taking home the documents and investigative correspondence that are in everyone's hands, it is necessary to fold and seal all the material of the commission in one of the remote rooms of the palace, and then go home." In the first days of November, some members of the CHSK managed to get back to the Hospital and make sure that all the materials were safe. CHSK investigator S. A. Korenev recalled a few years later: "The Bolsheviks had not yet managed to get to the commission's archive, and we hoped that we would be able to save at least some of the material ... which, as we then thought, could be useful to us in a couple of weeks, when the Bolsheviks left. We are also waiting for this

73 The release of such odious minions of the tsar was considered inconvenient and dangerous for them because of the possibility of mob justice. They were again taken into custody under a decree of the Provisional Government on persons "who may serve as a permanent threat to internal security", and were no longer registered with the CHSK, but with the Ministry of Internal Affairs (see Bulletin of the Provisional Government, 26. IX. 1917).

74 "New Life", 19. VII; 14. IX. 1917.

75 "New Life", 29. IX. 1917.

76 Izvestia, 2. VI. 1918.

77 "The Fall of the Tsarist regime", vol. I, p. 20.

78 Alexander Blok. Collected works vol. 7, p. 290.

79 S. A. Korenev. Emergency Commission for Former Ministers. "Archive of the Russian Revolution", vol. VII. Berlin, 1922, p. 32.

page 122

until now " 80 . Most of the members of the CHSK then thought the same as Korenev. But not the Block! His attitude to Great October is well known. It is attested in the poem "The Twelve", in the article "The Intelligentsia and the Revolution", in the memoirs of contemporaries.

The activity of the CHSK continued for some time after the October Revolution. Blok has already withdrawn from active participation in its work. He was now free from editing transcripts (the last interrogation took place on October 11, and on September 7 Blok handed over the "shorthand questions" to V. N. Knyazhnin, who was appointed to the number of editors of the CHSK). Blok did not participate in the last two meetings of the sub-commission on the preparation of the CHSK report (October 14 and 17) 81 . The continuation of classes related to transcripts and other materials of the CHSK was the fulfillment of the task by the Block to write a chapter of the report "The Last Days of the old regime". The poet has been closely engaged in this since August 1917. The subject aroused in him a sense of "the greatest responsibility" and somewhat terrified him. The chronological framework of the chapter was reduced to the time from November 1, 1916 to March 1, 1917. "All day long I draw up a canvas of well - known political material from the newspapers in order to embroider the patterns of materials obtained by the commission," Blok wrote. In mid-October, he again mentions this work, which he completed in May 1918.

In Blok's surviving post-October notes, along with curses to yesterday's "narodolyubtsy" who had defected to the counter - revolution, along with appeals to the intelligentsia to cooperate with the authorities of the workers and peasants, there is also a mention of the CHSK: M. Repinsky (CHSK clerk-B. L.) called by phone to see S. V. Ivanov tomorrow. The Commission is going to move to Moscow." And in the record of the next day, "I won't go to S. V. Ivanov (the late commission still considers itself existing? No, not the right time, not the right music) " 82 . It was on the very days when the CHSK reminded Blok of its dubious existence that on January 10 and 11, 1918, Blok wrote, "amid the terrible noise of the collapse of the old world, "his poem"The Twelve."

In the tumultuous tide of the socialist Revolution, which (as Blok himself put it) was bursting the dams and sprinkling extra chunks of the banks, it was inevitable and natural that the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry of the Provisional Government, with its report never written, should have been lost and drowned, like the other wrecks of Kerenskyism .83 The only completed intention of the CHSK turned out to be almost the earliest essay in the historiography of the February Revolution, "The Last Days of the Old Regime", made by the Bloc based on investigative materials and then published in the magazine " Byloye "in 1919, and in 1921 published in the form of a pamphlet called"The Last Days of the Empire". Already after the poet's death, Blok's colleague in the CHSK Shchegolev published in 1924-1927, without any abbreviations, six volumes of transcripts of interrogations in the CHSK and one volume of notes compiled by some of the defendants, under the general title "The Fall of the tsarist Regime".

80 Ibid., pp. 32-33.

81 TsGAOR USSR, f. 1467, op. 1, d. 220, ll. 30-31.

82 Alexander Blok. Notebooks, p. 383. The last entry about the CHSK - about an invitation to appear before the commission, apparently ignored by Blok, is marked January 25, 1918 (ibid., p. 386).

83 As early as January 1918, the President of the Revolutionary Tribunal insisted on transferring all CHSK cases to the jurisdiction of the Investigative Commission of the Supreme Tribunal (see Izvestia, 25.I.1918). In April of the same year, the CHSK cases were transferred to the above-mentioned commission (Izvestia, 23. IV. 1918).

page 123

Permanent link to this publication: