great achievements,’ political exiles encouraged him.193 It mattered that veterans of the revolutionary struggle were using such language about him, particularly impressing the masses who were now in the process of becoming politicized.
National organizations called Kerensky ‘a magnificent champion of freedom for Russia and its nationalities’. Those composing other resolutions hailed him as ‘a champion of social liberation’. Kerensky was called ‘a champion of the freedom of the working people’, ‘a proven champion of the happiness and freedom of working people’, ‘a tireless champion and defender of the dispossessed people and its freedom’, and ‘a champion of freedom for the insulted and humiliated’.194 In many other resolutions the revolutionary minister was called a ‘champion of freedom’, ‘a champion of freedom for the people’, ‘a champion for the liberation of the motherland’, and ‘our dear and tireless champion of freedom and rights’.195 Particular significance was seen in the length of his political service and faithfulness to his chosen political path. Kerensky was regularly described as a ‘proven’, ‘indefatigable’, ‘tireless’, ‘steadfast’ champion.
As we have seen, Kerensky’s 1917 biographers created and affirmed his revolutionary reputation, thereby asserting his right to political leadership at a time of revolution. Actually, in this he was not alone. The status of adversary of the old regime became an important source of political legitimation, so not a few leaders of the time were celebrated by their supporters as ‘champions of freedom’.
In March many people in Russia thought it appropriate to congratulate Rodzyanko, the chairman of the State Duma and of its Provisional Committee, on the success of the revolution.196 Those congratulating him were not always entirely clear about his status. He was referred to as ‘the Head of the Free Russian State’, ‘the Head of Free Russia’, ‘the President-Minister’, ‘the Chairman of the Provisional Government’. Rodzyanko was also called ‘a champion of freedom’, ‘the liberator of Russia’197 and sometimes even ‘the Leader of freedom’.198 Some of these titles awarded to him were later used to characterize other leaders, including Kerensky: Rodzyanko, chairman of the State Duma, was called, for example, ‘the genius of Free Russia’.199 More commonly, however, he was called the ‘first citizen’, ‘the first free citizen of this free country’, ‘the best citizen’ and ‘the first citizen of free Russia’. The barrister Iosif Balinsky greeted Rodzyanko as follows: ‘Long live the State Duma … Long life to its splendid chairman, the first and most worthy citizen among equal citizens of free Russia.’200
Some projects of memory politics were associated with Rodzyanko’s name. The Yekaterinoslav City Council hastened to perpetuate the memory of their august major local landowner: resolving to instal a marble statue of him in the hall of their duma, naming the town square after him and, in addition, planning to erect a monument to Liberation in the city centre with a statue of Rodzyanko in the middle of the composition.201
The political parties glorified their leaders, recalling their revolutionary past. This method of enhancing authority was deployed with particular energy when the party leaders were under fire from opponents. The Socialist Revolutionaries, for example, fought back against attacks in the conservative and liberal press on Chernov, whom they dubbed a ‘highly prominent champion of the freedom and happiness of working people’.202
When Lenin and the ‘Leninists’ found themselves furiously attacked, the Bolsheviks felt the time had come to publish several biographical sketches of their own, making known their Leader’s contribution to the revolutionary struggle.203 They declared: ‘It is not right to refer to false, sordid accusations against Comrade Lenin because Lenin is an old party Leader, not just one since March.’204 This form of words could be seen as concealed criticism of politicians who had come to prominence only during the February Days – a reproach that veteran revolutionaries might have been inclined to level at Kerensky.
After the overthrow of the monarchy, constructing revolutionary biographies was a common method of consolidating authority, and people of quite different views described their leaders as ‘true’ and ‘proven’ champions of freedom, even as they cast doubt and sought to refute similar claims on the part of their political opponents.
For Kerensky, his claim to the image of a champion of freedom was particularly important, and we have seen that both he and his supporters went to great lengths to build it up. No other political leader was on the receiving end of quite so many biographical essays in 1917.
Kerensky’s supporters sometimes went further and sought to place him in a higher league than other champions of freedom. Some time before 23 March the chairman of the students of Kharkov University who were from Borisoglebsk greeted him as ‘foremost among the great champions of freedom’.205 In the months that followed, other citizens pointed out how special was his place in the pantheon. On 10 July a telegram was sent to the minister declaring that the Socialist Revolutionaries of the Molitovka factory in Nizhny Novgorod ‘greet you, the foremost champion of free, revolutionary Russia, and express to you, and through you to the Provisional Government, our complete confidence.’ A representative of the Mogilyov Soviet of Peasant Deputies called him nothing less than ‘the apostle of revolution and liberator of the peasantry’.206
In some writing of the time, this still youthful politician was seen as a unique, and even single-handed, liberator of Russia. The attitude is found in letters and resolutions addressed to Kerensky even in the autumn of 1917. ‘You are the person to whom all Russia is indebted for liberation from the oppression of tsarism.’207 In another instance, he is described as Russia’s principal liberator and Leader of the champions of freedom. A non-commissioned officer called Romanov, who wanted permission to change his name, which had become an unwelcome reminder of the old regime, wrote, ‘I beg you, great champion!!! For all the Russian people who endured this yoke and bridle, you, Mr Kerensky, leading all the others, were the great liberator from this oppression and lifted this yoke.’208
The image of Kerensky as the great liberator was even (negatively) exploited by propagandists of the Austro-Hungarian army in an Austrian leaflet targeted at Russian soldiers on the front line. The minister, it was claimed, had earlier stated he was seeking to end hostilities. ‘Your trustworthy Comrade Kerensky took, as the liberator of the people, all power into his hands and promised the people the war would soon end.’209
Kerensky himself regularly referred in his public speeches to his service to the revolution, and he used that approach more frequently than other politicians in the spotlight. He also took an active role in promoting the cult of champions of freedom, sometimes at the prompting of public opinion. A general meeting of the trading officials of Tyumen, held on 5 March, sent him the following message: ‘… on this momentous day of elections to the city’s Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, [this assembly] asks you, dear Alexander Fyodorovich, to convey our greetings to the holy martyrs and champions of freedom Yekaterina Breshkovskaya, Vera Figner, Nikolai Morozov and other veterans of the liberation movement and to tell them we will give our lives for the ideals for which they fought.’210 In this address Kerensky is mentioned as the worthiest representative of the new generation of revolutionaries, authorized to intercede with his legendary predecessors who symbolize the fraternity of champions of freedom. In other messages he is even mentioned as ranking with the ‘holy martyrs’. The All-Russia Congress of Teachers, for example, passed a resolution sending greetings to Kerensky, Breshko-Breshkovskaya, Figner, Plekhanov ‘and other great revolutionaries’.211
The young politician occupied an honourable place in the ranks of the acknowledged veterans of the revolutionary movement, which meant all efforts to promote the cult of champions of freedom redounded, particularly, to his credit. Moreover, consolidation of the cult was in harmony with the vector of the new politics of memory after February 1917.
Revolutionary Russia needed to rewrite its history to create a portrait of the past suitable for political use in the new situation. Some events needed to be forgotten, others to be radically rethought. All political organizations found themselves drawn inescapably