Stalin history of a pseudonym. William pokhlebkin on the origin of the pseudonym of joseph dzhugashvili - "stalin"

William Vasilyevich Pokhlebkin (full name William-August; August 20, 1923 - March 30, 2000) - Soviet and Russian historian. Below is a fragment from his work "The Great Pseudonym" about Joseph Stalin.

Already after the revolution, in the early 1920s, in the party environment and especially among the intelligentsia, it was widely believed that "Stalin" is a simple translation into Russian of the Georgian root of his surname - "Dzhuga", which supposedly means "steel". This opinion persisted throughout the Soviet era and was repeatedly mentioned in the literature about Stalin. That is why the question of the origin of the pseudonym "Stalin" was, as it were, automatically "removed" in advance, since it was believed that this origin was known, and that it, moreover, was quite standard, trivial. This conviction was all the stronger because it was confirmed by the Georgian side as well. So, for example, even many prominent intellectuals of Georgia, academicians, writers in their private conversations with their Moscow and Leningrad colleagues often confirmed this version: “Yes, 'dzhuga' in Georgian, or rather in ancient Georgian, means 'steel', "Damask" ". However, this is not only not so, but is also a direct fiction, which does not have any factual and philological basis.

The fact is that modern Georgians themselves simply do not know what the word "dzhuga" means, for this word is very ancient. It sounds like it is in Georgian, but its meaning is simply lost. God knows what it means. They say “steel”, so it seems like people think so, well, let it be “steel”. However, it is known that in many languages, including Russian, there are many words, the meaning of which no one remembers, and which are even absent in dictionaries. Nevertheless, these words mean something definite, make sense and, in the case of more careful study, can be deciphered. So, for example, the word "smurygy" - sounds like an ordinary Russian adjective, but its meaning is already unknown to us, since we practically do not use it in everyday language. In fact, it means "worn and worn to such an extent clothing, the original color, which can no longer be distinguished." Thus, one short word succinctly defines a whole complex concept, which only a long phrase can convey in modern language. It is to this kind of "forgotten" words that the Georgian word "dzhuga" belongs. And it doesn't mean "steel" at all.

Here is what the prominent Georgian writer-playwright Kita Mikhailovich Buachidze wrote about this in 1990 in response to my inquiry, by the way, a former prisoner of Stalin's concentration camps, a man of remarkable fortitude and profound culture, who preserved decency, high intelligence in the most difficult conditions and not at all lost and not exchanged from the vicissitudes of fate - his education. By the time I received this letter, I already knew how the pseudonym "Stalin" came about and Kita Mikhailovich's message only once again confirmed that Stalin did not go and could not go the usual way in choosing his pseudonyms, and even more so - he could not be primitive and "transparent" to translate his surname from one language to another, which would be contrary to his whole psychology. So my guess turned out to be correct - his pseudonym was "found" in an unusual way. And it was also necessary to look for a clue in an unusual way, i.e. not in archival documents, where such things simply cannot be reflected, but in attempts to reveal the peculiarities of the character and psychology of Stalin.

The idea behind my search was simple. She proceeded from the well-known fact that Stalin had a phenomenal memory and a gigantic capacity for work. It is clear that at the age of 33, both of these qualities were in their prime. Secondly, I proceeded from the fact that impressions of childhood in general, and impressions significant for a child in particular, are retained in memory, sometimes to a ripe old age, and, moreover, better and brighter than later events. This was also beyond doubt. Well, now, let's return to the end of the 19th century, to Georgia, to the Gori Theological School. Soon after little Soso entered the school, namely, in 1889, when Joseph was 10 years old, a significant event for that time took place in the cultural life of Georgia: an unusual publication of Shota Rustaveli's work "Leopard's Skin" appeared in Tiflis. into five languages. It is not known whether a student of Dzhugashvili could have seen, then or a little later, this publication was a student of Dzhugashvili, but it is known that when he was 15-16 years old, Soso came up with the idea of replenishing his education by ... reading books in ... second-hand bookshops, idle for a long time at the counter immersed in reading supposedly Of the "considered" book.

When this trick was discovered and he was almost denied access to bookstores, young Dzhugashvili came up with another trick: he began to rent books from the store for reading, paying 10 kopecks each. per day. But he did not read these books, but persuaded several friends to collectively rewrite them. Two people copied at once - each on a page, sitting on either side of a book opened on the table. This technique accelerated the rewriting so much that the friends managed to rewrite a rather thick book at the price of 3 rubles in three days, and, therefore, it cost them only 30 kopecks. (for three), i.e. ten times cheaper. The manuscripts were carefully intertwined, and in this way, in a relatively short time, Soso had a fairly decent library. When he was expelled from the seminary and he began to work at the observatory, this "library" was kept in his room. Later, when Joseph Dzhugashvili became illegal (1901), the library was sorted into friends, but they continued to use it together.

Among the books of this "library", undoubtedly, there should have been a volume by Shat Rustaveli. In any case, it is known that Dzhugashvili got acquainted with "Vepkhis Tkaosani", as "The Knight in the Panther's Skin" was called in Georgian, at least between 1895-1901, during the period of his literary and poetic experiments and hobbies. Since the Tiflis edition of 1889 was the closest in time and the St. Petersburg editions related to 1841, 1846, 1860 were practically inaccessible in Tiflis, and new editions of Rustaveli's poem appeared only when Stalin was no longer in Georgia, i.e. in 1903, 1913 and 1914, then the only opportunity for Stalin to get acquainted with the work of the Georgian medieval classics was either the Georgian text of the 1880 edition, or the more closely related edition of 1889, which was also issued in a much larger circulation. The last edition is supported by the fact that Stalin always quoted in his works and in oral speech the most winged sayings of Rustaveli, usually in Russian.

Perfectly aware of the importance and authority of the apt word of the classic in the Georgian environment, Iosif Dzhugashvili skillfully used the ironic couplets of Rustaveli in the fight against the Mensheviks, sometimes fighting with their surprise their more solid and more sophisticated intellectual opponents, like Noah Jordania, and causing them to have seizures powerless anger. So, for example, answering questions about the disagreements between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, Stalin quite easily resolved the bewilderment of the workers, why should the Mensheviks be treated so irreconcilably if they 'profess' Marxism too, in a short and simple remark from Rustaveli, understandable to everyone - “ If the crow has found a rose, he thinks himself a nightingale, "emphasizing by this that just reading Marxist books, or mentioning Marx's theory does not mean anything - a correct political line, truly proletarian tactics is needed. In general, Stalin treated the famous poem in a utilitarian manner, using from it not only individual “winged expressions” that became popular wisdom, but also certain ideas. Or rather, turning into whole ideas, into principles for permanent guidance, some of the thoughts expressed there, even on a specific occasion.

One of Stalin's favorites was, for example, Rustaveli himself often repeated and, apparently, the aphorism he applied to himself: "My life is ruthless as a beast." Stalin recalled him especially often after the suicide of his wife, N.S. Alliluyeva. Very early, already in the period 1905-1907, and even more later, for Stalin, the no less famous words of Rustaveli became the guiding principle of life and struggle: "An enemy is more dangerous, a close one who turns out to be an enemy." They explain to us much more and more truthfully all of Stalin's activities than the notorious assertion that the theory of intensified class struggle was “to blame” for all the events of the 1930s, or some special “dictatorial” manners of Stalin. We must not forget and ignore the widely known, but deliberately "forgotten" or, rather, concealed words of Lenin, dispelling democratic illusions: "Democracy does not at all abolish the class struggle, but only makes it more open and free."

So to artificially underestimate the significance of the class struggle, or to accuse Stalin of its artificial aggravation, and thereby make the very idea of the class struggle, so to speak, guilty of all the troubles of our society - this is pure revisionism, a typical bourgeois slander against socialism as a form of a free society. from exploitation. Paradoxical as it sounds now, but Stalin was not in the least guilty of class predilections, which in his 30s did not become aggravated, but, on the contrary, became dull. Thus, a keen class feeling should have stopped him, as a Marxist, from destroying his former class and party comrades. However, he was guided not by class consciousness, but by medieval concepts, inspired by the beautiful and psychologically strong aphorisms of Shota Rustaveli. “The enemy is more dangerous than a close one, who turns out to be an enemy.” This thesis fully explains the tragedy of 1937-1938. If enemies, i.e. class opponents of Soviet power - they were imprisoned and kept for 5-10 years, then loved ones, who turned out to be more dangerous than enemies, could only be shot, destroyed completely, wiped off the face of the earth. Since they are the height of danger. So Stalin made historical and class mistakes (political), not when he followed the theory of Marxism, but just when he retreated from it and got up on the emotional soil of medieval morality, and, moreover, Eastern morality!

It is clear that, apart from extreme bitterness, nothing could have followed after such a position. Insult by betrayal of former friends or relatives hurts especially painfully, and therefore evokes emotionally a more violent, almost brutal reaction. It is possible to understand this in a purely human way, but explaining such actions - the class struggle, or weaving Marxism here - is completely vain and unacceptable, for this is an obvious falsehood, a lie, and moreover, a falsification of history. This has to be recalled in order to emphasize how enormously Stalin was influenced by the ideas laid down in his early youth - ideas drawn from a genius poetic work, but relating to the Middle Ages and operating, naturally, with medieval categories and postulates. Hence, the reader should be perfectly clear that Stalin knew Vepkhis Tkaosani well, that he read it carefully, and, of course, reread this work more than once in freedom, in prison, and possibly in exile, drawing inspiration from there, and separate "pearls" and "ideas", and that he, in any case, remembered the circumstances of his first acquaintance with Rustaveli's poem. He remembered which edition he first picked up. He undoubtedly remembered the year of this publication. I remembered that such a publication existed. If the reader agrees that all this can be asserted a priori, then let's move on to the next stage of the search - fast forward to 1936-1937.

In 1936-1937, the 750th anniversary of Shota Rustaveli was solemnly celebrated. There was everything that was required in such cases: a ceremonial meeting of the public at the Bolshoi Theater, editorials and whole pages in newspapers, portraits of Shota Rustaveli on the building of the House of Unions, an exhibition dedicated to all editions of his poem in Georgian, Russian, English, French, German and others languages. In addition, books about Shota Rustaveli were published in the ZhZL series, and most importantly, new translations of his poem into Russian and new, richly illustrated, anniversary editions of "The Knight in the Panther's Skin" were undertaken. And then the following was discovered: at the exhibition, among the Russian translations of "Vepkhis Tkaosani" there was no almost the best multilingual edition of 1889. It was not mentioned in the biography of Rustaveli, written for ZhZL (Issue 10 M., 1937) by a literary critic D. Dandurov (A. Dondua). Finally, not a word was said about this particular edition of Shota Rustaveli's poem in all the numerous literary articles dedicated to the 750th anniversary of The Knight in the Panther's Skin. Moreover, contrary to the usual literary traditions, the authors this time amicably forgot to mention the work of the predecessors of Soviet writers who worked on translating Rustaveli's works into Russian.

Instead, the old translation of Balmont, translations of P. Petrenko, G. Tsagoreli and Sh.Nutsubidze were published separately during 1937. They spoke only about the peculiarities of the work of each given translator, but no retrospective excursions into the history of the translation of the poem into Russian were contained. In general, oddly enough, the bibliography "The Knight in the Panther's Skin" was either absent, or was carried out with omissions, in abbreviated form, and in all the bibliographic references accompanying the articles about Shota Rustaveli, the Tiflis edition of the 1889 poem was necessarily absent. encyclopedias Br. Garnet, namely in the VII part of v.36, where the article "Rustaveli" was published (p. 658-669). Of course, the ten and a half pages of the slim, partly even written nonparelle text contained the bibliography, which Pomegranate, as a respectable publication, tried to make exhaustive. But here, too, the 1889 edition was omitted, and this omission was all the more noticeable to specialists because all other editions were conscientiously listed.

The seventh part of the 36th volume of the encyclopedia br. A pomegranate with an article about Rustaveli was published, as you know, in 1941, on the eve of the war, and the author of this article, A. Dondua, of course, reflected "all the best" that the jubilee in 1937 gave in the study of Rustaveli's work. The peculiarity of this jubilee was that during it the very fact of the existence of the Tbilisi edition of the poem in 1889 was hushed up in every possible way, and it was impossible to find or obtain this edition in the libraries of the USSR, even for specialists who still remembered that such a publication existed. True, very few people cared about this circumstance, and in 1937 unnecessary questions were usually not asked. And in 1941, and in general, it was no longer up to them. After the war, this story was completely forgotten: none of the Rustavelived scholars survived, who drew attention to the disappearance of books from museum expositions and from library catalogs.

Who was the living prototype of the Stalinist pseudonym?

And the matter was as follows. On the title page of the 1889 edition hidden in distant museum storage rooms it was written: And then it became clear the reason for the suppression and withdrawal from the exhibition expositions and from the bibliographic descriptions of this particular edition in 1937. Indeed, the appearance of the name of some pre-revolutionary translator Stalinsky, and even on Georgian poem - in the Stalin era, in the era of the Stalinist constitution, with JV Stalin alive - it would be at least strange and shocking, but in fact simply defiant for millions of Soviet people who are accustomed to seeing Stalin as the one and only the leader, with his only surname in the country. Such a “phenomenon” would unpleasantly cut the ear for everyone and everyone, and could become a source for the dissemination of the most incredible and absurd tales, the less solid, the more ignorant the people who disseminated them could be.

Therefore, all protective measures taken in the scientific publishing and library environment to ensure that the 1889 edition did not fall into the eyes of laymen, would not be exhibited during the anniversary celebrations and would not be mentioned in the published bibliographies on the works of Shota Rustaveli, were met in among literary scholars, historians and bibliographers with full understanding, for they were smart, honest and disciplined people of the thirties. Such a “ban” was quite understandable, and according to the convictions of the 1930s, it was fully justified and even extremely necessary, from a large, state point of view. For nothing can be shaken, nothing can be turned into a toy or "sensation" in state shrines, so as not to introduce unnecessary, but inevitable doubts and hesitations, if the whole country really wants to care for state peace and welfare. Hence, this decision proceeded from the fact that if there is no fact of the presence of such a book before the eyes of people, then there will be no problem of rumors, anecdotes, etc. There will be no reason to talk about anything at all. And, therefore, nothing has to be explained or commented on. And everything will be fine, calm, without unnecessary problems. Rustavelive scholars and librarians understood this very well. Therefore, the book of the 1889 edition was temporarily tucked away into storage, but, of course, kept in the funds.

But there was another side of this phenomenon, which at that time remained completely outside the attention of scientists. It never occurred to anyone that it was Stalinsky's surname that served as the basis for the choice of a pseudonym by Joseph Dzhugashvili. And Stalin, giving the order to conceal the 1889 edition, was primarily concerned that the "secret" of his choice of his pseudonym would not be revealed. But no one thought in this direction. First, it seemed incredible that Stalin knew about the existence of this publication, and even more so about the existence of Yevgeny Stalinsky. Stalin was born in 1879. Stalinsky published his translation in 1889, and the poor peasant boy might never have heard of him, let alone not see him in the eye. Stalin left the Caucasus, in fact finally, in 1908, and since then all his party work took place outside Georgia, so that according to the ideas of literary critics, Stalin could never in his life have met this translation, with this surname, which they say they, experts, are little known. Such was the typical intellectual, limited-arrogant, but essentially "chicken" reasoning, from which our country always suffers so much. Intellectuals - "specialists" do not know how to see beyond their own noses and believe that others are in the same position.

This is why Stalin so deeply hated and despised "specialists", especially in the early 1920s. He was outraged by their stupid, limited ambition, their scanty judgments, proceeding from "appearance", and not from comprehending the essence of the phenomenon. And so he wanted to be especially rude, harsh, merciless with them. Let them think that if he is rude, then he is sure to be ignorant. Fools! They do not see, do not understand his genius. So much the worse for them! Kittens that are blind and need to be drowned! And he was, of course, right. He drew them all around his finger. He mocked them and despised them. Scientists! "Clever people"! "Smart as a vutka"! Etc. etc. What was the case in reality with the choice of a pseudonym? Who was E. Stalinsky and was that his real name, or was it also a pseudonym? And did Stalin know about him before he chose his pseudonym in 1912? Let us try to answer these questions in detail, step by step, based on facts.

Yevgeny Stepanovich (Stefanovich) Stalinsky was a liberal professional journalist and publisher sympathetic to the populists. His main journalistic activity falls on the last third of the 19th century, i.e. 1870-1900 Where he comes from, how he got to the Caucasus - there is no exact information about this. But his surname is real, it is under it that he is mentioned in official documents and publications, as the editor-in-chief, or publisher-owner of a number of large provincial newspapers and magazines in significant regions in the South of Russia. In 1872-1876. he was the eighth publisher-editor of the well-known political and literary newspaper Kavkaz, published in Tiflis since 1846 in Russian and Armenian, and at one time united prominent literary forces of both Transcaucasia and Russia proper. Count V. Sollogub, Ya.P. Polonsky and others regularly collaborated in this newspaper. The newspaper covered all manifestations of life in the Caucasus and especially the Transcaucasia. However, its editors were (in addition to prominent Caucasian figures N.G. Berzenov and D.G. Eristov), persons with Polish surnames - I. and A. Slivitsky (two brothers), E. Verderevsky, Ed. Schwartz and very similar to the Pole E.S. Stalinsky (patronymic - Stefanovich).

The newspaper was focused on serving the Russian officials, military and landowners permanently living in the Caucasus and Transcaucasia, and was distributed in Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the North Caucasus, Dagestan and the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus. However, in 1876, due to financial troubles with the "Caucasus", Stalinsky moved to the Voronezh "Don" - a newspaper of the same name for the Novocherkassk "Don", but focused not on the Cossacks, but on the Russian newcomer industrial and rural bourgeoisie of the region. With the arrival of Stalinsky, the newspaper began to be published 3 times a week, instead of two, but a year later, in 1877, he had to leave again due to financial difficulties caused by his editing (the scale taken by the newspaper did not correspond to the number of subscribers) and from November 1877 From November 7, 1880, E.S. Stalinsky became the editor-publisher of the literary and political newspaper "Kharkov", which he founded, which was designed for the intelligentsia and the Russian urban bourgeois-military circles of Sloboda Ukraine. This newspaper did not last long and was never revived again.

However, E.S. Stalinsky loved his journalistic work so much that he was not discouraged by the next failure of his publications, and after some preparation he decided to found a literary and art magazine "Moscow", designed for the democratic intelligentsia of the Central Industrial Region of Russia and Moscow proper. Stalinsky attracted the best and "fresh" forces to the magazine. Here was published the first story of A.P. Chekhov signed by Antosha Chekhonte. The magazine was richly illustrated, but even here Stalinsky quickly burned out: in 1882 50 issues were published (almost weekly), and in 1883 only 10. Stalinsky liquidated the business and sold the technical base of the magazine, which was renamed Volna and lost all a political, and even more so a democratic program. Thus, having exhausted his forces and means by the mid-1980s, having repeatedly burned out on the editions of his "own" democratic newspapers, Stalinsky took up translation activities and prepared precisely during these years (the second half of the 1980s) the translation of "The Knight in the Panther's Skin" , having published it in Tiflis, obviously with the help of his former Georgian connections.

After that, i.e. since the 90s of the XIX century. Stalinsky's name almost completely disappears from the socio-political and literary life of Russia. And I.V. Dzhugashvili, as you know, is only beginning from the end of the 90s to get involved in social and political life. Thus, between the disappearance of the first and the appearance of the second, even formally, there is a gap of a whole decade, so that "technically" their "meeting", or in other words, getting the surname of the first on the eyes of the second, seems to be impossible: they do not coincide in time , if we consider that only in conscious political life, i.e. after 1905, Stalin's name might "come in handy" and catch the eye. But in life, much does not happen according to an abstractly drawn "technically" precise plan. It turns out to be unaccounted for such "details" as the "manuscript library" of Joseph Dzhugashvili in the mid-90s, his reading of Georgian literary magazines, including "Moambe", where, since 1895, "Vepkhis Tkaosani" has been regularly published and discussed translations of this poem into Russian, and, finally, an undoubted acquaintance, at least in a library or in a second-hand bookstore, with the translation of E.S. Stalinsky from 1889, as with the closest, most accessible edition in time and with the best design and quality. And already due to the rarity and significance of this book, beloved by Joseph Dzhugashvili, he, with his phenomenal memory, of course, remembered the name of the translator's publisher.

I remembered it and then, of course, “forgot” for a while, until the first “incident”. But that is not all. Iosif Dzhugashvili could not help reading in his youth and the newspaper "Kavkaz", including its old issues, over the past years. For there cooperated the respected Georgian writers Rafiel Eristavi, PI Ioseliani and others, information on the history of Georgia, on the history of the Georgian Orthodox Church, which was useful for an inquisitive seminarian to know, was published there. And looking through this newspaper for years, Iosif Dzhugashvili, with his observation and tenacious memory, could not help but notice that the former editor of this newspaper, Yevgeny Stalinsky, both during his editorial period and later, appeared in it as an author under the pseudonym S. Evgeniev. And since the young Joseph Dzhugashvili himself thought about pseudonyms and invented them for himself in the 90s, his memory, of course, recorded, as an example, when Yevgeny S. became S. Evgeniev. Transparent, even terribly trivial, primitive. Without any imagination. And so he chooses the pseudonym "writer, literary man, journalist"? No, this move is not for him. It's better to stay Soselo, or David, and even more so - K.Kato!

When in the fall of 1912 Koba arrived in Krakow and then in Vienna and began to work in local libraries, studying not only the national question, but also its theories, as well as getting acquainted with the foreign Russian revolutionary press, including Trotskyist articles directed against the convocation of the Prague Conference by Lenin, he caught the eye, among the heap of these publications, and the Russian leaflet "Socialist-Revolutionary" No. 4 for 1912, published in Paris by the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries. There he was surprised to find an article by S. Evgeniev, which is an overview of the history of the revolutionary movement in the Caucasus and especially in Georgia. The review was superficial and imprecise in terms of dates, chronology and persons.

Koba could judge this better than anyone else, because he himself was a participant in many events. He quickly determined that Evgeniev's informant could have been one of the Georgian Mensheviks, most likely Noah Jordania. And his memory immediately "betrayed" the author of this article. How vividly the title page of "Vepkhis Tkaosani" - Yevgeny Stalinsky, "floated up" in my memory! Bah! What a find! This is a lucky break! Koba was no stranger to the mysticism of numbers, like any oriental person. He immediately compared: 1879-1889-1912. - what a coincidence of anniversary dates! After all, this is literally the "finger of God" showing him how to resolve the issue with his future pseudonym! His keen gaze immediately cut off the unnecessary and vulgarized Bund ending - "sky", noticed the two-syllable of the remaining Stalin root and noted with satisfaction that its meaning, strict form and Russian appearance fully correspond to what he was looking for. Another success, and again - in 1912, in his, now Stalin's, decisive year of life!

All five answers to five previously puzzled questions

So, now we fully know everything about the origin of the main pseudonym IV Dzhugashvili - the great pseudonym of the XX century - "Stalin". And we now have clear answers to all five questions facing our research.

1. Why did the pseudonym "Stalin appear?" Because this was required by historical circumstances: namely, the new working conditions in the Central Committee of the Party and on the territory of Russia, at the head of the Central Organ of the Party. This was also required by some personal circumstances of Dzhugashvili himself - his activity went beyond the borders of the Transcaucasian region, and in this regard, the unacceptability of his old party Georgian pseudonyms in Russia, and besides, his personal ambitions. Thus, there was a coincidence of three factors that required a new pseudonym.

2. When did the alias change problem occur? It arose already in 1911 and became especially relevant in 1912.

3. When did I. Dzhugashvili start using his new pseudonym? Since January 1913 - completely. In an abbreviated form, K.St. - from October 1912

4. In what work and in what edition was the pseudonym Stalin first used? For the first time, the work "Marxism and the National Question" was signed by the pseudonym K. Stalin. The pseudonym K. Stalin also began to appear in Pravda in January 1913.

5. What was the source or basis for choosing a new pseudonym for Dzhugashvili? The surname of the liberal journalist, at first close to the populists, and then to the Social Revolutionaries Yevgeny Stefanovich Stalinsky, one of the prominent Russian professional publishers of periodicals in the provinces and the translator of Sh. Rustaveli's poem into Russian - "The Knight in the Panther's Skin". Thus, even the "Russian" pseudonym, specially intended for activities in Russia, was closely associated with Stalin with Georgia, the Caucasus, its culture and with the memories of childhood and adolescence.

Stalin at heart remained a romantic even in 1912. This is beyond doubt. But he has already learned to chain his heart, his feelings in an impenetrable steel shell, for life has taught him to hide his self, or, more precisely, not to reveal himself to others. Too many disappointments were associated with the increased youthful Caucasian emotionality and frankness. He suffered too many blows - both personal and party in connection with this. But he endured everything. I survived everything. And he came out of the fight hardened - like good damask steel. He realized that in order to succeed in a political struggle, one must be able not to open up to the outside world, even to friends, one's feelings, mind and heart. That is more correct. No one should enter the holy of holies of his soul - not a friend, not a beloved woman. And no one should ever assume that his steel pseudonym has any connection with his romantic youth and serves as a distant and hidden echo of it.

Proceeding from all this, Stalin decided henceforth to resort to another means of disguising his unreleased "romanticism" - to outwardly rude behavior, which gradually, and at critical moments, sometimes became simply rude, and attracted the attention of party comrades, and Lenin personally , which, without understanding the reasons for this phenomenon, i.e. not guessing about the hidden motives of this "mask" turning into second nature, they regretted and condemned this trait of Stalin's character, since, from their point of view, it did not give popularity to him personally, and even more so to the party. But Stalin had a different view on this matter and was oriented more towards the masses, towards ideas about the norms of behavior of the "bosses" among, so to speak, a less intelligent environment, among "subordinates." He believed that he understood the psychology of the Russian people. No wonder, after the Great Patriotic War, he openly called "patience" - the main feature of the Russian national character.

Thus, at the beginning of 1913, or, more precisely, from January 1, 1913, not only a new political figure appeared in the revolutionary movement of Russia - Stalin - but also ceased to exist, the old party comrade, the "cheerful guy Koba", "disappeared" ... After his 33rd birthday, Stalin significantly changed the way of his behavior, began to acquire, as we would now say - a "new image", as the secretary of the Russian Bureau of the Central Committee of the party. Most importantly, he became even more restrained and even less inclined than before to reveal his inner feelings in front of others. It must be said that in hiding their inner self from the outside world in disguising their personal feelings from those around them, Stalin and Lenin, who also did not allow anyone to penetrate into his personal, intimate world, stood on similar principled positions. And both, tacitly, appreciated this trait in each other, which at that time was not characteristic of most revolutionaries, among whom there were extremely emotional natures.

However, the implementation of these principles, their concrete implementation, and the conclusions drawn for themselves from the postulate of restraint were different for Lenin and Stalin. And this is very indicative, since this revealed a significant psychological difference in their natures, in the presence of a complete coincidence of political, tactical and theoretical fundamental points of view - on all issues. If Lenin's disguise of his true feelings occurred naturally, without straining and was revealed only in his utmost restraint, composure and strong-willed, purposeful behavior, then Stalin concealed, "conspired" his inner world in a completely different way: he put on a certain mask, not only completely hiding behind her his "insides", but most importantly - disorienting those around him with various "masks", including "benevolent", "sociable", etc.

And this applied not only to contacts with overt or covert opponents, but such tactics were carried out by Stalin in relation to friends. “Mutual distrust is a good basis for cooperation,” Stalin later formulated this feature of his position in relation to his supporters. This negative feature of Stalin was noticed before all the Sverdlov, and, apparently, subjected it to strong criticism, for in 1917-1919. Stalin's behavior again acquired greater sincerity, i.e. he found the strength to respond correctly to criticism of Sverdlov, whose authority in the party during those years stood as high as Lenin's. It was precisely in the presence of this trait in Stalin that the radical difference between his character and methods of action from Lenin's was manifested. Lenin never allowed even the slightest insincerity in his behavior - both with enemies and especially with friends - like-minded people. Stalin, on the other hand, used insincerity as a powerful weapon, as a means of disorientation - in the political and “personnel” struggle, regardless of who his counterparty was.

Lenin, who was disgusted with incontinence, lack of self-control in people, lack of strong-willed reins, amicosity and simply the inability to control his feelings among many party comrades, highly valued Stalin precisely for his lack of these features, and especially for his ability to hide, hide his calculations. plans, intentions and any movements of the soul, as well as, most importantly, secretly prepare and carry out their own (i.e., party, Bolshevik) political actions. Apart from Sverdlov and Dzerzhinsky, there were hardly any other prominent figures in the party who possessed precisely these qualities to such a high degree as Stalin. And Lenin highly appreciated this, believing that without such a character a major politician, a party leader, is simply unthinkable. But when Lenin realized in the early 1920s that one of the main "technical" means for Stalin in his activities was also insincerity, that he was able to put on or take on various "disguises", his confidence in Stalin was shaken. He began to fear that these qualities of Stalin would become the source of his abuse of the party's boundless confidence in him. And so it happened afterwards. But in 1912, when Stalin was just choosing a new pseudonym and began work in the Central Committee of the party and in Pravda, Lenin reacted with approval to all his first steps, and appreciated the pseudonym as evidence of Stalin's political growth.

Famous personalities have always used pseudonyms. This is very convenient, especially for creative people: poets, artists chose a name for themselves that has a special meaning, talking about something. Sometimes the choice of a pseudonym is associated with political activity and helps to hide for a long time. This was especially often used by such famous people as V. I. Lenin, I. V. Stalin. Many people are interested in why Lenin is Lenin?

Leader of the proletariat

Ulyanov Vladimir Ilyich used many pseudonyms for his. The future leader of the Russian proletariat led a stormy one and was a member of the Social Democratic Party. Of course, he often had to hide, change his name. Lenin became one of his pseudonyms. This surname remained with him until the end of his life. There are several versions of why Lenin took the pseudonym Lenin, and they all seem plausible.

Lena river

Some historians say that Vladimir Ilyich took this surname from the name of the Lena River. Legend says that in 1912, workers who went on strike were shot on this river. This event shocked V. I. Lenin, and in memory of the victims he decided to take this pseudonym. But the fact is that he began to sign with this name much earlier - back in 1901. This means that there was another reason or an excuse to take the name Lenin (a pseudonym). Why can't this be imitation?

Plekhanov - Volgin

It is impossible not to take into account the fact that the comrades-in-arms in the struggle communicated with each other, often imitated each other. So, knowing that Plekhanov took the pseudonym Volgin for himself, Vladimir Ilyich decided to use a similar name - also from the name of the river. And it was in 1901.

In the same period, the famous agronomist S. N. Lenin took part in public events. The future leader of the proletariat often quoted this scientist and could well use his name. So, it turns out why Lenin is Lenin. But no - there is another, more plausible version.

Friendly help

It turns out that there was another episode in Lenin's life that brought him together with this surname. Earlier than all the events described above, in 1900, Vladimir Ilyich had to urgently leave the Russian Empire. But this required a foreign passport. Because of his political activities, Lenin was confident that he would not be released abroad. I had to look for another opportunity to get a passport. And at this time, Krupskaya unexpectedly meets with her good school friend, who also sympathized with the democratic movement of socialists. It was she who stole the passport from her father - Lenin Nikolai Yegorovich - and gave it to the future leader of the proletariat. It was enough to fake only the year of birth, and Vladimir Ilyich became Nikolai Lenin. Since then, the leader has signed this name. History makes it clear why Lenin is Lenin.

Companion of the leader of the proletariat

The history of the revolution gave birth to its heroes, leaders, and political figures. The modern generation is receiving a different education, different from education in the USSR. Many do not know the details of the life of Lenin and his associates. Therefore, they ask themselves: why Lenin is Lenin, and Stalin is Stalin?

At the end of the 19th century, the wonderful translator E. S. Stalinsky lived and worked. He was engaged in journalism, was a publisher - editor. He owns the best translation of Shota Rustaveli's work - "The Knight in the Panther's Skin". During this period, I. Dzhugashvili also wrote poetry and was even published. Of course, he heard about Stalin, read his translations. From his youth he loved the newspaper Kavkaz. And "The Knight in the Panther's Skin" is one of Stalin's favorite works.

History events

Thus, reading Georgian literary magazines and newspapers, acquaintance with the works of E. Stalinsky led to the fact that I. Dzhugashvili had great respect for this person. He also had an excellent memory: many years later, being Lenin's comrade-in-arms, Joseph Vissarionovich used Stalinsky's surname, abbreviating it. That is why Lenin is Lenin and Stalin is Stalin. These pseudonyms became known throughout the world.

Of course, the pseudonyms of political figures are strongly associated with the historical events of the period when the state was going through a turning point. But often the name taken is so consistent with the person that many remember him only by his pseudonym and do not know his real surname. But it is necessary to study history so that questions such as this one do not arise: why Lenin - Lenin?

Not everyone shares the convictions of revolutionaries, social democrats and others like them at the beginning of the last century. But events have already happened, they must be remembered, studied and known to the leaders of the movement, including their names and pseudonyms.

How did it happen that an ordinary teenager from the provincial Georgian village of Gori became the "head of the people"? We decided to see what factors contributed to the fact that Koba, who was engaged in robberies, became Joseph Stalin.

Father factor

The father's upbringing plays an important role in the growing up of a man. Joseph Dzhugashvili was practically deprived of it. Koba's official father, the shoemaker Vissarion Dzhugashvili, drank a lot. Ekaterina Geladze divorced him when her son was 12 years old.

The paternity of Vissarion Dzhugashvili is still disputed by historians. Simon Montefiori in his book "Young Stalin" writes about three "applicants" for this role: the wine merchant Yakov Ignatashvili, the head of the Gori police force Damian Davrichui and the priest Christopher Charkviani.

Childhood trauma

Stalin's character in childhood was seriously affected by the trauma he received at the age of twelve: in a traffic accident, Joseph injured his left arm, over time it became shorter and weaker than his right. Due to his dry hands, Koba could not fully participate in youthful fights, he could only win them with the help of cunning. A hand injury prevented Kobe from learning to swim. Also, Joseph at the age of five fell ill with smallpox and barely survived, after which he had the first "special sign": "pockmarked face, with smallpox marks."

The feeling of physical inferiority was reflected in the character of Stalin. Biographers note the vindictiveness of the young Koba, his hot temper, secrecy and tendency to conspiracy.

Relationship with mother

Stalin's relationship with his mother was uneasy. They wrote letters to each other, but they rarely met. When the mother visited her son for the last time, it happened a year before her death, in 1936, she expressed regret that he never became a priest. Stalin was only amused by this. When his mother died, Stalin did not go to the funeral, only sent a wreath with the inscription "To a dear and beloved mother from her son Joseph Dzhugashvili."

Such cool relations between Stalin and his mother can be explained by the fact that Ekaterina Georgievna was an independent person and was never shy in her assessments. For the sake of her son, when Joseph was not yet either Koba or Stalin, she learned to cut and sew, mastered the profession of a milliner, but she did not have enough time to raise her son. Joseph grew up on the street.

The birth of Koba

The future Stalin had many party nicknames. He was called "Osip", "Ivanovich", "Vasiliev", "Vasily", but the most famous nickname of the young Joseph Dzhugashvili is Koba. It is significant that Mikoyan and Molotov, even in the 30s, addressed Stalin in this way. Why Koba?

Literature influenced. One of the favorite books of the young revolutionary was the novel by the Georgian writer Alexander Kazbegi "The Father-killer". This is a book about the struggle of the mountain peasants for their independence. One of the heroes of the novel, the fearless Koba, also became a hero for the young Stalin, who, after reading the book, began to call himself Koba.

Women

In the book "Young Stalin" by the British historian Simon Montefiore, the author claims that Koba was very loving in his youth. Montefiore, however, does not consider this to be something special; such a way of life, the historian writes, was characteristic of revolutionaries.

Montefiore claims that among Koba's mistresses were peasant women, noble women, and fellow party members (Vera Schweitzer, Valentina Lobova, Lyudmila Stal).

The British historian also claims that two peasant women from Siberian villages (Maria Kuzakova, Lydia Pereprygina), where Koba was serving exile, gave birth to sons from him, whom Stalin never recognized.
Despite such stormy relations with women, the main business of Koba was, of course, the revolution. In his interview to the Ogonyok magazine, Simon Montefiore commented on the information he had obtained: “Only fellow party members were considered worthy of respect. Love, family were expelled from a life that was supposed to be dedicated only to the revolution. What seems immoral and criminal in their behavior did not matter to them themselves. "

"Aksy"

Today it is already well known that Koba, in his youth, did not disdain illegal deeds. Koba showed particular zeal during the expropriations. At the Bolshevik congress in Stockholm in 1906, the so-called "exes" were banned, a year later, already at the London congress, this decision was confirmed. It is indicative that the congress in London ended on June 1, 1907, and the most sensational robbery of two State Bank carriages, organized by Koba Ivanovich, occurred later - on June 13. Koba did not comply with the requirements of the congress for the reason that he considered them Menshevik, in the question of "exs" he took the position of Lenin, who approved them.

During the aforementioned robbery, Koba's group managed to get 250 thousand rubles. 80 percent of this money was sent to Lenin, the rest went to the needs of the cell.

Stalin's not too clean reputation in the future could become an obstacle to his advancement. In 1918, the head of the Mensheviks, Yuli Martov, published an article in which he cited three examples of Koba's illegal activities: the robbery of the State Bank's carriages in Tiflis, the murder of a worker in Baku, and the seizure of the steamer Nicholas I in Baku.

Moreover, Martov even wrote that Stalin had no right to hold government posts, since he was expelled from the party in 1907. Stalin was furious with this article, he argued that this exception was illegal, since it was carried out by a Tiflis cell controlled by the Mensheviks. That is, Stalin did not deny the fact of his exclusion. But he threatened Martov with a revolutionary tribunal.

Why Stalin?

Throughout his life, Stalin had three dozen pseudonyms. At the same time, it is significant that Joseph Vissarionovich did not make a secret of his surname. Who now remembers Apfelbaum, Rosenfeld and Wallach (Zinoviev, Kamenev, Litvinov)? But Ulyanov-Lenin and Dzhugashvili-Stalin are well-known. Stalin chose the pseudonym quite deliberately. According to William Pokhlebkin, who devoted his work "The Great Pseudonym" to this issue, several factors coincided when choosing a pseudonym. The real source when choosing a pseudonym was the name of the liberal journalist, first close to the populists, and then to the Social Revolutionaries Yevgeny Stefanovich Stalinsky, one of the prominent Russian professional publishers of periodicals in the provinces and a translator into Russian of Sh. Rustaveli's poem “The Knight in the Panther's Skin”. Stalin was very fond of this poem. There is also a version that Stalin took a pseudonym based on the surname of one of his mistresses, fellow party members Lyudmila Stal.

Father factor

Childhood trauma

The feeling of physical inferiority was reflected in the character of Stalin. Biographers note the vindictiveness of the young Koba, his hot temper, secrecy and tendency to conspiracy.

Relationship with mother

The birth of Koba

Women

Montefiore claims that among Koba's mistresses were peasant women, noble women, and fellow party members (Vera Schweitzer, Valentina Lobova, Lyudmila Stal).

"Aksy"

During the aforementioned robbery, Koba's group managed to get 250 thousand rubles. 80 percent of this money was sent to Lenin, the rest went to the needs of the cell.

Why Stalin?

Historian Olga Edelman told why the revolutionaries got themselves party names, how they came up with them, and how Koba turned into.

Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky - the people who bore these names are well known to us. But we rarely remember that none of them was born with such an entry in the passport, because all of these are pseudonyms.

However, they have become so entrenched in their bearers that famous revolutionaries have remained in history under fictitious names: school textbooks are full of them, they are embossed on monuments, streets and cities are called them, after all.

IN AND. Lenin and I.V. Stalin in Gorki. 1922

But why Dzhugashvili became Stalin, and Ulyanov - Lenin? Was it only for conspiracy that the Bolsheviks needed elaborate nicknames? Who were the role models for the future leaders, and whose names did they borrow? Olga Edelman, Candidate of Historical Sciences, leading specialist of the State Archives of the Russian Federation, spoke about this and many other things in an interview with the Istoriya.RF portal.

To confuse the gendarmes

- Olga, tell us why the revolutionaries in Russia needed nicknames?

Nicknames were needed for conspiracy. For the same reason - conspiratorial - the revolutionary could use several nicknames at the same time: one was used to communicate in an underground environment, the other served as the author's pseudonym, some more for one-time communication, so as not to "shine" the main one, another was used at the party congress, etc. They were deliberately bred to make it more difficult for the gendarmes to identify the underground worker operating in a certain place with a congress participant and author of articles in party periodicals. In addition, illegal immigrants used fake or someone else's passports, so they sometimes called themselves such a fake surname.

L. D. Trotskiy at a military parade

And why did many former underground workers keep their pseudonyms even when they no longer needed to hide from the police? This is what the most famous party leaders did: Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky ...

After the revolution, the pseudonyms under which a person became known remained, and most often these are the author's pseudonyms. Lenin and Trotsky became widely known as publicists, therefore they preferred to keep these names as surnames. So, "Lenin" is primarily the author's pseudonym, so Vladimir Ulyanov signed articles. Likewise, Maxim Gorky, whose real name and patronymic (Alexei Maksimovich) are generally stuck together with a pseudonym-surname.

From Soso to Stalin

Tell us a little about Stalin. After all, the leader of the peoples did not always use this surname? What other pseudonyms did Joseph Vissarionovich have?

Joseph Dzhugashvili was simply called Soso in the early stages of his illegal work. This is a friendly, homely form of the name Joseph, that is, something like Kolya and Sasha for Russian names. Then he came up with the nickname Koba, under which he became known in the Transcaucasian party underground (Koba is the hero of Alexander Kazbegi's adventure story "The Father-killer", is considered Stalin's favorite literary character. Approx. ed.). He lived with fake passports in the name of Kayos Nizheradze and so on. After the 1905 revolution, when relatively many freedoms appeared, he began to sign articles as well "Koba", "Ko ...", "K." - the readers guessed who wrote it. Since 1910, Dzhugashvili began to sign articles with variants - “K. Art. "," KS. "

I.V. Stalin. 1902 year

- When did Koba finally become Stalin?

The pseudonym "K. Stalin "took hold only at the beginning of 1913, shortly before the arrest of Dzhugashvili and exile to Turukhansk. At the 4th and 5th congresses of the RSDLP he was "Ivanovich", and in St. Petersburg in 1912 the party nickname was Vasily, Vasilyev, and only a narrow circle knew that "Vasily" was "Koba".

Romantic image of a wrestler

I heard that sometimes the party name was a kind of key to the cipher and was used in secret correspondence. This is true?

I have never seen them used as a key to a cipher, and it is unlikely that such was the case. But the fact that party nicknames were used in correspondence is true. Moreover, sometimes Lenin and Krupskaya used two nicknames in the same letter so that the gendarmes saw double in their eyes. For example, in a letter addressed to "Vasiliev", instructions were given to "Vaska" in the third person, as if this was a different person. Or a letter to Vladimir Ivanovich Nevsky (Russian revolutionary, Bolshevik, historian - Approx. ed.) Lenin addressed Krivobokov to his real name and in the third person mentioned Spitsa - one of the nicknames of Nevsky (Nevsky is also a nickname).

IN AND. Nevsky

- And by what principle were pseudonyms chosen?

Some pseudonyms have a pronounced "working" style: Kamenev, Molotov, and even Stalin. In addition, there is a reference to the romantic image of a firm, unyielding fighter. Trotsky assured in his memoirs that he had come up with this surname by accident, when, during his escape from exile, it was necessary to enter some name in a false passport (according to most historians, Leiba Bronstein chose a pseudonym for himself by the name of Nikolai Trotsky, the senior warden of the Odessa prison where he was sitting in 1898. - Approx. ed.). Georgy Ordzhonikidze used the nickname Sergo from the very beginning of his participation in the revolutionary movement, and Stepan Shaumyan - Suren and Surenin, in both cases it's just a name. There is a legend about the origin of the nickname Kamo, dating back to him, as if at the beginning of his career he was so nicknamed Soso Dzhugashvili, because Semyon Ter-Petrosyan spoke poor Russian and once instead of “whom” he said “kamo”. “Eh you,“ camo ”,” Soso teased him.

It is worth noting that pseudonyms for famous people are quite common, and at different times they were widely used by writers, musicians, actors and other representatives of creative professions. Moreover, in most cases, the pseudonyms "grew" so much to their owners that many generations of fans of their talent perceive only these names, and someone is completely sure that they were given at birth.

L. D. Trotsky, V.I. Lenin, L.B. Kamenev

Meanwhile, such famous poets as Anna Akhmatova, Sasha Cherny, prose writer Mark Aldanov, writer and screenwriter Ilya Ilf, poet and playwright Mikhail Svetlov and many others, whose names you hear are all pseudonyms. They can be perceived in different ways, since aliases are always masks, and their purpose differs depending on the goals of the carrier. Sometimes this mask is designed to hide some secret sides of the personality or obscure part of its history, sometimes - to embellish the truth, create an atmosphere of mystery, sometimes - to emphasize some key qualities of a person with the help of which he wants to stand out. One way or another, each person has the right to choose a name for himself, by which he will become known to his contemporaries and descendants. While the name given at birth remains with him forever.