1 For the purposes of this essay the Russian révolution may be roughly defined as the events of 1917, of which the fall of the monarchy in March and the Bolshevik seizure of power in November form two distinct climaxes. The Russian tradition (based on the Old Style calendar) has been observed in referring to the “February” and “October” révolutions. For bibliographies consult Charles, Morley, Guide to Research in Russian History (Syracuse, 1951)Google Scholar, and Gorodetskii, E. N., ed., Velikaia obtiabr'skaia sotsialisticheskaia revoliutsiia : Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’ dokumental'nykh publikatsii (Moscow, 1961)Google Scholar. See also Michael, Karpovich, “The Russian révolution of 1917,” Journal of Modern History , II, No. 2 (June 1930), 258–80Google Scholar, for a discussion of historical periodicals (both Soviet and emigrd), documentary collections, memoirs of tsarist figures, and other sources published before 1930. With some exceptions the present essay excludes unpublished material, periodical articles, collections of documents, the articles and speeches of the Bolshevik leaders, military memoirs, and works concerned primarily with the tsarist period before the révolutionary crisis. The comparative history of révolution, of which Crane Brinton's Anatomy of révolution (rev. ed.; New York, 1965) may be regarded as the standard work, is another area which it seemed advisable to exclude. Writers who have dealt with the “significance” of the Russian révolution (variously defined) are legion, and no attempt has been made to discuss material which is more ideological than historical. For an interpretive “typology” that includes some of these more discursive works, see James H., Billington, “Six Views of the Russian révolution,” World Politics , XVIII, No. 3 (April 1966), 452–73Google Scholar. My own principle of selection is necessarily subjective, but I have sought to cover the works of leading participants and foreign observers and to examine most of the important or tendentious secondary works published in Western languages. No de tailed appraisal of Soviet scholarship has been attempted, but I have chosen the most significant works illustrative of the changing party line.

2 These documents, long regarded skeptically by most scholars, were conclusively proved to be forgeries in George F. Kennan, “The Sisson Documents,” Journal of Modern History, XXVII, No. 2 (June 1956), 130-54.

3 My Mission to Russia and Other Diplomatic Memories (2 vols.; Boston, 1923).

4 Russia from the American Embassy (New York, 1921).

5 An Ambassador's Memoirs (3 vols.; London, 1923-25).

6 Mon ambassade en Rnssie soviétique 1917—1919 (2 vols.; Paris, 1933).

7 Jules Bestrée, Les fondeurs de neige (Brussels, 1920).

8 British Agent (New York, 1933). His The Two révolutions (London, 1957), a product of his mature reflections, is a brief interpretive narrative, with some personal interpolations, that does not add materially to our knowledge.

9 William Hard, Raymond Robins’ Own Story (New York, 1920).

10 The most convincing case for this thesis is presented in Williams, William Appleman, American Russian Relations, 1781-1947 (New York, 1952)Google Scholar. See also Schuman, Frederick Lewis, American Policy Toward Russia Since ipij (New York, 1928)Google Scholar. More critical appraisals of Robins may be found in Kennan, George F., Russia Leaves the War (Princeton, 1956)Google Scholar, and Christopher, Lasch, The American Liberals and the Russian révolution (New York, 1962).Google Scholar

11 Notes sur la révolution bolchevique (Paris, 1919).

12 “Witnesses of the révolution,” Survey (London), No. 41 (April 1962), p. 17.

13 J. W. Bezemer has surveyed most of the literature produced by Western observers in De Russische Revolutie in Westerse Ogen (Amsterdam, 1956).

14 Padenie tsarskogo rezhima (7 vols.; Moscow, 1924-27).

15 See Karpovich, pp. 261-63, 266-67.

16 Of more lasting value to scholars is the monumental collection of documents edited by Kerensky, and Browder, Robert Paul : The Russian Provisional Government, 1917 (3 vols.; Stanford, 1961)Google Scholar. Kerensky's, Prelude to Bolshevism : The Kornilov Rising (New York, 1919)Google Scholar presents his testimony before the Provisional Government's Commission of Inquiry and his interpellated comment.

17 The memoirs of Vladimir Nabokov, head of the chancellery of the Provisional Government, are of considerable value : Arkhiv Russkoi Revoliutsii, I (Berlin, 1921), 9-96.

18 Istoriia vtoroi russkoi revoliutsii (3 parts; Sofia, 1921-24).

19 Apparently the only other party member to write an extensive history was Ariadna Tyrkóva-Williams, the wife of the British journalist Harold Williams. Her From Liberty to Brest-Litovsk (London, 1919) is now badly dated but contains some firsthand information.

20 Vospominaniia (New York, 1955).

21 The Great Russian révolution, trans. Philip E. Mosely (New Haven, 1936).

22 Vospominaniia o fevral'skoi revoliutsii (2 vols.; Paris, 1963).

23 Zapiski o revoliutsii (7 vols.; Berlin, 1922-23). Joel Carmichael edited, abridged, and translated the work as The Russian révolution, IQIJ (New York, 1955).

24 W. S. Woytinsky, Stormy Passage (New York, 1961).

25 Semnadtsatii god (4 vols.; Moscow, 1923-31).

26 Robert H. McNeal, “Soviet Historiography on the October révolution : A Review of Forty Years,” American Slavic and East European Review, XVII, No. 3 (Oct. 1958), 271.

27 The History of the Russian révolution (3 vols.; New York, 1932). For a more extended appraisal of his History, see Robert D. Warth, “Leon Trotsky : Writer and Historian,” Journal of Modern History, XX, No. I (March 1948), 27-41.

28 Trotsky's My Life (New York, 1930), though disappointingly succinct on 1917, should not be overlooked as a primary source and a fine example of autobiography.

29 Some of his writings dealt with aspects of 1917, and he edited a collection of scholarly essays : Ocherhi po istorii oktiabr'skoi revoliutsii (2 vols.; Moscow, 1927).

30 Oktiabŕ” igij g. (Moscow, 1927). It was translated into French as Histoire populaire de la révolution d'octobre (Paris, 1927).

31 I have had access only to the English edition : W. Astrov, A. Slepkov, and J. Thomas, eds., An Illustrated History of the Russian révolution (2 vols.; New York, 1928).

32 M. Gor'kii et al., eds., Istoriia grazhdanskoi voiny v SSSR, Vol. I (Moscow, 1935).

33 See Robert D. Warth, “Stalin's Ghost and the Khrushchev Thaw : Soviet Historians in the Crucible,” Antioch Review, XX, No. 4 (Winter 1960-61), 417-25.

34 For a survey of Soviet work on the October révolution, see M. E. Naidenov, “Velikaia oktiabr'skaia sotsialisticheskaia revoliutsiia v sovetskoi istoriografii,” Voprosy istorii, No. 10 (Oct.), 1957, pp. 167-80.

35 Documentary collections continue to furnish a safe channel for historical investigation. The most ambitious project was sponsored by the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences : Velikaia oktiabr'skaia sotsialisticheskaia revoliutsiia : Dokumenty i materialy (9 vols, in 10 parts; Moscow, 1957-63). A supplemental Khronika sobytii (5 vols.; Moscow. 1957-62) was published under the same auspices.

36 His personal impressions, as contained in Russia in Upheaval (New York, 1918), are inconsequential.

37 Der Zusammenbruch der Zarenmonarchie (Zurich, 1928) and Von Kerenski zu Lenin (Zurich, 1929).

38 Reprinted in 1952 with a new introduction by the author.

39 Pares had firsthand knowledge of the period and was personally acquainted with many of the Duma leaders. His My Russian Memoirs (London, 1931) is of considerable interest on 1917.

40 The best summary of the reign of Nicholas II is Richard, Charques, The Twilight of Imperial Russia (Fair Lawn, N.J., 1958)Google Scholar. George Katkov's Russia 1917 : The February révolution (London and New York, 1967)Google Scholar was made available to me in page proof after this article was completed. A fascinating study emphasizing political intrigue in Duma and court circles, it is based on a thorough acquaintance with the literature, especially obscure émigré publications. The author writes as a sophisticated though not uncritical apologist for the old regime, and although his work is of permanent value, it is highly tendentious and presents a rather fanciful interpretation of the February révolution as a product of German intrigue and anti-tsarist agitation by the Duma “liberals” (many of them supposedly linked by ties to freemasonry). This conspiracy thesis owes much to the work of Sergei Mel'gunov (see below), notably his Martovskie dni 1917 goda (Paris, 1961).

41 Histoire de la révolution russe (Paris, 1953).

42 Two possible exceptions may be noted : Curtiss, John Shelton, The Russian révolutions of 1917 (Princeton, 1957)Google Scholar, and Alban, Gordon, Russian Year : A Calendar of révolution (London, 1935)Google Scholar. The former is clear, concise, and accurate but designed as a brief survey for college students; the latter occasionally lapses into semifictional techniques.

43 The most significant documents relevant to the controversy have been published in Z. A. B. Zeman, ed., Germany and the révolution in Russia, 1915-1918 (London, 1958)Google Scholar. A supplementary collection, edited and with an excellent introduction by Werner Hahlweg, is Lenins Rückkehr nach Russland 1917 (Leiden, 1957).Google Scholar

44 The Agrarian Foes of Bolshevism (New York, 1958) and The Sickle under the Hammer (New York, 1963). Radkey's The Election to the Russian Constituent Assembly of 191J (Cambridge, Mass., 1950) is slightly beyond the chronological scope of this essay but may be mentioned as the standard work on the subject.

45 Schapiro, Leonard's The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (New York, 1959)Google Scholar includes a brief chapter on the Bolsheviks in 1917. It is supplemented by the same author's Origin of the Communist Autocracy (London, 1955), which devotes three short chapters to Bolshevik tactics in 1917. Ulam, Adam B., The Bolsheviks (New York, 1965)Google Scholar, a brilliant interpretive history of the party focused on Lenin, contains a lengthy chapter on the révolutionary year. Daniels, Robert V., The Conscience of the révolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1960)Google Scholar, is chiefly concerned with the Communist opposition in the 1920s but has a suggestive chapter on Bolshevik factions in 1917. Among the Anarchists, now virtually a forgotten political group, the only substantial statement of their views to my knowledge is “Voline” (Eichenbaum, Vsevolod), Nineteen-Seventeen : The Russian révolution Betrayed (New York, 1954)Google Scholar, the essential part of a longer work (from the nineteenth century to 1921) entitled La Révolution inconnue (Paris, 1947). Unconventionality is its major recommendation.

46 Richard H. Ullman's Anglo-Soviet Relations, 1917-1921, Vol. I : Intervention and the War (Princeton, 1961) adds little on the events of 1917.

47 Alexander Park, Bolshevism in Turkestan, 1917-1027 (New York, 1955), is perfunctory on 1917.

48 For an intriguing example of this “primitive” view of the Bolshevik conspiracy, see Louis Paul Kirby, The Russian révolution (Boston, 1940).

49 Lenin (Garden City, 1948).

50 Lénine (Paris, 1950).

51 For a more detailed analysis of these three biographies of Lenin, see Robert D. Warth, “Lenin : The Western Image Forty Years After,” Antioch Review, XXIV, No. 4 (Winter 1064-65), 530-37.