Source: http://www.regionalstudies.ru/journal/homejornal/rubric/2012-11-02-22-07-59/302-andrey-fatuschenko-qcommunes-of-russian-intellectuals.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:28:11+00:00

Document:
Andrey Fatuschenko "Communes of Russian Intellectuals in the USA in the Late 19th Century"
Главная Журнал «Россия и Запад: диалог культур» Главная Рубрики Исторический контекст взаимодействия культур Andrey Fatuschenko "Communes of Russian Intellectuals in the USA in the Late 19th Century"
Communes of Russian Intellectuals in the USA in the Late 19 Century.
The article is concerned with the communes of Russian intellectuals set up in the USA in the 19th century. The Russian colonists pursued two goals: 1) personal spiritual improvement; 2) setting an example of ideal social relations that could eventually transform the human society. Of particular interest are the reasons for the failures and subsequent break-up of the communes. The analysis covers three most noted Russian communalists of the time – William Frey, Nikolai Tchaikovsky and Alexander Malikov. By exploring the paths of their personal quest for truth and the tangle of communal living, the present study tries to prove that the weakness of the high-minded colonists lay in the very limited relevance of their experiments to the realities of social life.
Key words: communes of Russian intellectuals, living utopias, “natural” communes, Russians in the USA.
In this work I would like to talk about communes. You might ask: Why communes? I would answer: In the life of almost every city-dweller, especially of one who spends a lot of time in the office and often turns on the TV in his apartment, trying to find something similar to the landscape he sees outside, there are moments when he suddenly raises his eyes to the ( I almost said “sky”) ceiling and says: Why shouldn't I send it all to hell and leave for the country, for the fresh air, simple and unsophisticated people, and become a carpenter there, wake up in sawdust, fall in love with a peasant woman in an embroidered apron, and most importantly, feel absolutely happy and completely free? But with all this said, you wouldn't like to find yourself alone, and so in order not to part with your habits and friends you will decide to take them all with you; and when you are free from constructive labour, you spend your time in a limited circle of friends, re­reading Borges and Agatha Christy and discussing plans of building a library or at least a swimming pool. And if beforehand you read “War and Peace”, or “Death of Ivan Ilyich”, or “Anna Karenina”, then the above­cited long-winded ideas will necessarily appear.
Anyway, that was my line of thinking when some time ago I decided to study the history of agricultural colonies of intellectuals. What made these educated people break off from society, (where sometimes they had wonderful career opportunities)? What did they look for and what did they find during the years of excessive labour (for which they were often not prepared)? And lastly, what is the reason for their endless failures, which sometimes even cost them their lives?
Communes may be divided into two types according to the method and purpose of their foundation: l) communes that sprang up out of necessity, e.g. different peasant communes, and 2) communes “of mind” that are sometimes called “communal experiments”, “colonies”, or “living utopias”. The former appear to be “natural” communes, and the latter – “artificial” ones. At first sight the boundary-line is quite clear. But for thousands and thousands of years communes have been persistently springing up in different conditions and in different countries, so “artificiality” or chance of them accidentally emerging seem doubtful. Their prototypes are the pre-Christian and early Christian communes, and the documented history of communes dates back to the 17th century. As we will see later, the two types of communes have much more in common than it seems at the first look.
What differs utopian communes from “natural” ones is that they are “deliberately organized, relatively independent units, based on dwelling in groups. Their aim is to bring to life ideal social relations.” We will examine the first period of the “communal movement” in Russia, with examples of a few communes of intellectuals - yes, of intellectuals, not religious sects, and not peasant utopian communes. It goes without saying that all these phenomena have a lot in common, and we cannot ignore any of them, because of their mutual influence.
The first voluntary Russian colonist that is of interest to us is William Frey. In many ways he is an extremely interesting and remarkable person. He went down in history mostly because of Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, who met Frey and sent him some letters of a programmatic nature. It is generally supposed that it was Frey who converted Tolstoy to vegetarianism. But this is not the only reason for his fame. He was one of the first “communists” in Russia, above all. I used quotation marks because in this context this word has little to do with the meaning that it aquired afterwards. Frey stood up for life in communes that were to be the prototypes for a future happy society. Later he would become an adherent of A. Comte’s “Religion of Humanity”. This explains his interest in Tolstoy - he tried (though, in vain) to convert the great writer to this religion.
Frey's real name was Vladimir Konstantinovich Heins. A detailed description of his life can be found in a book (in English) by Abraham Yarmolinski and in an article (in Russian) by V. Reingardt. Therefore, I will not describe in detail all reversals of his fortune. Let me highlight some moments of his life that are of special interest to us.
Frey was born on October 16, 1839 in a Latvian village, Vitebsk region, in camp life conditions. His farther, Konstantin Karlovich Heins, came from a noble family of the Estland region. He spent all his life serving in the army. During the Turkish campaign, for which he got the rank of major, in Bucharest he met Aristea Konstantinovna Kominari-Koreso, a daughter of a Greek emigrant “of an ancient aristocratic family”. In 1830 they got married. From their union three sons and three daughters were born. The elder sons fully used the opportunities that their position gave them - Konstantin, the eldest, became a general, and the second son Alexander served as Governor of Kazan in the 1880s. By the way, later Vladimir (Frey) was to keep in touch only with Alexander. Throughout his life Alexander would morally and financially help his brother and constantly worry about him. One may say that their family was far from being perfect. Their father completely neglected his six children and lived separately with the wife of a doctor's assistant. The assistant also lived with them. His mother's conditions of living were no better. Once she even had to run away from her son-in-law and hide in a peasant house. Afterwards she wrote Vladimir some illiterate letters but “he probably did not answer them”.
In “Ruskaya Starina” (1905) Reingardt quotes V. Heins’ diary, in which he describes Chernyshevsky’s “civil execution” (mock execution). The description is vivid and touching.
“The pedagogic career did not satisfy him”, and Heins entered the Department of Geodesy at the General Staff Academy. At this time he drew closer to “some members of the secret society Zemlya i Volya (Land and Freedom). Although sympathizing with the final objective of this organization, he did not support their means of reaching it, and for this reason he did not participate in their activities.” In fact, little is known about this period of his life.
After graduating from the Academy, Heins worked at the Pulkovo observatory under the sympathetic guidance of the astronomer Struve and achieved quite a success. He was appointed to represent Russia in the International Committee on measuring shaft-bows of 52 degree latitude. He had a glittering career ahead of him. The authorities valued him; he was now a captain, but ... Heins felt like a parasite. His sense of guilt had reached its peak. According to Reingardt, it was this feeling of being indebted to people that explains Heins' thoughts about suicide. Heins himself wrote afterwards: “At the age of 27 (in 1866) I came to the conclusion that life is senseless and the best way out is suicide”. Being a man with a scientific background, before committing suicide he found it necessary to write his own biography, where he expressed his opinion that history only studies the actions of rulers - traitors, deceivers, debauchees - and takes no notice of the heroism, self-sacrifice and love of millions of unknown heroes and toilers of life, who contributed their might to the endless stream of all good and valuable things. No wonder Frey made friends with Tolstoy so easily. “A genius may be grand ..., but no matter how great his power is, it is nothing compared to the total sum of billions of powers of common and completely anonymous people”.
In his biography Vladimir Frey sums up his life before suicide. By the end of 1886 two passions had conquered him: “one for a woman and the other one for an idea”. He abandoned his thoughts of suicide and began to fight his passion for a woman.
Here, we come to a crucial moment in the life of Vladimir Heins. He broke off from his well-endowed life and a promising career and decided to leave for America to found a Russian colony there - a prototype for the future.
In February of 1868 Vladimir Heins married Maria Evstafyevna Slavinskaya and, leaving everything, without even retiring from service, went abroad with his young bride. In March of 1868 the couple reached “Jersey City on the Hudson, opposite New York”.
Here we shall leave them for a while and move on to the next hero of our story.
Nikolai Vasilyevich Tchaikovsky is a legend, the “grandfather of the Russian revolution”. His name was given to the circle which brought together the people whose influence on Russian history was to be immeasurable: Sofia Perovskaya, P.A. Kropotkin, S.M. Kravchinsky, D.A. Klements, L.E. Shishko, N.A. Charushin, and many others.
During the famous “going to the people” movement* Tchaikovsky lived in America in an agricultural commune. After many years of a rather eventful life in emigration, he joined the S.R. (Social Revolutionaries) and returned to Russia. After being arrested, he broke up with the S.R. and became one of the most active members of the cooperative movement. Following the October revolution, he became the president of the Supreme Administrative Board of the North Region and then in Paris was one of the founders of the “Centre of Action” – an organisation aiming to carry out subversive activities against Soviet Russia. His biography is rich enough for a few political figures. It might seem that he could hardly have anything in common with William Frey. Yet, there was a moment in his life when their fates did cross. It seems to me that despite the apparent incompatibility of these two personalities, we can speak of a certain type of a young intellectual of that time. It might help us to understand the ideology and illusions of the narodnik movement (populism), whose bright representative was Nikolai Tchaikovsky.
Nikolai Tchaikovsky was born on December 26, 1850. His father, a retired colonel, settled down on his wife's estate (Vyatka region) and became “a true advocate of serfdom”. “The sympathies of the boy were on the side of peasants.” After spending his childhood in the country, Tchaikovsky first entered a high school in Vyatka and then, two years later, moved to Saint­ Petersburg to a classical high school, a former naval college (it was the most prestigious school in Petersburg). He graduated with a gold medal. At this time he was greatly influenced by the works of Auguste Comte. He described it quite vividly: “The influence of Auguste Comte, which was beyond my strength, broke down my health, exhausted my thought and language, but encouraged my intuition and steered me towards studying nature and positive sciences.” Later, he remembered his teachers and years in school with gratitude.
We could say a lot about the “Tchaikovskians” Circle and discuss many interesting and under-researched problems, but we will direct our attention to those of their views that might bring us closer to understanding Nikolai Tchaikovsky’s own position. According to a member of the circle, they did not support Bakunin. Even P.A. Kropotkin, who wrote one of the programmatic documents for the Circle - “Should we start popularizing the ideal of the future order?” - had to modify his anarchic beliefs (he even worked out a resourceful plan of persuading the tsar to adopt a constitution). The ideology of the Circle was also quite different from Lavrov's views. The “Tchaikovskians” were not pleased with Lavrov's programme and made him review it a few times. Tchaikovsky considered Lavrov's article “Knowledge and Revolution” to be “not only indifferent to us, but indeed harmful”. The difference of opinion did not prevent them from keeping correspondence for many years. At the same time, researchers and the “Tchaikovskians” themselves spoke about the influence of Lavrov’s “Historical letters” on their philosophy. It is true that the main objective of the “Tchaikovskians”, as they saw it, was propaganda and a long preparation for the revolution. Even the resolute Sofia Perovskaya at that time said that two generations of revolutionaries would have to lay down their lives for the cause of the revolution. In “Open Letter to Friends” Tchaikovsky wrote: “We were sure that we were doomed to perish.” That is the reason why the “Tchaikovskians” tried to find followers and focused their efforts on recruiting new members among common people. P.A. Kropotkin argued that in 1872 the organization was not a revolutionary one.
According some researchers and Tchaikovsky himself, the further search for Bogochelovechestvo (God-Manhood) was “not breaking away from the spiritual past, but an evolution” of the previous views.
In this extract Tchaikovsky's position is quite clear. The people are ignorant; the truth now lies in the hands of the educated, but the people have paid a high price for it. This means that our task is to pay off the debt, and if, in accomplishing this, we become able “to drink from the life-giving spring of the soul of the people”, it will be wonderful! We in this case does not refer to all educated people but only to those few that are ready to repay the debt. This we is somewhere between the government and the people, and it must help the people to find their fate.
Tchaikovsky and the “Tchaikovskians” clearly felt the gap between “us” and the people. A feeling of doom and preparedness for self-sacrifice arose out of the understanding that they were cut off from both “the government” and the people. Tchaikovsky tried to slowly build bridges to the “people's psychology”. After meeting Malikov, he suddenly realized that it was possible to reach the other side of the bridge - the authorities. Then what is the point in conducting an endless and fruitless struggle?
Tchaikovsky fell into melancholy. “At this time, under the pressure of doubts, with a pain in his heart, he left for Orel.” It should be pointed out that he went to Orel before the “going to the people” movement had failed. That's why his turn towards Bogochelovechestvo cannot be explained by the failure of this “crusade”, as it was sometimes presumed. But why Orel?
The reason was that Tchaikovsky had heard from his friends about a certain Alexander Malikov from Orel, who had developed and was now propagandizing a new theory. In this article we are not going to analyze the theory of Bogochelvechestvo - it is a theme for a large separate study. For a start, let us get acquainted with its creator, another hero of our story.
Alexander Kapitonovich Malikov was born in 1839 in the family of prosperous peasants in the Vladimir region. Having entered the Law Department of Moscow University, he met K.P. Pobedonostsev. Pobedonostsev, who was quite popular with students, was asked during a student riot: “Why do professors disapprove of our demands?” Pobedonostsev answered: “The form of your demands is such that it cannot arouse our sympathy. We are people with certain positions and families, we can't run from one political meeting to another and have conflicts with the police. The form that you have given to your demands means that you are going to deal with the police and not professors”. This frank answer made Malikov respect Pobedonostsev, and from that time on he always turned to him in the “difficult moments of his life”. We must do justice to Pobedonostsev: despite holding high governmental offices, he found time to answer Malikov's letters, always supported him, and quite often rescued him from unpleasant situations (this also explains the fact that Malikov was not persecuted on his return from America). The researcher of “Bogochelovechestvo” K.A. Solovyev is right in saying “that possibly it was the friendship of Malikov and Pobedonostsev that showed the creator of “Bogochelvechestvo” that persecutors of truth suffer too; and because of this friendship he started looking for ways to reconcile the classes rather than fan enmity.” After graduating from the university, Malikov was appointed as an investigator in the Zhizdrin district of the Kaluga region. There the Maltsev Plants became the scene of workers’ riots suppressed by military force. Malikov took the side of the workers. In reply to the Governor's demand to come and explain his position, he said that he served in the Ministry of Justice and did not have to obey the Governor. Foreseeing the consequences, he wrote to Pobedonostsev. Pobedonostsev answered immediately and advised him to quickly leave the Kaluga region. Malikov felt hurt: “If evil is everywhere in Russia, where should I flee? Why do you want to turn me into a coward? I expected you to support me in fighting the evil, but not running away from it”. Malikov was fired. Pobedonostsev immediately came to his aid: A.K. Malikov was posted to the Kholm district of the Pskov region.
While in the Zhizdrin district, Malikov met A.A. Bibikov, who served as a conciliator there. Later Bibikov became the manager of Lev Tolstoy's estate. In 1866, Malikov's career as an investigator came to an end: Bibikov and he were brought to trial in the “Karakozov case”. Researchers argue that the accused in this case faced two types of charges: for peaceful activities (education and propaganda) and for political activities. Malikov and Bibikov were tried on the charges of the first type; that's why the sentence was quite mild - exile to Kholmogory. Pobedonostsev helped again. At first Malikov was posted to Archangelsk as a secretary of the regional committee of statistics, and in 1872 he was allowed to move to Orel where he got a job in the administration of the railways. By that time Malikov was married to Elizaveta Alexandrovna and had three children. In Orel Malikov became the centre of attention of the youth. The author of a book about the “Tchaikovskians” claims that Malikov was an agent of this organization. P. G. Zaichnevsky also lived in Orel at that time. The creator of the proclamation “Young Russia”, calling to destroy the enemies by all means, undoubtedly had an influence on Malikov.
This is what V.G. Korolenko wrote about Zaichnevsky and Malikov: “Both were talented, both appreciated humour , but still both continued to act mad on the roads of thought that lacked any connection with the general stream of life, which was full of slavery and deceit ...”.
What is interesting is that Zaichnevsky helped Malikov to create a theory that was completely contrary to his own views. Yet, he remained his faithful friend.
So, what is the essence of the theory of Bogochelvechestvo and the theory of non-resistance to evil by violence, which made some researchers call Malikov a predecessor of Tolstoy?
When Tchaikovsky, who, like all other “Tchaikovskians”, was still searching for the truth, learned about A.K. Malikov and his new theory, he rushed to Orel. Malikov was waiting for him impatiently.
The theory of Bogochelvechestvo appeared in April, 1874. Malikov started propagandizing his views focusing his attention on his revolutionary friends. His preaching aroused interest and amazement. Besides Zainchevsky, the circle of his friends included Lidia Eihgoff and Klavdia Prugavina (according to the records, “poor girls, and that's why he sheltered them”), Leonid Egorovich Obolensky - the future editor of “Russian Wealth” (his first wife was Malikov's sister), and Malikov's colleague A.S. Golubev. A lot of the “Tchaikovskians” took part in the discussions but for some reason Malikov expected more from Tchaikovsky than from anybody else. And Tchaikovsky lived up to his expectations.
Tchaikovsky converted right away and started to propagandize Malikov’s teaching vigorously. But when he was in Orel, the transition period came to an end. O.V. Aptekman says: “In the spring of 1874, the wave of revolutionary and propaganda movement reached its peak. There were no more associations and gatherings. There was no need for them anymore. All problems had been solved. It was time to go to the people. It was necessary to make everything ready for it. But first of all it was necessary to master manual labour.” Not knowing this, Tchaikovsky started arguing with his comrades. “When he came to convert them to Malikov’s religion, almost all of his main followers had moved from Petersburg to Moscow. Having converted quickly himself, he expected his comrades to do the same. But by that time his comrades had already found a different path.” Tchaikovsky returned from Orel renewed. (Frolenko did not even recognize him at first: "Quietness and calm had come upon him. This calm and complete satisfaction even had an effect on his health: from a skinny student he had become a tall, stately young man.”) Tchaikovsky tried very hard to persuade his friends, and his teaching was met with enthusiasm. Some people, D.A. Klemenst for example, went to Orel to meet Malikov and take part in the endless discussions. S.F. Kovalik believes that the result of those debates was the following: “Logic was on the side of revolutionaries, but sympathies were on the side of Malikov”. However, despite the “wide interest among the progressive youth” only five members of revolutionary organizations adopted “Bogochelovechestvo”: “Tchaikovskians” - N.V. Tchaikovsky, S.L. Klyachko, V.I. Alexeev; and "artillerists" - D. Aitov and N. Teplov.
This is where the teaching of Bogochelovechestvo and the propaganda of the revolutionary narodnik movement, that often took religious forms, got mixed. Referring to Christ, who was deeply respected by narodniks, and to the Gospels, which provided religious form for their thoughts, they tried to make their thoughts more comprehensible for peasants.
Supporters of Bogochelovechestvo – bogocheloveki - did not use religious means just to conceal their revolutionary goals. The teaching was a sincere belief of sincere people who were appealing to both the sides: to the revolutionaries - in an attempt to stop the useless waste of effort and later the growing violence, which, as the bogocheloveki believed, could not lead to anything good; and to those with the authority to stop persecuting the decent people who were ready to die for common happiness.
Russia was not the right place for this sermon. Two of Malikov’s followers, N. Teplov and D. Aitov, were arrested because of their carelessness and unwillingness to hide anymore. (Later they were convicted in the “case of 193”. Soon, Malikov himself was arrested).
After a lot of hesitation, the bogocheloveki decided to emigrate to America. There were a few reasons for that: they realized that the tactics chosen by their revolutionary friends were meaningless; they expected the failure of the “going to the people” movement; they realized that the propaganda of their new teaching among their comrades had failed; they knew that it was impossible to struggle against evil using evil methods. And there was one thing that was evident to all of them: implementing their ideas in Russia would be impossible because of the inevitable persecution by the government.
Showing to the world a means of escaping from the state of war to universal peace and unity.
Feeling sad about the delusions of their revolutionary friends, the bogocheloveki decided to concentrate on attaining their first goal - self-education and self-perfection. In his letter to Tolstoy, Alexeev writes that he went to America to save his soul. Yet, they wanted their comrades to follow their example of self-perfection. They did not want to “escape from the world”, and they kept in touch with those few “Tchaikovskians” who remained free after “going to the people”. Strictly speaking, the organization of the colony was a measure forced by circumstances, and they chose the form of commune that suited those circumstance best (obviously, it is almost impossible to start anything new in a strange country without mutual support).
In summer of 1875 the future colonists gathered in New York. There were 15 of them. At first they did not want to join Frey. Their attitude to him can be illustrated by a letter from Tchaikovsky to Klements of April 19, 1875. In this .letter Tchaikovsky asks not to mix up their future commune with the social experiments of socialists-communists-utopianists. Justifying his negative attitude to the communes, he wrote: “Yes, all these Freys fully confirm your disapproval of that kind of people training. It couldn’t produce any other result - castration of a man can’t lead to anything but deformity”.
So, those who came to America - A.K. Malikov, his wife E.A. Malikova and their three children, K.S. Prugavina, L.F. Eihgoff, N.S. Bruevich, V.I. Alexeev (who later became a teacher of Tolstoy's children), G.I. Alexeev (his brother), N.V. Tchaikovsky, his wife V.A. Tchaikovsky, S. Klyachko, his wife A. Klyachko, some Khokhlov - all lived together in one apartment in New York in September – October, 1875.
That autumn a delegation of three was sent to Frey. They were Malikov, Tchaikovsky and an American. The scene of their arrival is vividly described by Faresov who heard the story from Malikov himself: “The autumn of 1875 was cold and windy. Approaching Frey's village, I expected to find a line of huts, cultivated fields and happy faces of new Christians. But the land was wild, and the house that stood before us was all cracks, and a few steps before the house through a crack we could see its inhabitants and what was going on there. They all were fighting the cold as hard as they could. Frey himself went out to welcome us in a soldier's greatcoat, suffering from a fever. His wife, a sister of Slavinsky, who wrote about America in “Otechestvennye zapisky”, was also wearing a greatcoat, and her face was sad and depressed. It was full of suffering and hidden fear of the future. These greatcoats were bought in the sales on the occasion of the end of the war of deliverance.” Malikov summed it up: “We expected to meet not only new people, but Kulturtragers. In reality, before us were poverty-stricken people who thought that they were doing the world a great favour by their self-perfection”.
Because of some global and local reasons, Frey soon came to distrust all Russians who wanted to take part in those communal experiments. There were also personal reasons for that. Frey's wife Mary started feeling depressed by the communal life. She was a woman of a more active, open character. As a result, she constantly had affairs with Russians who came to experience communal life. And some of those affairs took open and lingering forms. Once she even left Frey for some Muromtsev and had a son from him. When Muromtsev went back to Russia, Mary and her son Volodya returned to Frey.
Before meeting with the bogocheloveki, the Freys had spent more than seven years in America. All these seven years were filled with work beyond one's strength and countless unsuccessful experiments, like agricultural colonies or a printing house.
Tchaikovsky, drawing on his previous experience, suggested introducing a kind of confession. “At first it produced brilliant results. Everybody left with a joyful, loving feeling for one another. But little by little it stopped satisfying us. Instead of confession, mutual reproaches were heard at these evening meetings.” At that point the bogocheloveki invited Frey - "perhaps he will help us to sort out our mess.” But it only sped up the denouement.
Frey, who by that time had noticed that all economic communes had collapsed and only religious sects were prospering, burst into energetic activity. He tried to introduce a religious basis, “though he himself was far from being religious”. Alexeev notes that Frey thought about “setting up the custom that was practiced in the Shakers commune and involved meeting each sunrise by common singing of psalms on a hill”. Using the experience of other communes, he introduced “criticisms” instead of confessions (similar “criticisms” existed in the well-known “Oneida” colony, which Frey once wanted to join but failed.) A note-book survived in which Tchaikovsky wrote who he wanted to scold and why. Malikov told Faresov: “Our idea of public condemnation sometimes got ridiculous. Condemnation came down to accusations that “somebody did not wash the saucepan properly, and that too much time was wasted on leisure, and so on”. Alexeev: “This form of improvement was too sensitive and didn't ease the strained relations in the commune; on the contrary, it only spoiled them.” What is more, it was prohibited to respond to the reproofs right away; it was to be done in a week's time. It is easy to imagine the feelings of the communalists who were storing up their counter arguments during the week.
Alexeev notes that Malikov was the first to give up: “We are growing mouldy, mouldy”. On fine days he simply wanted to daydream or wander in picturesque surroundings. Once he broke down and instead of planting maize went fishing. When he came back with empty hands, he tried to justify himself by saying that he wanted to diversify the commune’s menu. Frey “indirectly” gave him a scolding. (I can imagine how they waited for the next “criticism”!) Finally, Malikov became sick of it and built himself a house on the other side of the river. Some “like­minded persons” followed him. Most likely, there were personal reasons involved. Malikov's wife would leave him for Alexeev. (Later Korolenko would write in his memoirs about Malikov: “He broke up with his first wife. However, they remained friends. It seems that she couldn't put up with her husband's vagrancy and left him, falling in love with one of his friends and taking her daughter along.”) In America Alexeev could not register a church marriage; that's why his son Kolya had the surname Malikov and the patronymic Alexandrovich. Malikov in his turn married Klavdia Stepanovna Prugavina (sister of the well-known publicist A.S. Prugavin, who, by the way, wrote a book about bogocheloveki). Korolenko wrote that it was the most wonderful woman that he had ever met; she was “shining with warmth”. She tragically died in Perm in 1881 - an inexperienced doctor infected her after delivery. It is interesting to note that both of them - Malikov and Alexeev - were on good, friendly terms afterwards.
So, Malikov, K.S. Prugavina, Khokhlov and Bruevich broke away. Frey sped up the break-up of the commune, and here is just one example of how he did it. Once Tchaikovsky fell ill. Klyachko went shopping into town, and Alexeev, left alone, had to spend a lot of the time fixing the fence. As a result, he was late for dinner. Frey called a meeting and suggested leaving Alexeev without dinner. The latter got furious: nobody helped him, and he was punished for that. Tchaikovsky rose from bed and started accusing Frey of formalism. It was finally decided to give Alexeev his meal. Frey himself was not a very diligent worker. He was mostly busy with his children, and he made it a principle.
- Write it, Bella, you know the multiplication table; you only lack attention and accuracy. Develop these qualities in yourself and don't be a sloven. Now you are inattentive to the rules of multiplication and make mistakes; when you grow older, it will become a habit and you'll be inattentive to the rules of life and will make mistakes in life. You are only spoiling the paper now but later you will spoil your soul.
- Bella, said Frey with reserve, - stop crying and solve the problem. Really, otherwise I'll pour a bucket of water on you.
Bella was sobbing loudly, and suddenly we heard a splash and in a moment a heart-rending cry of the girl. We rushed to Frey's room and found him with a bucket in his hand.
- You are an idiot, Mister Frey! You are an idiot!
- Gentlemen, I had to keep my word. Otherwise what would the child think of me? I threatened to pour water on her and I kept my word.
- You are a martyr of the wrong system, and you are torturing your wife and daughter.
From what has been said, it might appear that Frey was a disagreeable fanatic and a bore. But we must take into account the fact that all these episodes are told by people who, to put it mildly, did not quite accept and understand him. By the way, later he did not conceal his attitude to some members of this commune: “He (Frey) doesn't have a high opinion of your acquaintances in America, for example of Malikov, but of Vasiliy Ivanovich he speaks well”. In our view, it was not by accident that Tolstoy liked Frey so much. He was also able to captivate many people (especially enthusiastic women) with his belief in the bright future of mankind. Till the end of his days he took affectionate care of his children, including Volodya, and when the Murovtsev couple sent a letter from Russia demanding that he send Volodya to them, Frey refused with indignation.
Unfortunately, he was a slave to his ideas. He would sacrifice practically everything to reach his illusionary goals. At the same time he was ready to do anything in order to keep the commune alive. If religiosity is needed - let us believe; communes with rituals do better - let us have rituals; let us introduce “criticisms”, let us have despotism of opinions and convictions, if it benefits the commune. Rejecting “active” violence, he created “passive” violence, hoping that it would bring him closer to his goal. In Herzen’s article about Robert Owen he read the following: “We should not just sit twiddling our thumbs, we should not descend into oblomovshina (inertness, apathy), but we should in the first place try to destroy the evil inside us, transform ourselves and our lives according to the ideal”. He would be fighting evil using all the means of Good, without noticing that Good requires very subtle treatment and takes revenge on maximalists.
Tchaikovsky was the first to leave the commune. Alone, with 10 dollars in his pocket (the ticket to Philadelphia where he was heading cost 20 dollars), on July 23, 1877 he set out on a very difficult journey. He travelled 420 miles in 23 days. After a lot of hardships, in early 1878 he found himself in the Shakers commune. This opened a new period in his life, which T. Polner called “the second Bogochelovechestvo”. Tchaikovsky tried to reflect on the experience he had gained. The Shakers commune clearly demonstrated the superiority of religious sects over all others. Here is what he wrote about the Shakers: “Freyism is not worth a brass farthing in comparison with their influence. He is narrower than us, they are wider, though they are behind us; they are raising us upwards, he is drawing us down, though they are both behind us and they are farther than him”. In half a year he wrote: “… the sect started to suffocate me”. In February of 1879 he moved to New York, then to Paris, and in a year and a half to London.
In the summer of 1877 Alexeev and Malikov came back to Russia, where they were literally starving. In the autumn of 1877 Alexeev started working as a teacher of Tolstoy's children. Malikov and his wife moved to Perm in 1879. At that time he was firmly standing on the Orthodox positions.
Frey carried on with his communal experiment, and in 1883 he was invited to the “New Odessa” commune as a specialist on communal life. He did not even wait for its break-up and in 1885 moved to London to propagandize positivism and the “Religion of the Humanity”. In 1886 he went to Russia where he met Tolstoy.
So, what was the reason for the failure of the commune?
Frey, and later Prugavin, believed that the most important factor was the lack of emotional and psychological unity between the communists, the absence of a common religion; secondly, complicated personal relations (Korolenko and Polner); thirdly, the inability to work physically (Korolenko and Polner); fourthly, nostalgia for Russia (Polner).
Feeling themselves a part of the Universe, willing to help the society, the bogocheloveki were sure to leave the commune, as they saw that the results of their co-operation with the society were insignificant.
19. Tchaikovsky, N.V., Paris, 1929. An Open Letter to Friends.
 See, e.g.: Batalov, E. Ya., In a Utopian World. Moscow, 1989, p. 224.
 Baikun, M., Communal Societies as Cyclical Phenomenal/Communal Societies, 1984, V.4, p.35 (translation by E. Ya. Batolov).
Meetings of V. Frey with L.N.Tolstoy. Geneva, 1886.
 Yannolinskiy, Avraham, A Russian's American Dream, A memoir on W. Frey. Kansas, 1965.
 Reingardt, N. V., An Unusual Personality. Life and Science, 1905, 2-4.
 Besides the above-mentioned, see: Semevski, M.I., Acquaintances. Saint Petersburg, 1988, Batuturinski, V., Heinz V.K. I Russian Biographical Dictionary, and others.
 Yarmolinskiy, Avraham, A Russian's Dream, A Memoir on W. Frey. Kansas , 1965.
 Citation from N.V. Reingardt, An Unusual Personality. Life and Science, 1905, 2-4.
 About him, see: Tchaikovsky N.V., Paris, 1929.
 * In the early l870s, as part of the norodnik movement, about 1000 people went "to the people" in order to call them to revolution.
 Ibid Recollections of N.V. Tchaikovsky.
 Perris, D., Pioneers of the Russian Revolution. Saint Petersburg, 1906, p. 16.
 Perris, D., Pioneers of the Russian Revolution. Saint Petersburg, 1906, p. 17, Tchaikovsky, N.V., Paris, 1929, p. 31.
 Forward, 1874, No.3, pp. 147- 153.
 Tchaikovsky, N.V., Paris, 1929. An Open Letter to Friends.
 Kropatin, P., Notes of a Revolutionary . Moscow, 1988, p. 193.
 * The double essence of Jesus Christ. In the late 19th c. it represented for the Russian intelligentsia an attempt within the framework of Christian terminology to rise above human nature not by deeds but by realizing one's relationship to the divine.
 Tchaikovsky, N.V., Paris, 1929, p.118.
 Review of the book, Active Populism, A Voice from the Past, 1913, No. 6.
 Bogucharsky, V. Ya ., Active Populism of the 70's. Moscow, 1912, p. 185.
 Tchaikovsky, N.V., Paris, 1929, p. 74.
 Tchaikovsky, N.V., Paris, 1929, An Open Letter to Friends.
 Fronlenko, L. F., Notes of a 70-er, Moscow. 1927, p.94.
 See, e.g.: Charushin , N. A ., Tchaikovsky, N. V., Penal Servitude and Exile. 1926, p.129 .
 About "Bogochelovechestvo " see, e.g.: Tchaikovsky, N. V., Paris, 1929; and also: The dissertation by K. A. Solovyev.
 Tchaikovsky, N. V., Paris, 1929.
 Solovyev, K. A., Religious Movement in the Freedom Movement in the 70's of the Last Century. Moscow, 1990, p. 70.
 Korolenko, V . G. , The History of My Contemporary. Moscow, 1985, p. 147.
 Korolenko, V . G. , The History of My Contemporary. Moscow, 1985, p. 148.
 GARF, Fund 112, An Attendance of the Government Senate, list No. I , unit of storage 293, p.47.
 Tchaikovsky, N .V., Paris, 1929. An Open letter to Friends .
 Aptekman, 0. V., The Society "Earth and Will "of the 1870s. Petersburg, 1924, p. 154 .
 Frolenko, L.F., Notes of a 70er. Moscow, 1927, p. 98.
 GARF, archive 109(3 cpoies), 1974, unit of storage 144, part 105, p .2.
 Faresov A., The 70ers. Saint Petersburg, 1905.
 A Voice from the Past on a Foreign Side. No 3, XVI, 1926.
 Faresov , A ., The 70ers. Saint Petersburg, 1905, p.142.
 Machtet, G. A., A Full Collection of Essays. Saint Petersburg, 1911, p.76.
 GARF,Fund 112, An Attendance of the Government Senate, list 4, unit of storage 458, p. 2.
 Faresov, A., The 70ers. Saint Petersburg, 1905, p.144.
 Alexeev, V. I.Recollections/Chronicles of the Government Literature Museum, issue 12, V.2, Moscow, 1948. p. 134.
 Faresov, A., The 70ers. Saint Petersburg, 1905, p.145.
 Alexeev,V. I., Recollections/Chronicles of the Government Literature Museum, issue 12, V. 2, Moscow, 1948, p. 146.
 Alexeev,V. I., Recollections/Chronicles of the Government Literature Museum, issue 12, V. 2, Moscow, 1948, p. 139.
 Korolenko, V. G., The History of My Contemporary. Moscow, 1985.
 Faresov, A., The 70ers. Saint Petersburg, 1905, p. 147.
 Literature inheritance LXIX, 1961, book 2, p. 77.
 Korolenko , V. G. The History of My Contemporary. Moscow, 1985, p.152.
 Tchaikovsky , N.V. Paris, 1929.
 Alexeev,V .I., Recollections/Chronicles of the Government Literature Museum, issue 12, V . 2, Moscow , 1948, p .134.
 Voice of the Past on a Foreign Side, N o.3, XVI, 1926.
 Tchaikovsky, N . V., Paris , 1929.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.