Header Ads

Header ADS

Cooperation As a Way of Involving the Peasants in the Building of Socialism

Selected Articles From"Lenin's political testament: the reality of history and the myths of politics" Sakharov V.A.

Svitlana M, Erdogan A

The main problem that stood in the way of building socialism in the USSR was the problem of drawing the peasantry into the socialist revolution as a politically, economically, and socially interested participant in this process. The problem for Marxist revolutionaries, although not new, was extremely difficult to solve in practice. An attempt to apply the classical scheme proposed by K. Marx and F. Engels ended in failure. The forced transition to a new economic policy is evidence of this.

The NEP created conditions that were very different from those in which the use of cooperation was previously thought (the rapid pace of development of the world proletarian revolution, the dominance of large-scale forms of organization of production in industry and agriculture, the absence of commodity-money relations).  The admission of the market, the need to adapt state industry to the possibilities and needs of the peasant economy led to concessions to the principle of private property, to the development of commodity-money relations, which unleashed the petty-bourgeois element. These were the conditions under which cooperatives were to develop in the USSR.

Lenin, having turned in his Testament to the problem of the socialist transformation of agriculture, begins the development of the problem of cooperatives by ascertaining the possibility of using it to draw the masses of the peasantry into the process of socialist construction. At the same time, he relied on his previous developments in the field of the new economic policy, developed the ideas embedded in them, and did not oppose them with new ones. Lenin initially viewed the tax in kind not simply as a concession to capitalism, but as a step towards socialism: 

“In the tax there is a particle of the former apportionment and there is a particle of that order, which alone seems to be correct: namely, the exchange of the products of large socialist factories for the products of the peasant economy through the food organs of state power belonging to the working class, through the cooperation of workers and peasants ”(our italics. - B.C.) [1660]. 

With this he connected the process of the formation of socialism in peasant Russia. 

“When can the foundation of a socialist economy be considered laid ! When the exchange of products (emphasized by us. - BC) with the peasantry* is ensured. When the peasant is economically satisfied!!” [1661]. 

Thus, the problem of combining the state socialist industry and the peasant petty-bourgeois economy in the conditions of the NEP and thanks to it had a fundamental solution. 

Nevertheless, it remained unclear how the transformation of the old peasantry into a new class of socialist society would be accomplished with the help of "commercial" cooperation, if it "inevitably gives rise to petty-bourgeois, capitalist relations, promotes their development, puts the capitalists in the forefront, gives them the greatest benefit." There was no answer. There was a general idea that

"'cooperative' capitalism ... is, under Soviet rule, a variety of state capitalism, and, as such, it is beneficial and useful to us now", since, firstly, it "facilitates accounting, control , supervision, contractual relations between the state ... and the capitalist "and, secondly," facilitates the unification, organization of millions of the population, then the entire population without exception, and this circumstance, in turn, there is a gigantic plus from the point of view of the further transition from state capitalism to socialism” [1662]. 

This was said almost two years before Lenin's dictation of the notes "On Cooperation". 

In the first version of his notes “On Cooperation”, Lenin draws attention to the following:

cooperation makes it possible to place the private initiative of the peasant in conditions that objectively contribute to the development of a collectivist psychology in the peasantry.

Lenin saw in it, on the one hand, a way to limit the petty-bourgeois elements and the economic connection of the individual peasant economy with the private capital of the city and countryside, and on the other hand, a means of switching it to the development of ties with the socialist sector of the economy. Therefore, Lenin believed that with the concentration in the hands of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat

"all means of production", with the establishment of "an alliance of the proletariat with many millions of small and tiny peasants", as well as "providing leadership for ... the proletariat in relation to the peasantry”, the success of socialism depends from "maximum cooperation of the population." 

In his opinion, the importance of cooperation in solving the problem of involving the mass of the peasantry in the process of building socialism has increased, since within the framework of the NEP a concession was made to the peasant, “as a merchant, to the principle of private trade”, it became possible to ensure “combination of private interest, private commercial interest, verification and control by the state, the degree of subordination to the common interest. 

It is also important that it made it possible to ensure the transition "to a new order (i.e., to collective farms, to socialism. - B.C.) through the simplest, easiest, and most accessible way for the peasant" and allowed learning to build socialism in such a way that 

 "every small the peasant could participate in this construction. Therefore, the most important task, Lenin believed, is to "cooperate sufficiently widely and deeply among the Russian population" [1663]. 

Further, Lenin formulated the proposition that 

"the system of civilized cooperators with public ownership of the means of production, with the class victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie - this is the system of socialism" [1664]. 

This position is sometimes regarded as evidence that Lenin changed his previous ideas about socialism and the methods of its construction and became a supporter of cooperative socialism. Such a conclusion is unfounded, since in this case Lenin is not talking about cooperation in general, but about the cooperation of the peasantry. No wonder he constantly talks about the work of cooperators in the countryside, about the need to use the method of material incentives to involve peasants in cooperation, about the need to raise the level of culture of the peasant ("civilize"), so that he can "be an intelligent and competent merchant." Talking about the population about the Russian people, he also means precisely the peasants ” (“let the Russian people or just peasants wrap it around themselves”) [1665].. This circumstance does not allow one to interpret Lenin's words about the role of cooperation broadly - in relation to the whole of society, and, therefore, deprive the attempt to substantiate the thesis that Lenin became a supporter of cooperative socialism, which presupposes the preservation of commodity-money relations, the market, etc. 

The conclusion that the system of civilized co-operators under political conditions, already secured by the success of the socialist revolution, "is the system of socialism", ends the first version of the "article" "On Cooperation". Everything seems to be clear. 

Nevertheless, Lenin begins to develop this problem again (the second version of the "article"). What could make him postpone or stop working on this first version of the text? What could cause discontent or dissatisfaction? It can be assumed that the reason was some contradictions that were discovered in the course of the work. What exactly? At present, this question can only be answered tentatively. 

First, the question remained unanswered as to how and why state control over private commercial interest would ensure the transformation of the old peasantry into a class of socialist society. Secondly, if socialism is a system of civilized co-operators, and the cooperation itself develops as a commercial one, if a “civilized co-operator” is a smart and competent merchant, then it turns out that under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the system of merchants is socialism. 

In other words, the first version of the notes "On Cooperation" actually proclaims that socialist Russia is the Russia of the triumphant NEP. We will not find anything similar either in Marxism or in Lenin's previous works. Lenin said that the NEP could serve the establishment of socialism. Marx, Engels, and Lenin saw socialism as a system that had overcome commodity-money relations, and did not turn the masses of the population into merchants**. Lenin, even after the transition to the NEP, continued to believe that socialism is such an organization of society that will overcome not only commodity production and trade, but also commodity exchange, a society where product exchange will be carried out ***. 

Trade and marketing ("merchant") cooperation, connecting the peasant economy with the state (socialist) sector of the economy, thus limiting the possibilities for the development of the private capitalist sector, made it possible to take a certain step in strengthening the political, social, and economic positions of the dictatorship of the proletariat and therefore could play important role in the development of the revolution. But in principle it could not solve the problems of the socialist transformation of agriculture and the change in the social nature of the peasantry. 

Moreover, its consequences from the point of view of the interests of the socialist revolution were contradictory, since it would strengthen the petty-bourgeois nature of the peasantry, and not weaken it. Lenin counted on the fact that cooperation would allow the peasant economy to somehow develop, in the worst case, to keep afloat, avoiding impoverishment. But in this case, firstly, all agriculture was mothballed on the old social and technical base, having no prospects for rapid development. 

Secondly, it became a stumbling block in the way of the development of large modern forms of organization of agricultural production, based on the use of modern and rapidly developing technology, and the transformation into highly productive production, since it hindered the development of industrial cooperation (collective farms), and kulak farms (the process of growth of the poor and laborers has been slowed down). 

Thirdly, the question of the incentives for the transition of peasant farms involved in "merchant" cooperation to production cooperation (collective farms) remained unanswered: why should a peasant part with his property if it provides him with some growth, development, future? The experience of history has shown that production co-operation, necessary for the socialist transformation of the peasant countryside, does not grow out of "commercial" co-operation****. 

Consequently, the "cooperative plan", as it was outlined in the first version of the notes "On Cooperation", did not solve the fundamental issue - the socialist transformation of agriculture in the conditions of the USSR in a historically short period of time. Small-scale agriculture, unable to provide funds for large-scale investments in industry, unable to accept from industry and use on a mass scale highly productive expensive agricultural machinery, such agriculture could not be a solid basis for the development and victory of the socialist revolution in the USSR. NEP Russia "did not want" to turn into socialist Russia. 

Perhaps that is why V.I. Lenin made a second attempt to substantiate the answer to the question: how to build socialism in a country with a predominance of the peasant population without help from the victorious proletarian revolutions in industrialized countries, using bourgeois methods of farming. 

Unlike the first, the second version of the notes (the second part of the “article”) “On Cooperation” is devoted to how to use cooperation to ensure the transition from a capitalist to a socialist form of organization of production. Now Lenin is talking about “cooperative enterprises” located on land owned by the state [1666]. Consequently, he has in mind production cooperation on land, i.e. collective farms*****. For "commercial" cooperation, the question of land, of its ownership, was of no essential importance. 

Lenin begins his analysis of the possibilities of production cooperation under the conditions of the New Economic Policy to ensure the transition of the peasantry to socialist production relations by determining its place in the existing economic system. He assessed “our existing system”, “our present economic reality” as a combination of private capitalist enterprises (“but no other than on public land, and not other than under the control of state power belonging to a workers’ state”) with enterprises of a “consistently socialist type”, i.e. those in which "both the means of production belong to the state, and the land on which the enterprise stands, and the entire enterprise as a whole." Lenin distinguished this system from state capitalism. Under existing conditions, “cooperative enterprises differ from private capitalist enterprises, on the ground, with the means of production belonging to the state, i.e. working class” (emphasis added by us. - BC). In this case, cooperative enterprises "very often coincide completely with socialism" [1667]. There were no such enterprises yet, they had to be created. 

The proposal to combine the means of production owned by the state with the labor of peasants united in a production cooperative (kolkhoz) was new to the Bolsheviks. Combining the cooperative labor of the peasants with advanced agricultural technology made it possible to increase the attractiveness of the collective farms in the eyes of individual peasants and create better conditions for the development of the collective farm movement. Such collectivization turned out to be the only means of transforming the petty-bourgeois peasantry, constantly and on a massive scale generating capitalism, into a class of socialist society, no longer reproducing bourgeois, but collectivist social relations. Therefore, the success of the collective-farm movement, by solving the most difficult task of the Russian socialist revolution, ensured its victory. 

Thus, in the second version of the notes “On Cooperation” V.I. Lenin formulated the fundamental position on which the Stalin’s collectivization plan was based: production cooperation (collective farm) has a socialist character if, under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat , the state owns, firstly, the land (nationalized) and, secondly, the means of production (for example, in the form machine and tractor stations - MTS). 

Lenin's appeal to the problems of industrial cooperation made it possible in the second version of the notes "On Cooperation" to better substantiate the conclusion that "cooperation in our conditions quite often it completely coincides with socialism” that “the simple growth of cooperation for us is identical ... with the growth of socialism”. 

Based on these conclusions, Lenin makes the following statement, which gave rise to much controversy:

“ since the growth of cooperation is identical with the growth of socialism, “we are forced to recognize a radical modification in our whole point of view on socialism. This fundamental change consists in the fact that in the past we placed and had to place the center of gravity on the political struggle, the revolution, the conquest of power, and so on. Now the center of gravity is changing to the point that it is transferred to peaceful organizational "cultural" work, if we have in mind "internal economic relations", and apart from the tasks facing the country and the revolution on an international scale" [1668]. 

In historical and social science literature, especially during the years of Gorbachev's "perestroika", the thesis taken out of context about "a radical change in the whole point of view on socialism" was interpreted as a rejection of the revolutionary nature of socio-political and economic transformations, as a rejection of public property in favor of cooperative, as their identity from the point of view of the socialist organization of society, as recognition of the need to preserve the regulatory role of the market and commodity-money relations under socialism. However, such a conclusion is based on an arbitrary interpretation of one phrase and on the substitution of concepts******. 

Since this phrase is an organic part of a large text, we will quote it, omitting fragments that do not carry an essentially important semantic load, and highlighting the key words for understanding Lenin's thought:


“ Since state power is already in the hands of the working class, since the political power of the exploiters has been overthrown, and since all the means of production ... are in the hands of the state. .. we have the right to say that the simple growth of cooperation is identical for us. ... with the growth of socialism, and at the same time we are forced to recognize a radical change in our whole point of view on socialism. This fundamental change consists in the fact that we used to place the center of gravity ... on political struggle , revolution, the conquest of power, and so on. Now the center of gravity is changing to the point where transferred to peaceful organizational "cultural" work "(emphasis added. - BC) [1669]. 

The very construction of Lenin's phrase (the list of points separated by “ times ”) suggests that changes in the approach to the problem are associated with the conditions for building socialism, and not with a change in the idea of ​​it. 

It is obvious that Lenin speaks of the role of cooperation not in the functioning of socialist society, but in solving the problems of building it . Cooperation does not appear to be an all-encompassing and all-exhaustive task. It is an important, but only a particular task, in a certain sense, “residual” (“we are left with “only” one thing…”[1670]). It is also clear that Lenin is not talking about the identity of cooperation with socialism, but about the identity of the growth of cooperation with the growth of socialism. In other words, the more cooperation there is now instead of the private trader, the more socialism there is now. And by the growth of socialism Lenin in 1923, as in 1918, understood the overcoming of multiformity. Consequently, Lenin speaks of the identity of cooperation and socialism, not in the sense of complete correspondence of cooperation to socialism, but in the sense of coincidence (Lenin uses these words in the same sense and context, as synonyms ). Otherwise, cooperative socialism is obtained, but this construction contradicts the conditions that Lenin spoke of: the cooperative enterprises themselves are socialist only on condition that the land and means of production are owned by the state. 

In addition, a "point of view on socialism" is not at all the same as a "view", "concept”, or ideas about socialism. The change in "point of view" is not associated with a change in all ideas about socialism, but about its laws and patterns of development. It is definitely associated by Lenin with the peculiarities of the course of the socialist revolution, with its entry into a new phase and with the change in ideas about the means, methods, rates of work dictated by this circumstance, which, in turn, change the work plan, place, time, sequence of application of the main efforts ( i.e. "center of gravity of the work"). These changes do not necessarily have to change the idea of ​​the society being created, although they will inevitably leave some kind of imprint on it. Lenin is not talking about socialism itself, but about the process of building socialism. This becomes clearer if we consider that for Lenin, socialism is not a construction that has yet to be created, but a process that is already happening today. Therefore, Lenin said that


 “going to the very core of everyday issues”, “we dragged socialism into everyday life and we must figure it out” [1671]. 

For Lenin, as well as for K. Marx and F. Engels, socialism is not a state, but a process [1672]. This is the point. 

So, what we have before us is not a change of problems, but a change in the approach to solving the same problem in new conditions, from a new perspective. This is not about changing ideas about the principles and mechanisms of functioning and the structure of a socialist society, but about a maneuver in achieving this society. 

The meaning of Lenin's phrase is this: there was a time when emphasis was placed on political issues related to the provision of state power, on the appropriate forms and methods of work and struggle. Now we have entered a new phase of development, when economic activity comes to the fore, which at the moment and in this situation largely rests on “culturalism”. 

In addition, supporters of the concept of Lenin's revision of his former point of view on socialism ignore the fact that the thesis formulated here is not at all new for Lenin. At the very beginning of the first version of the notes, Lenin unequivocally speaks of the connection between the views expressed here and the views of 1918:

“It is unlikely that everyone understands that now, since the time of the October Revolution (emphasis added by us. - B.C.) and regardless of the New Economic Policy ... cooperation has become absolutely exceptional in our country.”

And a little further he clarifies:


they thought about it before, and then they forgot to think about it. Now again it is necessary to remember [1673]. 

Consequently, the proposal for the all-round development of cooperation in the new conditions of the NEP cannot serve as evidence of a radical revision of the previous ideas about socialism. Conditions are changing, and with them the ways of using cooperation. Here is the meaning of this key phrase for understanding the further course of Lenin's reasoning, which does not give any grounds for the conclusion that Lenin radically changed his ideas about the socialist revolution and socialism. 

The idea that over time there would be just such a change in priorities, which is mentioned in the notes "On Cooperation", was also not new. Lenin said more than once, the fact that after the conquest of political power, the main task lies in the field of management, economics, culture, etc. Thus, in a speech at the Moscow Provincial Conference of the RCP(b) on November 21, 1920, he argued that in connection with the transition to peace, 

“ instead of the methods of revolutionary overthrow of the exploiters and rebuffing the rapists, we must apply the methods of organization, construction”, we must give the peasantry “a model and the practice of such economic relations, which will be higher than those where each peasant family manages in its own way [1674]. 

And in the report of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR “On the Domestic and Foreign Policy of the Republic” on December 23, 1921, Lenin again returns to this thought:

 “History has now entrusted us with the work: to complete the greatest political revolution with slow, hard, difficult economic work, where deadlines are outlined very long." “Here is the work of whole decades” [1675].

The list of such statements can be continued, we only note that Lenin paid great attention to this problem in his political report to the XI Congress of the RCP (b) [1676]. It is not surprising that this found a place in Lenin's last works. 

Concluding the second version of the notes, Lenin wrote:

“If we had full co-operation, we would already have both feet on socialist soil. But this condition for complete cooperation includes such a cultural level of the peasantry that it is “impossible to ensure without a whole cultural revolution” [1677]. 

As you can see, again Lenin connects the problems of production cooperation precisely with the peasantry. The same idea was repeated by him in his last article, “Better Less, But Better”:

there are “political prerequisites” for a “direct” transition to socialism, only civility is lacking, which should open the way to cooperation [1678] **** ***.

Thus, from the standpoint of Marxism, Lenin substantiated the fundamental possibility of a “non-standard” path of development of the Russian revolution. But there was still no answer to the cardinal question - how to build socialism in a peasant country under the conditions of the NEP, which developed the instincts of the owner in the peasantry. The poor could ensure the involvement of approximately 30% of the peasantry in production cooperation, which means that only partially, to an insignificant extent, solved the economic, political, and social tasks of the socialist revolution in the countryside. It was necessary to accept as inevitable the low rate of restoration of the national economy and, consequently, of socialist construction. As a result, the process of revolutionary transformation of society acquired a protracted character, and this, in turn, doomed the peasantry to be for a long time the object of political and ideological struggle both on the part of the socialist proletariat and on the part of the bourgeoisie, which retained political positions and ideological influence. The process of development of collectivist psychology and the assimilation of socialist ideology would be difficult and slow. Under these conditions, the class struggle must inevitably acquire a more acute character. All that remained was to hope for a favorable outcome. 

Lenin's work on the text stopped for reasons that we can only guess at, but in the following dictations (articles devoted to the reform of the Central Control Commission-RCI) we again encounter this formulation of the problem and a new attempt to solve it. This suggests that Lenin, even in the second version of the notes "On Cooperation", has not yet found a satisfactory answer. Indirect evidence of this can be the fact that in his last notes and articles, Lenin, referring to the question of the prospects for the Russian socialist revolution, speaks only of the political aspects of the participation of the peasantry in it, but bypasses the socio-economic problems posed and developed by him in the notes " About cooperation”. Thus, in the article “How can we reorganize the Rabkrin,” Lenin wrote that we must ensure that so that the 

“peasant masses will stand by the working class, loyal to their alliance, or whether they will permit the "Nepmen", i.e., the new bourgeoisie, to drive a wedge between them and the working class, to split them off from the working class. (our italics. - BC) [1679]. 

Here Lenin comes to precisely the problem we mentioned above—the problem of the class struggle, on which the outcome of the struggle for the peasantry depends. In fact, Lenin outlined a new front in the class struggle that arose at a new stage in the development of the socialist revolution—on the economic front of the struggle against the bourgeoisie for the peasantry. Lenin hoped for a positive outcome of this struggle for the revolution. But the support of his faith was not the peasantry itself, but the Bolshevik Party ,its ability to develop the right political course, to carry it out and to ensure the effective management of society. This is also evidenced by his article "Better less, but better." In it, Lenin again returned to this problem and noted that

"the small and smallest peasantry" "follows the proletariat out of confidence in the results of its revolutionary work", but on this trust alone "it is not easy for us to hold out until the victory of the socialist revolution in more developed countries" [1680]. 

It's not easy, which means it's possible. It is possible, but if certain conditions are provided: the dictatorship of the proletariat is preserved and “under its authority and under its leadership” the “small and smallest peasantry” is retained for so long that it has time to reach such a level of “civilization” that would allow it to “go directly to socialism“ [1681]. Again "if". If for a long time it will be possible to keep the peasants from speaking out against the dictatorship of the proletariat. The question of how to ensure this has so far remained unanswered. Or rather, Lenin proposed the only answer that could be given at that time: to increase the efficiency of the work of the state apparatus as the main instrument for transforming society, using for this the reorganized Central Control Commission-RCI.  

* Under the product exchange, Lenin also meant trade in products owned by the state (“the state product - the product of a socialist factory, exchanged for peasant food, is not a commodity in the political and economic sense, in any case, not only a commodity, no longer a commodity, ceases to be a commodity”) ( Lenin V.I. Complete collection of works. T. 43. P. 276). 

** Later, the idea of ​​the possibility and desirability of using commodity-money relations under socialism changed. But this was connected with a different stage in the development of the socialist revolution, with a different experience in building socialism, with the name and work of Stalin. 

*** “ Tax in kind is one of the forms of transition from a kind of “war communism”, forced by extreme poverty, ruin, and war, to a correct socialist product exchange. And this latter , in turn, is one of the forms of transition from socialism with features caused by the predominance of the small peasantry to communism ”(our italics. - BC) ( Lenin V.I. Full. sobr. op. T. 43. C 219). 

**** I.A. Kurtov, who studied the dynamics of the development of various forms of cooperation in the 1920s, came to the conclusion that, in practice, the transition from one form of cooperation (trading, marketing) to others (production) was practically not observed. Therefore, the thesis that the commercial cooperation, which Lenin spoke about, in its development will turn into production cooperation, socialist in essence, does not receive confirmation in historical practice. Only the simplest forms of it have evolved into the highest forms of industrial cooperation ( I.A. Kurtov. On the interpretation of some provisions of the Leninist cooperative plan // Issues of the history of the CPSU. 1989. No. 11. S. 66–76). 

***** Lenin clearly avoids using the term "collective farm". The reason for this, perhaps, is that, in his opinion, the experience of collective farm construction during the years of the civil war failed. The mass of peasants did not accept him (see: V. I. Lenin , Complete collection of works, vol. 45, pp. 44, 45, 46, 54, 132, 268). In the conditions of the NEP, he avoided everything that could interfere with the establishment of relations with the peasantry. 

****** In the literature of those years, the inconsistency of attempts to build a whole concept of Lenin's rejection of his former ideas about socialism on the basis of a phrase taken out of context and of the entire Leninist legacy was pointed out more than once. The position of S.P. Makarov, who believes that “the recognition by Vladimir Ilyich of a radical change in the point of view on socialism means, first of all, a change in the tactics of the struggle for building a new society, and not a change in views on the nature of socialism,” and draws the correct conclusion: “Lenin’s views on the essence of socialism represent a single, integral system” ( Makarov S.P. Lenin’s theoretical heritage and modernity // Issues of the history of the CPSU. 1990. No. 10. P. 156). 

******* Such a formulation of the question, by the way, means that Lenin did not reject the idea of ​​a direct transition to socialism as incorrect, but only recognized that in the specific conditions of Russia it would not be possible to implement it: years should be spent on economic and cultural development. construction, to create the base that can become the basis of the socialist organization of society. 


[1660] Ibid. T. 43. S. 149.  

[1661] Ibid. T. 44. S. 502–503.  

[1662] Ibid. T. 43. S. 225–226.  

[1663] Ibid. T. 45. S. 370.  

[1664] Ibid. S. 373.  

[1665] Ibid. pp. 371–373.  

[1666] Ibid. pp. 374–375. 

[1667] Ibid.  

[1668] Ibid. pp. 375, 376.  

[1669] Ibid. S. 376.  

[1670] Ibid. S. 372.  

[1671] Ibid. S. 309.  

[1672] See: Marx K., Engels F. Selected. op. T. 6. M., 1987. S. 511.  

[1673] Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 45. S. 369, 371.  

[1674] Ibid. T. 42. S. 27-28.  

[1675] Ibid. T. 44. S. 326–327.  

[1676] Ibid. T. 45, pp. 110–112.  

[1677] Ibid. S. 376.  

[1678] Ibid. S. 401.  

[1679] Ibid. pp. 387–388.  

[1680] Ibid. S. 401.  

[1681] Ibid. pp. 403, 404.



No comments

Powered by Blogger.