The king is a log, the king is a heron. Autocracy and the intelligentsia Attitude to the peasant question

V. Klyuchevsky: “Alexander III raised Russian historical thought, Russian national consciousness.”

Education and start of activity

Alexander III (Alexander Alexandrovich Romanov) was born in February 1845. He was the second son of Emperor Alexander II and Empress Maria Alexandrovna.

His older brother Nikolai Alexandrovich was considered the heir to the throne, so the younger Alexander was preparing for a military career. But the premature death of his older brother in 1865 unexpectedly changed the fate of the 20-year-old young man, who faced the need to succeed to the throne. He had to change his intentions and start getting a more fundamental education. Among Alexander Alexandrovich’s teachers were the most famous people of that time: the historian S. M. Solovyov, Y. K. Grot, who taught him the history of literature, M. I. Dragomirov taught him the art of war. But the greatest influence on the future emperor was exerted by the teacher of law K. P. Pobedonostsev, who during the reign of Alexander served as chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod and had great influence on state affairs.

In 1866, Alexander married the Danish princess Dagmara (in Orthodoxy - Maria Feodorovna). Their children: Nicholas (later Russian Emperor Nicholas II), George, Ksenia, Mikhail, Olga. The last family photograph taken in Livadia shows, from left to right: Tsarevich Nicholas, Grand Duke George, Empress Maria Feodorovna, Grand Duchess Olga, Grand Duke Michael, Grand Duchess Xenia and Emperor Alexander III.

The last family photo of Alexander III

Before ascending the throne, Alexander Alexandrovich was the appointed ataman of all Cossack troops, and was the commander of the troops of the St. Petersburg Military District and the Guards Corps. Since 1868 he was a member of the State Council and the Committee of Ministers. Participated in the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, commanded the Rushchuk detachment in Bulgaria. After the war, he participated in the creation of the Voluntary Fleet, a joint-stock shipping company (together with Pobedonostsev), which was supposed to promote the government’s foreign economic policy.

Emperor's personality

S.K. Zaryanko "Portrait of Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich in a retinue frock coat"

Alexander III was not like his father, neither in appearance, nor in character, nor in habits, nor in his mentality. He was distinguished by his very large height (193 cm) and strength. In his youth, he could bend a coin with his fingers and break a horseshoe. Contemporaries note that he was devoid of external aristocracy: he preferred unpretentiousness in clothing, modesty, was not inclined to comfort, liked to spend his leisure time in a narrow family or friendly circle, was thrifty, and adhered to strict moral rules. S.Yu. Witte described the emperor this way: “He made an impression with his impressiveness, the calmness of his manners and, on the one hand, extreme firmness, and on the other hand, the complacency in his face... in appearance, he looked like a big Russian peasant from the central provinces, he was most approached a suit: short fur coat, jacket and bast shoes; and yet, with his appearance, which reflected his enormous character, beautiful heart, complacency, justice and at the same time firmness, he undoubtedly impressed, and, as I said above, if they had not known that he was an emperor, he would entered the room in any suit - undoubtedly, everyone would pay attention to him.”

He had a negative attitude towards the reforms of his father, Emperor Alexander II, as he saw their unfavorable consequences: the growth of bureaucracy, the plight of the people, imitation of the West, corruption in the government. He had a dislike for liberalism and the intelligentsia. His political ideal: patriarchal-paternal autocratic rule, religious values, strengthening of the class structure, nationally distinctive social development.

The emperor and his family lived mainly in Gatchina due to the threat of terrorism. But he lived for a long time in both Peterhof and Tsarskoe Selo. He didn't really like the Winter Palace.

Alexander III simplified court etiquette and ceremony, reduced the staff of the Ministry of the Court, significantly reduced the number of servants, and introduced strict control over the spending of money. He replaced expensive foreign wines at court with Crimean and Caucasian wines, and limited the number of balls per year to four.

At the same time, the emperor did not spare money to purchase objects of art, which he knew how to appreciate, since in his youth he studied drawing with professor of painting N.I. Tikhobrazov. Later, Alexander Alexandrovich resumed his studies together with his wife Maria Fedorovna under the guidance of academician A.P. Bogolyubov. During his reign, Alexander III, due to his workload, left this occupation, but retained his love for art throughout his life: the emperor collected an extensive collection of paintings, graphics, objects of decorative and applied art, sculptures, which after his death was transferred to the foundation founded by the Russian Emperor Nicholas II in memory of his father, Russian Museum.

The emperor was fond of hunting and fishing. Belovezhskaya Pushcha became his favorite hunting spot.

On October 17, 1888, the royal train in which the emperor was traveling crashed near Kharkov. There were casualties among the servants in the seven wrecked carriages, but the royal family remained intact. During the crash, the roof of the dining car collapsed; as is known from eyewitness accounts, Alexander held the roof on his shoulders until his children and wife got out of the carriage and help arrived.

But soon after this, the emperor began to feel pain in his lower back - the concussion from the fall damaged his kidneys. The disease gradually developed. The Emperor began to feel unwell more and more often: his appetite disappeared and heart problems began. Doctors diagnosed him with nephritis. In the winter of 1894, he caught a cold, and the disease quickly began to progress. Alexander III was sent for treatment to Crimea (Livadia), where he died on October 20, 1894.

On the day of the emperor’s death and in the previous last days of his life, Archpriest John of Kronstadt was next to him, who laid his hands on the head of the dying man at his request.

The emperor's body was taken to St. Petersburg and buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral.

Domestic policy

Alexander II intended to continue his reforms. The Loris-Melikov project (called the “constitution”) received the highest approval, but on March 1, 1881, the emperor was killed by terrorists, and his successor curtailed the reforms. Alexander III, as mentioned above, did not support the policies of his father; moreover, K. P. Pobedonostsev, who was the leader of the conservative party in the government of the new tsar, had a strong influence on the new emperor.

This is what he wrote to the emperor in the first days after his accession to the throne: “... it’s a terrible hour and time is running out. Either save Russia and yourself now, or never. If they sing the old siren songs to you about how you need to calm down, you need to continue in the liberal direction, you need to give in to so-called public opinion - oh, for God’s sake, don’t believe it, Your Majesty, don’t listen. This will be death, the death of Russia and yours: this is clear to me as day.<…>The insane villains who destroyed your Parent will not be satisfied with any concession and will only become furious. They can be appeased, the evil seed can be torn out only by fighting them to the death and to the stomach, with iron and blood. It is not difficult to win: until now everyone wanted to avoid the fight and deceived the late Emperor, you, themselves, everyone and everything in the world, because they were not people of reason, strength and heart, but flabby eunuchs and magicians.<…>do not leave Count Loris-Melikov. I don't believe him. He is a magician and can also play doubles.<…>The new policy must be announced immediately and decisively. It is necessary to end at once, right now, all talk about freedom of the press, about the willfulness of meetings, about a representative assembly<…>».

After the death of Alexander II, a struggle developed between liberals and conservatives in the government; at a meeting of the Committee of Ministers, the new emperor, after some hesitation, nevertheless accepted the project drawn up by Pobedonostsev, which is known as the Manifesto on the Inviolability of Autocracy. This was a departure from the previous liberal course: liberal-minded ministers and dignitaries (Loris-Melikov, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, Dmitry Milyutin) resigned; Ignatiev (Slavophile) became the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs; he issued a circular that read: “... the great and broadly conceived transformations of the past Reign did not bring all the benefits that the Tsar-Liberator had the right to expect from them. The Manifesto of April 29 indicates to us that the Supreme Power has measured the enormity of the evil from which our Fatherland is suffering and has decided to begin to eradicate it...”

The government of Alexander III pursued a policy of counter-reforms that limited the liberal reforms of the 1860s and 70s. A new University Charter was issued in 1884, which abolished the autonomy of higher education. The entry into gymnasiums of children of the lower classes was limited (“circular about cooks’ children,” 1887). Since 1889, peasant self-government began to be subordinate to zemstvo chiefs from local landowners, who combined administrative and judicial power in their hands. Zemstvo (1890) and city (1892) regulations tightened the administration's control over local self-government and limited the rights of voters from the lower strata of the population.

During his coronation in 1883, Alexander III announced to the volost elders: “Follow the advice and guidance of your leaders of the nobility.” This meant the protection of the class rights of the noble landowners (the establishment of the Noble Land Bank, the adoption of the Regulations on Hiring for Agricultural Work, which was beneficial for the landowners), strengthening of administrative guardianship over the peasantry, conservation of the community and the large patriarchal family. Attempts were made to increase the social role of the Orthodox Church (the spread of parochial schools), and repressions against Old Believers and sectarians were intensified. On the outskirts, a policy of Russification was carried out, the rights of foreigners (especially Jews) were limited. A percentage norm was established for Jews in secondary and then higher educational institutions (within the Pale of Settlement - 10%, outside the Pale - 5, in the capitals - 3%). A policy of Russification was pursued. In the 1880s. Instruction in Russian was introduced in Polish universities (previously, after the uprising of 1862-1863, it was introduced there in schools). In Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, and Ukraine, the Russian language was introduced in institutions, on railways, on posters, etc.

But the reign of Alexander III was not characterized only by counter-reforms. Redemption payments were lowered, the mandatory redemption of peasant plots was legalized, and a peasant land bank was established to enable peasants to obtain loans to purchase land. In 1886, the poll tax was abolished, and an inheritance and interest tax were introduced. In 1882, restrictions were introduced on factory work by minors, as well as on night work by women and children. At the same time, the police regime and the class privileges of the nobility were strengthened. Already in 1882-1884, new rules were issued on the press, libraries and reading rooms, called temporary, but in force until 1905. This was followed by a number of measures expanding the benefits of the landed nobility - the law on escheat of noble property (1883), the organization long-term loan for noble landowners, in the form of the establishment of a noble land bank (1885), instead of the all-class land bank projected by the Minister of Finance.

I. Repin "Reception of volost elders by Alexander III in the courtyard of the Petrovsky Palace in Moscow"

During the reign of Alexander III, 114 new military vessels were built, including 17 battleships and 10 armored cruisers; The Russian fleet ranked third in the world after England and France. The army and the military department were put in order after their disorganization during the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, which was facilitated by the complete trust shown to Minister Vannovsky and the chief of the main staff Obruchev by the emperor, who did not allow outside interference in their activities.

The influence of Orthodoxy in the country increased: the number of church periodicals increased, the circulation of spiritual literature increased; parishes closed during the previous reign were restored, intensive construction of new churches was underway, the number of dioceses within Russia increased from 59 to 64.

During the reign of Alexander III, there was a sharp decrease in protests, in comparison with the second half of the reign of Alexander II, and a decline in the revolutionary movement in the mid-80s. Terrorist activity has also decreased. After the assassination of Alexander II, there was only one successful attempt by Narodnaya Volya (1882) on the Odessa prosecutor Strelnikov and a failed attempt (1887) on Alexander III. After this, there were no more terrorist attacks in the country until the beginning of the 20th century.

Foreign policy

During the reign of Alexander III, Russia did not wage a single war. For this Alexander III received the name Peacemaker.

The main directions of the foreign policy of Alexander III:

Balkan policy: strengthening Russia's position.

Peaceful relations with all countries.

Search for loyal and reliable allies.

Determination of the southern borders of Central Asia.

Politics in the new territories of the Far East.

After the 5-century Turkish yoke as a result of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. Bulgaria gained its statehood in 1879 and became a constitutional monarchy. Russia expected to find an ally in Bulgaria. At first it was like this: the Bulgarian Prince A. Battenberg pursued a friendly policy towards Russia, but then Austrian influence began to prevail, and in May 18881 a coup d’etat took place in Bulgaria, led by Battenberg himself - he abolished the constitution and became an unlimited ruler, pursuing a pro-Austrian policy. The Bulgarian people did not approve of this and did not support Battenberg; Alexander III demanded the restoration of the constitution. In 1886 A. Battenberg abdicated the throne. In order to prevent Turkish influence on Bulgaria again, Alexander III advocated strict compliance with the Berlin Treaty; invited Bulgaria to solve its own problems in foreign policy, recalled the Russian military without interfering in Bulgarian-Turkish affairs. Although the Russian ambassador in Constantinople announced to the Sultan that Russia would not allow a Turkish invasion. In 1886, diplomatic relations were severed between Russia and Bulgaria.

N. Sverchkov "Portrait of Emperor Alexander III in the uniform of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment"

At the same time, Russia's relations with England are becoming more complicated as a result of clashes of interests in Central Asia, the Balkans and Turkey. At the same time, relations between Germany and France were also becoming complicated, so France and Germany began to look for opportunities for rapprochement with Russia in case of war between themselves - it was provided for in the plans of Chancellor Bismarck. But Emperor Alexander III kept William I from attacking France using family ties, and in 1891 a Russian-French alliance was concluded for as long as the Triple Alliance existed. The agreement had a high degree of secrecy: Alexander III warned the French government that if the secret was disclosed, the alliance would be dissolved.

In Central Asia, Kazakhstan, the Kokand Khanate, the Bukhara Emirate, the Khiva Khanate were annexed, and the annexation of the Turkmen tribes continued. During the reign of Alexander III, the territory of the Russian Empire increased by 430 thousand square meters. km. This was the end of the expansion of the borders of the Russian Empire. Russia avoided war with England. In 1885, an agreement was signed on the creation of Russian-British military commissions to determine the final borders of Russia and Afghanistan.

At the same time, Japan's expansion was intensifying, but it was difficult for Russia to conduct military operations in that area due to the lack of roads and Russia's weak military potential. In 1891, construction of the Great Siberian Railway began in Russia - the Chelyabinsk-Omsk-Irkutsk-Khabarovsk-Vladivostok railway line (approx. 7 thousand km). This could dramatically increase Russia's forces in the Far East.

Results of the board

During the 13 years of the reign of Emperor Alexander III (1881–1894), Russia made a strong economic breakthrough, created industry, rearmed the Russian army and navy, and became the world's largest exporter of agricultural products. It is very important that Russia lived in peace throughout the years of Alexander III’s reign.

The years of the reign of Emperor Alexander III are associated with the flourishing of Russian national culture, art, music, literature and theater. He was a wise philanthropist and collector.

During difficult times for him, P.I. Tchaikovsky repeatedly received financial support from the emperor, which is noted in the composer’s letters.

S. Diaghilev believed that for Russian culture Alexander III was the best of the Russian monarchs. It was under him that Russian literature, painting, music and ballet began to flourish. Great art, which later glorified Russia, began under Emperor Alexander III.

He played an outstanding role in the development of historical knowledge in Russia: under him, the Russian Imperial Historical Society, of which he was chairman, began to actively work. The Emperor was the creator and founder of the Historical Museum in Moscow.

On the initiative of Alexander, a patriotic museum was created in Sevastopol, the main exhibition of which was the Panorama of the Sevastopol Defense.

Under Alexander III, the first university was opened in Siberia (Tomsk), a project was prepared for the creation of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople, the Russian Imperial Palestine Society began to operate, and Orthodox churches were built in many European cities and in the East.

The greatest works of science, culture, art, literature, from the reign of Alexander III are the great achievements of Russia, of which we are still proud.

“If Emperor Alexander III had been destined to continue reigning for as many years as he reigned, then his reign would have been one of the greatest reigns of the Russian Empire” (S.Yu. Witte).

The reign of Alexander II brought with it significant changes in the internal life of Russia: serfdom was abolished, the judicial system was reformed, military and other reforms were carried out. In connection with the mass transformations, the question of the essence of power, which carries out these transformations, became more pronounced. about autocracy. His positions were still strong, but other points of view were also expressed on the absolute power of the monarch and its alternatives. Conservatives, liberals and revolutionaries defended their views with equal tenacity, but they did not have unity within themselves. Here we see three directions of populist thought, Kavelin’s and Chicherin’s understanding of reforms among liberals, Leontief’s “Byzantism” and Katkov’s extreme right-wing statements in “protective” thought. Let's start with the conservatives.

Conservatives considered any liberal reforms inappropriate, being firmly convinced of the inviolability of the foundations of autocratic power. In their opinion, absolutism for Russia was the only possible path of development. Reliance was placed on the divine nature of the origin of royal power, on the sovereign responsible for his people before God. They proved the incorrectness of the constitutional path of development using the example of revolutionary events in Europe, where democratic reforms led to the bloody revolutions of 1848-1849. The ideological support was Uvarov’s “theory of official nationality,” which did not lose its significance even under Alexander II. Among the ideologists of the intelligentsia who gravitated towards protective ideals, one can include such prominent writers and publicists as K.N. Leontyev and M.N. Katkov. Using their example, one can trace how the “right” intelligentsia treated the Russian autocracy.

Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontyev initially gravitated toward liberal ideology. In the 1850s, he moved in literary circles in Moscow, and was patronized by Turgenev, Katkov (who was also a liberal at that time), and Granovsky. Soon he leaves Moscow and goes to Crimea, where at that time the Crimean (Eastern) War was going on. Since the early 1860s, K.N. Leontyev is published in Otechestvennye zapiski, known for its liberal statements. However, by the 1870s his views changed towards conservatism. In 1875, Leontyev wrote his work “Byzantism and the Slavs,” in which his system of views regarding autocracy is presented most comprehensively (although a comprehensive description of his views should include a number of other works).

Here Leontyev compares the history of Russia with the history of Western Europe. It was there, in his opinion, that “the storms and explosions were louder, more majestic,” however, “the special, more peaceful and deeper mobility of the entire soil and the entire system here in Russia is worth Western thunder and explosions.”

Russians, in Leontyev's opinion, have a weaker development of the municipal, hereditary-aristocratic and family principles than many other peoples, and only three things are strong and powerful: Byzantine Orthodoxy, dynastic, unlimited autocracy and the rural land community. These three principles were the main historical foundations of Russian life.

Leontyev called Orthodoxy and autocracy (the Tsar and the Church) in their systemic totality and interconnection “Byzantism.” This kind of “Byzantinism,” as Leontiev noted, penetrated deep into the depths of the social organism of Russia. He believed that even after the Europeanization of Russia by Peter I, the foundations of both state and domestic life remained closely connected with him. Byzantism, according to K. Leontyev, organized the Russian people and united “semi-wild Rus'” into a single body; the system of Byzantine ideas, paired with its “patriarchal, simple principles”, with its initially rough “Slavic material”, created the greatness of the Russian Power.

The Nicholas era occupied a very special place in the Leontief panorama of Russian history. Leontyev believed that under Nicholas I, Russia had reached the peak of its socio-political development, “that cultural and state peak after which living state creation ends and at which it is necessary to stop for as long as possible, without even fearing some stagnation.”

Leontyev considered Alexander II and his associates (Rostovtsev, Milyutin), unlike Nicholas I and his entourage, to be moderate liberals. During the reign of Alexander II, he believed, Russia began to fall from the state-cultural heights it had achieved, and there was a “peaceful, but very rapid erosion of all disciplinary and restraining principles.” This process was “quiet” in the Great Russian way: “Everything around us is engulfed in some kind of quiet and slow decay!.. One of those quiet “Great Russian” processes that in our country always preceded a deep historical revolution is taking place with our own eyes.” The era itself, which was not just liberal, but in many respects downright revolutionary, was only a transitional “to something else.”

K.N. Leontiev was assessed ambiguously both by his contemporaries and later by researchers. He was called both “Cromwell without a sword” and “the most reactionary of all Russian writers of the second half of the 19th century,” but there were also enthusiastic responses, such as those from P.B. Struve, who called him “the sharpest mind born of Russian culture in the 19th century.” His very concept of “Byzantinism and Slavism” is analyzed in detail by Yu.P. Ivaska in the work “Konstantin Leontiev (1831-1891). Life and Work”, S.N. also deserves attention. Trubetskoy with his article "The Disappointed Slavophile". All in all about K.N. Leontyev's works are few. They are partly collected in the book “K. Leontiev: Pro et contra”, published in 1995.

Another prominent representative of the protective wing of Russian social thought was Mikhail Nikiforovich Katkov, editor-in-chief of Moskovskie Vedomosti. The power of his words was extremely great; he was a powerful mouthpiece of the conservative idea. Although, it is worth noting that the views of M.N. Katkov’s names have changed several times throughout his literary and journalistic career. The Brockhaus and Efron dictionary characterizes him as follows: “Unlike other famous Russian publicists, who remained true to their views on social and state issues throughout their lives (Ivan Aksakov, Kavelin, Chicherin, etc.), Katkov changed his opinions many times. In general “He gradually, over the course of more than 30 years of journalistic activity, turned from a moderate liberal into an extreme conservative; but even here he does not observe consistency.” And yet, despite his liberal hobbies of the 1850s - 1860s, we classify him as a conservative trend of social thought, which he joined in the 70s. Of course, his line did not always strictly coincide with the government’s, however, in general he followed the protective direction.

Katkov's ideas about the nature and origin of the Russian monarchy are based on an analysis of the history of Rome, Byzantium, Kievan, Moscow and Petrine Rus. The conservative-monarchist views of the Russian publicist incorporate Filofei’s theory “Moscow is the third Rome” and the triad of S.S. Uvarov "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality." “The idea of ​​an autocratic monarchy was, according to Katkov, initially developed in Rome in its entirety of its legal basis. The entire republican period of Roman history was devoted to separately developing to complete perfection all the special bodies of state power, which were then united in the hands of the emperor into one harmonious whole.

However, this material whole lacked the life-giving spirit, lacked Christianity. Only in Byzantium did the Roman autocracy become an Orthodox autocracy; it was inspired by a close union with the Church of Christ. Thus, in Byzantium the autocracy achieved complete legal-ecclesiastical perfection." The union of autocracy with Orthodoxy is the main difference between the Russian autocracy and Western absolutism.

The Russian people so deeply assimilated the essence of the idea of ​​​​Orthodox autocracy that its scientific system, at first inaccessible to their simple minds, subsequently became unnecessary for them. Roman autocracy, Byzantine Orthodoxy and the Russian people united into one harmonious, inseparable whole, but this did not happen consciously, but spontaneously, instinctively. “The monarchical principle,” says Katkov, “grew simultaneously with the Russian people. It collected the land, it collected power, which in the primitive state is diffused everywhere, wherever there is a difference between the weak and the strong, the greater and the lesser. In taking away power from everyone over everyone, the entire work and the entire struggle of Russian history consisted in the extermination of plural power. This struggle, which in different forms and under different conditions was carried out in the history of all great nations, was difficult for us, but successful, thanks to the special character of the Orthodox Church, which renounced the earthly power and never entered into competition with the state." “The difficult process was completed, everything submitted to one supreme principle, and there should have been no power left in the Russian people that did not depend on the monarch. In his autocracy, the Russian people see the covenant of their entire lives, in it they place all their aspirations,” writes Moskovskie Vedomosti "in No. 12 for 1884

It is the Russian people, according to Katkov, who have always been strong in their patriarchal spirit, their unanimous devotion to the monarch, the feeling of their unconditional, “absolute” unity with the tsar, and therefore the politically most mature people are the Russians, since the idea of ​​autocracy was originally embedded in their consciousness . From this it follows that Russia needs to value the unlimited autocracy of its kings as the main reason for the state greatness it has achieved and consider autocracy as the guarantee of its future prosperity.

On the life and work of M.N. Katkov there are mainly articles by pre-revolutionary authors, such as S. Nevedensky “Katkov and his time” (1888), N.A. Lyubimov “Katkov and his historical merit. According to documents and personal memories” (1889) and a number of other articles characterizing him as a statesman: V.A. Gringmut "M.N. Katkov as a statesman" ("Russian Bulletin", 1897, No. 8), "The merits of M.N. Katkov for the education of Russia" (ibid.), V.V. Rozanov “Katkov as a statesman” (ibid.), S.S. Tatishchev “M.N. Katkov in foreign politics” (ibid.), V.L. Voronov “Financial and economic activities of M.N. Katkov. All works are collected in the book by V.V. Rozanov “Literary Essays” (St. Petersburg, 1902).

In general, K.N. Leontyev and M.N. Katkov are very similar in their views on the nature and essence of monarchical power in Russia. They did not have significant differences in their views on autocracy, with the exception of the fact that K.N. Leontyev attached a great role to Orthodoxy as a cementing principle.

Liberals believed that the state needed to be transformed through reforms. At the same time, liberal ideologists differed in their opinions regarding the degree of transformation. As an example, we consider it necessary to cite the opinions of two of the most prominent thinkers - K.D. Kavelin and B.N. Chicherina.

Konstantin Dmitrievich Kavelin categorically rejected violent methods of updating Russia and at the same time he did not like bureaucratic arbitrariness. Kavelin treated the Russian autocracy with respect, defending it and placing it above European constitutional monarchies. He believed that “the undoubted guarantee of peaceful success in Russia is the people’s firm faith in the tsar.” In his works, he points out that the “factual basis” of constitutional orders is that “the people and the ruler, who unites all powers in his hands, do not get along with each other, they constitute two opposite and hostile poles.” According to Kavelin, the essence of constitutional orders is that power is taken away from individual rulers and taken into the hands of privileged strata, and not the entire people. The constitutional theory, which puts in the foreground the balance of powers distributed between the sovereign and the people, in reality only raises into a principle the moment of struggle, or the beginning of the transfer of power from the sovereign to the upper classes. “Next we see,” writes Kavelin, “that wherever constitutional institutions exist and flourish, the supreme power is divided only in name between the sovereign and the people, but in reality it is concentrated in the hands of either the ruling political classes or sovereigns.”

Thus, this is not a “balance”, but a “moment of struggle” and the strength of the constitution depends on the degree of power of a particular subject of governance. Since in Russian society there is no confrontation (according to Kavelin’s vision) between the sovereign and the upper strata, then, therefore, a constitution is not needed here. Moreover, in his opinion, the constitution in Russia is even harmful: “In itself, in addition to the conditions lying in the system of the people and in the mutual relations of its various strata, the constitution does not give anything and does not provide anything; without these conditions it is nothing, but nothing harmful, because it deceives with the appearance of political guarantees and misleads naive people.” What conclusion does Kavelin make? “All we need and what will be enough for a long time is somewhat tolerable government, respect for the law and given rights on the part of the government, at least a shadow of public freedom. Enormous success will be achieved in Russia from the moment when the autocratic power humbles the court clique, will force it to enter the proper boundaries, force it, willy-nilly, to submit to the law." He is convinced that “only a properly and strongly organized state institution of an administrative, and not a political nature, could lead us out of the current chaos and lawlessness and prevent serious dangers for Russia and the government...”

Thus, Kavelin sees the way out not in changing the political order, but in establishing a rational organization of the already existing state-bureaucratic machine.

About K.D. himself Unfortunately, there are very few Soviet and Russian works on Kavelin and his work. In pre-revolutionary times, separate articles were published, of which the most complete information about him is given in his work “K.D. Kavelin. An Essay on Life and Work” by D.A. Korsakov, who previously published separate materials for his biography in Vestnik Evropy. From modern researchers about K.D. R.A. wrote to Kavelina. Arslanov (“Kavelin: man and thinker”, M., 2000), Yu.V. Lepeshkin, who in the article “K.D. Kavelin: the relevance of scientific research” called K.D. Kavelin is an “extraordinary personality,” “an eyewitness and, in a certain sense, the creator of great reforms.”

Another representative of liberal thought, Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin, just saw one of the options for the future of Russia as the introduction of a constitution while maintaining a monarchical form of government, which he considered most suitable for Russia at that time: “On the entire European continent, autocracy for centuries played a leading role; but nowhere did it have such significance as with us. It united a huge state, raised it to a high degree of power and glory, organized it internally, implanted education in it. Under the shadow of autocratic power, the Russian people grew stronger, became enlightened and joined the European family, as an equal member whose word has full significance in the destinies of the world." However, he notes that the possibilities of autocracy are not limitless and it cannot raise the people above a certain level: “It can give everything that is accomplished by the action of power; but it is not able to give what is acquired by freedom.” He believes that autocracy “leads the people to self-government,” and the more it does for the people, the higher it raises their strength, the more, according to Chicherin, the more it “itself evokes the need for freedom and thereby prepares the ground for a representative order.” Discussing the democratization of society, he writes that the introduction of constitutional orders is not imitation, but a vital necessity that follows from the very essence of state life, the basis of which is always and everywhere the same human elements. From the very essence of the matter, according to Chicherin, it follows that for Russia the ideal of a representative system can only be a constitutional monarchy. “Of the two forms in which political freedom is embodied, a limited monarchy and a republic, the choice for us cannot be doubtful. Monarchical power played such a role in the history of Russia that for centuries it will remain the highest symbol of its unity, a banner for the people.”

According to Chicherin, the establishment of civil freedom in all layers and in all public fields, an independent and transparent court, zemstvo institutions, and finally, new in Russia, although still meager, freedom of the press, all this is “part of a new building, the natural conclusion of which seems to be freedom political. It is impossible to preserve a historical peak when not a trace remains of the historical building that supported it; it is impossible to keep the government in its former form where the whole society has been recreated on new principles."

Thus, Chicherin takes a more decisive position compared to Kavelin, while not denying the primacy of the monarch and proposing a gradual, peaceful path to modernize the country on reformist principles.

B.N. himself Chicherin and his works remained underestimated for a long time. In Soviet times, we practically do not see any serious research about it, with the exception, of course, of the monograph by V.D. Zorkin "Chicherin" and his article "Views of B.N. Chicherin on the constitutional monarchy." In them, despite the generally critical attitude towards the ideologist of Russian liberalism, one can see respect for him as an individual and a scientist who has the right to his beliefs. Over the past decade and a half, a number of worthwhile works have emerged. Among them are the works of V.E. Berezko "Views of B.N. Chicherin on political freedom as a source of popular representation", where B.N. Chicherin is characterized as a talented historian and legal theorist, who stood at the origins of Russian political and legal science, the founder of the state school in Russian historiography, E.S. Kozminykh "Philosophical and political views of B.N. Chicherin", O.A. Kudinov "B.N. Chicherin - an outstanding constitutionalist", A.V. Polyakov "The Liberal Conservatism of B.N. Chicherin" and some other works where this great man is appreciated.

The views of the two liberal thinkers considered differed more than those of the representatives of the conservative wing of the intelligentsia. What was common here was the desire to transform Russia on liberal principles, but if B.N. Chicherin stood for the rapid introduction of a constitutional monarchy, then K.D. Kavelin was more moderate and proposed, first, to debug the existing system, to help it work normally, without resorting to decisive political changes for now.

Now let's move on to the left-radical direction of social thought. Its foundations were laid by A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky, who stood on the theory of Herzen’s “communal socialism”. Both of them opposed autocracy and serfdom, and in a non-violent way, and in this they were fundamentally different from their radical followers, although Chernyshevsky did not reject the revolutionary path.

Considering, like Herzen, the educational activities of the intelligentsia, which were supposed to prepare the people for social changes, to be necessary, Chernyshevsky believed, however, that the bearers of new ideas should not be the nobles, but “new people”, commoners. They meant the children of priests, low-ranking officials, military men, merchants, literate peasants, small-landed and unplaced nobles. Representatives of this social stratum, who filled in by the mid-19th century. halls of universities, vocational and technical schools, newspaper editorial offices, and later - zemstvo schools and hospitals - belonged to Chernyshevsky himself. His passion for the Russian community was replaced by the early 1860s with the idea of ​​more expedient transformations - the establishment of urban cooperatives and labor associations in villages and cities.

Chernyshevsky clearly realized how long educational and political work among the people must be in order to solve their main social problems. The ideas he promoted (the liberation of peasants with land without ransom, the elimination of bureaucracy and bribery, reform of the state apparatus, the judiciary; the organization of local self-government with broad rights; the convening of an all-class representative institution and the establishment of constitutional order) could not be implemented overnight. However, domestic radicals saw in his works not calls for long, scrupulous propaganda work, but the idea of ​​​​a revolutionary transformation of the country. However, while the idea was common, the ways of its implementation differed, and quite significantly. “Propaganda” (moderate) was represented by Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov, “conspiratorial” (social-revolutionary) by Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev, anarchist by Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin.

P.L. Lavrov, in his views, adhered to the idea of ​​the need for continuous propaganda among the people of socialist ideals, an explanation of the positive aspects of the future system. At the same time, violent actions themselves during the transition to it should be minimized. New ideas must be disseminated by the intelligentsia, which owes a huge debt to the masses, who freed them from physical labor for mental improvement. In his work “Historical Letters” P.L. Lavrov writes about progress prepared by the “enslaved majority” and proposes to repay this majority with enlightenment: “The initial progress of this minority was bought by the “enslavement of the majority” (the so-called “price of progress”); the intelligentsia’s payment of their debt to the people consists of “... in the feasible distribution of the comforts of life, mental and moral development to the majority, in introducing scientific understanding and justice into social forms." The formula of progress given by P.L. Lavrov reads: "personal development in physical, mental and moral terms, embodiment in social forms of truth and justice..." By the way, it should be noted that among the followers of P.L. Lavrov, there were those "who brought Lavrov's teaching to the point of absurdity, demanding that the intellectual study the sciences according to O. Comte's classification."

P.N. Tkachev, in contrast, stood for an immediate coup, and Lavrov’s program of peaceful propaganda of socialism generally refused to consider revolutionary. In his opinion, the revolution has already been prepared by the course of social development. A true revolutionary is the people themselves, who always want a revolution and are ready for it. Tkachev therefore put forward the slogan of an immediate violent coup. Revolutionaries cannot wait, because delay further and further reduces the possibility of success. “Take advantage of the minutes,” writes P.N. Tkachev. “Such minutes are not frequent in history. To miss them means to voluntarily delay the possibility of social revolution for a long time, perhaps forever.”

M.A. Bakunin in his program was based on the conviction that the necessary prerequisites for a social revolution had long matured in the Russian people; the masses, driven to extreme poverty and enslavement, did not expect liberation either from the state, or from the privileged classes, or from any political revolutions, but only from a social revolution based on the efforts of the people themselves. In the midst of the people, under the influence of “centuries of experience and thought,” the ideal of a socialist structure of social life took shape long ago, in which Bakunin saw three main features: 1) the conviction that all the land belongs to those who cultivate it with their labor; 2) communal land use with periodic redistributions; 3) community self-government and the “decidedly hostile” attitude of the community towards the state. However, the people's ideal, from Bakunin's point of view, is not flawless and cannot be accepted in the form in which it has developed, because in it, along with positive features, the “negative” aspects of the life of the people were also expressed. These include: “patriarchy,” “absorption of the face by the world,” and “faith in the king.”

Views of M.A. Bakunin, were assessed by Soviet historians as generally progressive for that time, but essentially “petty-bourgeois” and “utopian”. N.Yu. Kolpinsky and V.A. Tvardovskaya write about him this way: “...Bakunin contributed to the transition of a number of petty-bourgeois revolutionaries to the position of socialism. But it was utopian, pre-Marxist socialism, petty-bourgeois in nature.” A similar opinion is shared by N.M. Pirumova: “... Bakunin’s anarchist worldview... expressed the sentiments of the impoverished masses of the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie pouring into the working class...” However, according to these researchers, “Bakunin’s anarchist theory led the labor movement away from the direct path of struggle for a bright future for humanity.” A.A. Galaktionov and P.F. Nikandrov write that the role of M.A. Bakunin cannot be defined unambiguously, since, “on the one hand, he was an honest revolutionary who devoted his whole life to the cause of liberating the working people from exploitation,” and on the other, rejecting the theory of the proletarian revolution and relying on a spontaneous rebellion, he “knocked down” the proletarian movement with “ true path." Assessment by M.A. Bakunin as an outstanding figure of the revolutionary movement is given by Yu.A. Borisenok and D.I. Oleynikov.

Left-wing radical thinkers, as we see, had one common goal - the overthrow of the monarchy. However, it should be noted that the methods and vision of the post-revolutionary future were somewhat different. At P.L. Lavrov is preparation through propaganda among the people; for P.N. Tkachev – a coup by a group of conspirators, M.A. Bakunin - an immediate spontaneous rebellion, and, moreover, with the destruction of the very institution of the state, which was not the case for the first two theorists.

Alexander III ascended the throne at a dramatic moment in Russian history. On March 1, 1881, what everyone in the depths of their souls expected and feared happened - Alexander II was killed by the Narodnaya Volya. Alexander III remembered the shock experienced on this day for the rest of his life, and his entire reign must be viewed through the prism of this tragic experience. He received autocratic power over a country in which everything was in a state of unstable equilibrium. According to Dostoevsky, at this time Russia lived hovering over the abyss. 36-year-old Alexander realized that it depended on him which direction Russia would swing - towards stability and order or towards revolutionary anarchy and bloody chaos. His entire previous life and upbringing (primarily under the influence of civil law teacher Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev) formed in him a negative attitude towards liberalism.

Alexander III was one of the most pious monarchs. His faith - sincere, informal - was an expression of a natural craving for support, which seemed the only solid one. It was simply impossible to strengthen autocracy without relying on religion - something irrational was required to justify the inviolability of absolutism. The divine origin of his power, Divine providence as the basis of his policy is opposed to all attempts on an unlimited monarchy, as blasphemous and heretical. At the same time, Alexander’s religiosity was largely ritualistic and combined with the darkest superstitions.

When Alexander III compared the reigns of his father (Alexander II) and his grandfather (Nicholas I), the comparison was not in favor of the father. His grandfather was much closer to him both in character and in his politics. There is even some kind of symbolism in the fact that the reign of Alexander III began with five gallows (“First of March”), just like the reign of Nicholas (Decembrists). The father “reformed” too much; his reforms, in the opinion of the heir, led to the collapse of the traditional state system and contributed to the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia. The natural reaction to such threats seemed to be a gradual return to the old, strengthening of the class system and autocracy. This was the essence of his domestic policy. It seemed to him that he was returning the country from a dangerous path to healthy historical foundations. In fact, these were doomed attempts to reverse the course of life. The ideologists of this internal political course, which determined the entire reign of Alexander III (1881-1894), were convinced conservatives - Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev and the talented publicist and public figure, publisher of Moskovskie Vedomosti Mikhail Nikiforovich Katkov.

In the first two months of the new reign, the question of the further path of development of Russia did not yet seem a foregone conclusion. The liberal ministers of Alexander II, headed by M.T., also waged an unequal struggle. Loris-Melikov, the new emperor still hesitated. However, while all adherents of the old order rallied under the slogan “now or never,” the liberal opposition and the democratic intelligentsia found themselves split and disorganized. This largely predetermined their defeat. Fearing that his pupil would eventually be inclined to continue the liberal reforms of K.P. Pobedonostsev decided on an unusual and daring step - on his own initiative, he drew up a draft manifesto with which the tsar should address the people “to calm minds at the present moment,” and sent it for approval. The Emperor not only did not pull him back, but on the contrary, began to act as if he was just waiting for this push. The text of the draft was approved by the emperor without any changes.

On April 29, 1881, the “Manifesto on the Inviolability of Autocracy” was published. In this manifesto, Alexander III declared that he ascended the throne “with faith in the strength and truth of autocratic power, which we are called upon to affirm and protect, for the good of the people, from any encroachments on it.” This meant a clear and firm refusal of the new autocrat to continue the reformist policy. The manifesto was met extremely negatively among liberals and soon received the caustic nickname “pineapple” (for its last words: “and entrust us with the sacred duty of autocratic rule”). The day after the publication of this manifesto, three Liberal ministers resigned - the Minister of the Interior, Count M.T. Loris-Melikov, Minister of Finance A.A. Abaza and Minister of War Count D.A. Milyutin. Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich was removed not only from the post of head of the Naval Department, but also from the court in general (he lived in Livadia until the end of his days). According to researchers, the reactionary course in the domestic policy of Alexander III finally triumphed only in May 1882, when Count. YES. Tolstoy (whose name, according to Katkov, “in itself is already a manifesto, a program”), and I.D. became the Minister of Education. Delyanov, “slavishly obedient to Tolstoy and Pobedonostsev” (A. A. Kornilov). A kind of triumvirate has formed (Pobedonostsev - Katkov - Tolstoy).

In the first years of his reign, Alexander expected a new attempt any day - this time on him. He was by no means a coward, but the constant expectation of danger developed suspiciousness in him. The intense readiness for a surprise attack even became the reason for the sudden death of one of the officers of the palace guard (Bar. Reitern, a relative of the Minister of Finance). When the emperor unexpectedly appeared in the duty room, the officer who was smoking a cigarette began to hide it behind his back. Suspecting that he was hiding a weapon, Alexander III fired.

Gatchina became the main residence of the emperor (for which he was nicknamed the “Gatchina captive”). Alexander’s attachment to Gatchina evoked associations with Pavel in everyone, and even in himself. Just like him, Alexander felt confident only in this medieval castle, where there was an underground prison and an underground passage to the lakes. All movements of the emperor were carried out under heavy security and always suddenly - without a pre-agreed departure time. The times when one could meet the emperor alone, without retinue or guard, walking around his capital, have sunk into the irrevocable past. Even the coronation of the new monarch was constantly postponed and took place only in May 1883 - an unprecedented case in the history of Russia!

In an effort to strengthen state order, on August 14, 1881, Alexander III approved the “Regulations for the Protection of State Security and Public Peace,” according to which a state of emergency could be declared in any area. When it was introduced in any locality, the authorities could arrest everyone they considered necessary and, without trial, deport undesirable persons for up to 5 years to any part of the empire. The provincial administration was given the right to close educational institutions, transfer cases to a military court instead of a civil one, suspend the publication of newspapers and magazines, the activities of zemstvos, etc. Despite the temporary nature of this law, it lasted until the fall of the autocracy. Some areas were under emergency control for decades, although there was no particular need for it. The governors simply did not want to part with additional powers.

Counter-reforms

The peasant problem was the most complex. The reform of 1861 had exhausted its positive charge within 20 years. New measures were required that would make the peasant a full member of society and help him adapt to market relations. At first the government tried to do something in this direction (for more details on this, see Lecture 24), but then moved on to strengthening the landowner economy, the power of the landed nobility over the peasantry, and maintaining the patriarchal system in the countryside. This turn was associated with the appointment to the post of Minister of Internal Affairs, Count. YES. Tolstoy, the same one whose resignation in 1880 was welcomed by almost all of Russia.

In 1883, Alexander III declared to the volost elders gathered for his coronation: “Follow the advice and guidance of your leaders of the nobility and do not believe the absurd and absurd rumors and rumors about free allowances and the like.” There were constant complaints from the landowners that the men had become “loose” and that the justices of the peace were not strict enough. In this regard, on July 12, 1889, the “Regulations on Zemstvo Precinct Chiefs” was published, the purpose of which was to create “a strong government that is close to the people.” The zemstvo chief stood at the head of the zemstvo section (in each district there were 4-5 such sections). These officials were appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs, and exclusively from among the local hereditary nobles - landowners, although he had to deal with peasant affairs. The magistrate's court in the village was abolished. Zemstvo leaders (they had no relation to the zemstvo) concentrated administrative and judicial power in their hands. They became sovereign stewards in their area. Rural and volost assemblies found themselves completely dependent on zemstvo leaders. They could cancel any of their sentences, arrest the village headman, the volost foreman, fine individual peasants or all participants in the gathering, and subject the peasants to corporal punishment. Their decisions were not subject to appeal, i.e. There was practically no government over them. The general leadership of the zemstvo chiefs in the district was carried out by the leader of the nobility.

During these same years, a number of laws were adopted that complicated family divisions, the exit of individual peasants from the community, and land redistributions. These laws were intended to drive the peasants into a large patriarchal family and community, and to strengthen superior supervision over them. In such a situation, it was difficult for the peasant to show economic initiative in order to extricate himself from growing poverty. Apparently Alexander III did not know what he was doing. His serfdom policy made the situation in the village even more explosive.

Ultimately, three factors prepared the way for a social explosion in the countryside: growing peasant land shortages, the global agricultural crisis, and the government's serf-owning policies. When D.A. Tolstoy became the Minister of Internal Affairs, the oppression of zemstvos began again. In 1890, already at the end of his short reign, Alexander III carried out a zemstvo counter-reform. Under the new law, government control over the zemstvo was strengthened. For noble landowners, the property qualification was halved, and for townspeople, on the contrary, it was significantly increased. After this, the predominance of landowners in zemstvos became even more significant. The peasant electoral curia generally lost the right of independent choice: the final decision on its candidacies announced at volost assemblies was made by the governor. However, the counter-reform almost did not touch the “third element,” which by that time had become the main engine of zemstvo work. And therefore the zemstvo business continued to develop despite all the difficulties.

In this way, the autocratic government tried to maximally strengthen the position of noble landowners in local government. Russian society, which after the reforms of the previous reign seemed to be beginning to part with class privileges, Alexander III tried to turn back, deepening the differences between classes. However, the effectiveness of these measures was undermined by the entire course of the country's socio-economic development. That part of the landowners who adhered to the old, feudal methods of farming and unconditionally supported the autocracy gradually became economically impoverished and lost their importance and authority locally. Taking this into account, the government also provided financial support to the local nobility: in 1885, the Noble Bank was established, which provided loans on preferential terms secured by estates. The government feared that in the face of falling grain prices, many landowners would go bankrupt, the nobility would perish, and the autocracy would lose its political support. They received the most favorable loans from the bank secured by their estates. The government actually subsidized the landowners. In the first year of its operation, the bank lent almost 70 million rubles to landowners. Cash injections slowed down the process of impoverishment of the local nobility, but they could not stop it. Those landowners who somehow managed to adapt to new conditions, for the most part, acquired a new worldview. The not very numerous, but most politically active part of the landed nobility became in opposition to the autocratic power. This was constantly manifested in the activities of the zemstvos even after the counter-reforms.

In 1892, a new City Regulation was adopted, which significantly reduced the independence of city government and reduced the number of city voters by three to four times. Less successful was the government offensive against judicial institutions. It was not possible to carry out decisive changes here.

In the 1880s, the government took another series of harsh measures aimed at the educated part of society, in which it saw its main enemy. Thus, in August 1883, the “Temporary Rules on the Press” were adopted. The meeting of four ministers received the right to close any publications and prohibit undesirable persons from engaging in journalistic activities. Since 1883, security departments (secret police) began to operate - gendarmerie bodies that specialized in intelligence work.

In 1884, a new university statute was issued that eliminated the university autonomy granted by the 1863 statute: university rectors were appointed by the government, which could also appoint and dismiss professors. Tuition fees have almost doubled. In 1887, the Minister of Public Education I.D. Delyanov issued the so-called. "Circular about cook's children", ordering that children from the lower classes should not be allowed into the gymnasium. The government sought to give education a class character and replace the “lousy” (Alexander’s expression) common intelligentsia, a breeding ground for public discontent, with a well-meaning one controlled from above. In an effort to limit access to education for the poor, Alexander III did not care about expanding the network of educational institutions, especially higher ones. Under him, only Tomsk University and the Technological Institute in Kharkov were opened.

It is characteristic that Alexander carried out all the counter-reforms without the support of the State Council, where they never received a majority of votes.

The government of Alexander III took a number of measures to forcibly Russify the outskirts. So. In the Baltic region, the Russian government fought against Germanization: in 1885, all government offices and officials were ordered to conduct office work and correspondence in Russian. In 1887, it was ordered to teach in Russian in secondary educational institutions. In 1893, Dorpat University was renamed Yuryev University. In governing the Caucasus region, Alexander's government sought "unification with other parts of the empire."

A number of restrictive measures were taken against Jews. The Jewish Pale of Settlement (where Jews were allowed to live) was reduced, and within the “Pale of Settlement” Jews were forbidden to settle outside cities and towns. In 1887, the infamous “percentage rate” was introduced for Jewish children when entering educational institutions. In 1891, it was forbidden for Jewish artisans to settle in Moscow, who had this right under the law of 1865. In 1891, a series of evictions of Jews from Moscow were carried out.

Loyal publicists called him “The Peacemaker.” Indeed, he managed to stabilize the situation after the assassination of Alexander II. But he did not bring real peace to the country, because... He treated not the disease itself, but its symptoms. Amid the deceptive calm of the reign of Alexander III, the seeds of future storms were sown.

Liberal and populist movement

During these years, zemstvos continued to remain the focus of the liberal opposition, whose main slogan was “positive work on the ground.” By the end of the 19th century. here the desire to consolidate forces was becoming more and more noticeable: ties were established and strengthened between various zemstvos, semi-legal meetings of zemstvo leaders took place, plans were developed to fight to limit the autocracy. Liberals considered the introduction of a constitution to be the main, paramount transformation for Russia. Populism was experiencing a severe crisis. On the one hand, despite the ultimate failure of all attempts by Narodnaya Volya to frighten the authorities through terror and force them to make concessions, this organization found many followers among Russian youth in the 1880s - 1890s. However, the political police at that time acted very professionally: terrorist groups, as a rule, were eliminated by them while still in their infancy. In February 1883, Vera Figner, the last member of the first executive committee of Narodnaya Volya, was captured. Only at the very end of the 19th century. The revolutionary populists managed to create several strong regional organizations, which later served as the basis for the all-Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party. The last surge of this once formidable organization was the so-called “second March 1st case” in which five students of St. Petersburg University (including A.I. Ulyanov) who were arrested on the eve of the assassination attempt scheduled for March 1, 1887, were executed. To be fair, it should be noted that Alexander’s regime was relatively mild. So, for 1883 - 1890. the courts handed down only 58 death sentences, of which only 12 were carried out (for comparison, 29 people were executed in 1879 - 1882). For the vast majority of those convicted, the emperor commuted the death penalty to hard labor.

At the same time, the liberal wing in the populist movement is significantly strengthening. Its representatives, the most prominent of whom was the talented publicist N.K. Mikhailovsky, hoped to bring populist ideals to life peacefully: through the organization of financial assistance to the peasantry, the elimination of peasant land shortages, improving rental conditions, etc. It was in the environment of liberal populism that the “theory of small deeds”, popular at that time, arose, which aimed the intelligentsia at everyday everyday work to improve the situation of peasants - in zemstvo schools, hospitals, volost boards, etc. Representatives of liberal populism represented the most significant part of the “ideological” zemstvo intelligentsia. The liberal populists differed from the liberals with whom they had to work side by side in the zemstvo, first of all, in that for them socio-economic transformations were of paramount importance. The introduction of a constitution, political freedoms, etc. seemed secondary to them. Moreover, many populists considered the struggle for them harmful, distracting from the main thing - improving the situation of the peasants.

The labor movement and the emergence of Marxism

Development of industry in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. led to the formation of two main classes of bourgeois society: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. During the last third of the 19th century. the number of workers in Russia tripled and by 1900 amounted to approx. 3 million people. The proletariat is a class of wage workers deprived of ownership of tools and means of production. The sources of replenishment of the Russian proletariat are the poor peasantry and bankrupt artisans. The detachment of peasants from the land occurred slowly. There was no insurance against illnesses or accidents at that time, and there were no pensions either. The worker considered a plot of land in his native village to be his only insurance.

The Russian proletariat was undoubtedly the most disadvantaged part of the population. Its operation for a long time was not limited by any legal regulations. In factories that worked in one shift, the working day reached 14-15 hours, in enterprises with two shifts it was 12 hours. The labor of women and teenagers was widely used.

The wages of workers in Russia were 2 times lower than in England, 4 times lower than in the USA. The administration fined workers for the slightest offense. In most factories, wages were paid irregularly or at long intervals - at Christmas, Easter, Intercession. Before the next payday, the worker was forced to take food on credit from a factory store - sometimes of poor quality and at high prices.

The workers lived in barracks at the enterprises. Part of the barracks was allocated for dormitories, while others were partitioned off into closets. Adults and children, men and women, slept on bunks in dormitories for the night. It was only towards the end of the century that separate bedrooms began to be allocated for men and women. Closets were reserved for family workers. There was not enough separate room for each family. More often, two families lived in one closet, or even more. Only highly skilled workers who permanently lived in the city had the opportunity to rent an apartment or buy their own house.

The labor movement already at the very beginning attracted the attention of some representatives of the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia. The Narodniks were the first to begin revolutionary propaganda among the workers. In 1875, the first independent workers' organization, the South Russian Union of Workers, was created in Odessa. The founder of the organization was E.O. Zaslavsky. The "Union" was influenced by the ideas of populism. The Union's charter was adopted, which provided for "propaganda of the idea of ​​liberating workers from the yoke of capital and the privileged classes." The “South Russian Union of Workers” was small in number and did not last long. In 1878 in St. Petersburg, disparate circles of workers united into a single organization - the “Northern Union of Russian Workers.” The organization was headed by V.P. Obnorsky and S.N. Khalturin. The program of this organization set the task struggle for political freedoms and social reorganization. The organization was destroyed. In 1879, Obnorsky was arrested.

Industrial crisis of the early 80s. hit the textile industry with particular force. The owners began to reduce production and fire workers. Wages decreased and fines increased. But it soon became clear that the workers did not have the infinite patience that the peasants had. The same people in the factory behaved differently than in the village, where they were constrained by paternal authority and patriarchal traditions. The peasant brought with him to the factory the dissatisfaction that had accumulated in the village, here it grew even more and broke out.

Difficult working and living conditions gave rise to protest, expressed primarily in strikes. If in the 60s of the 19th century only 51 workers’ protests were recorded, then in the 70s. the number of strikes increased to 326, and in the 80s. - already up to 446.

The first strikes, very similar to riots, began in the 70s. The most significant strikes were at the Nevskaya paper spinning mill in May 1870, at the Krenholm manufactory in Narva in 1872, etc. In 1880, a strike occurred at the Yartsevo manufactory of the Khludov merchants in the Smolensk province. After quitting work, the weavers broke the windows at the factory. Troops were called to Yartsevo. In subsequent years, unrest occurred in the Moscow province, in Yaroslavl and St. Petersburg. The year 1885 began with the famous Morozov strike.

Timofey Morozov's Nikolskaya manufactory (near Orekhovo-Zuev) was the largest cotton factory in Russia. About 8 thousand workers worked there. With the onset of the crisis, wages were reduced five times at the manufactory. Fines increased sharply, reaching up to 24 kopecks. from the ruble earned. The leaders of the strike were Pyotr Moiseenko and Vasily Volkov. Moiseenko was from these places, worked in St. Petersburg, and took part in several strikes. After one of them he was exiled to Siberia. Then he worked at the Nikolskaya manufactory. The young weaver Volkov emerged as a labor leader during the performance.

The strike began on the morning of January 7. The leaders failed to restrain the striking weavers from arbitrariness. The crowd began to destroy the apartments of the director and some of the craftsmen, as well as a food store. By nightfall of the same day, troops arrived in Orekhovo-Zuevo.

The governor came to the factory. Volkov emerged from the crowd surrounding the main office and presented his pre-arranged demands. The talk was about increasing wages and regulating fines. The workers demanded that the administration give 15 days' notice of dismissal. During the negotiations, Volkon was arrested. The indignant crowd rushed to free him. There was a fight with the military guard. Police made more arrests. Many workers were sent back to their villages. Under the influence of repression, the strike began to decline. Moiseenko was also captured. On January 18, the strike ended.

The trial of 33 strikers the following year attracted national attention. The prosecutor brought charges against them on 101 counts. The jurors, convinced of how ugly the order was at Morozov's factory, found the defendants innocent on all counts. The conservative newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti called this verdict “101 salutatory shots in honor of the labor issue that appeared in Rus'.” Moiseenko was expelled to the Arkhangelsk province on an administrative basis. The workers' demands were satisfied.

The strikes of the 1870-1890s were still very scattered. Participants in one strike or another fought only to change the situation at their enterprise. The demands put forward were exclusively economic in nature: increasing wages, improving working and living conditions, etc. There was no single labor movement.

Under the influence of the growing labor movement, a number of factory laws were issued to regulate relations between factory owners and workers. In 1882, a law was passed restricting the work of minors, factory inspections were introduced to monitor the working conditions of workers, and in 1885 a law was passed prohibiting night work for teenagers and women. On June 3, 1886, under the direct influence of the Morozov strike, a law on fines was issued (fines should not exceed a third of wages, and fine money should be used only for work needs). In 1897, a law was passed to limit working hours (maximum day length - 11.5 hours).

In 1886, the government passed a law according to which participation in a strike was punishable by arrest for up to a month. Entrepreneurs were prohibited from imposing fines in excess of the established amount. Control over the implementation of the law was assigned to the factory inspectorate.

The publication of the law did not stop the strike struggle. Strikes broke out in St. Petersburg, Tver, and near Moscow, still accompanied by pogroms and the expulsion of particularly hated managers. An eyewitness reported that during a strike at the Khludovskaya manufactory in the Ryazan province, the Guslyanka River almost overflowed its banks, littered with skeins of yarn. Almost every major strike ended in clashes with the authorities, who always took the side of the owners. Only with the onset of industrial growth in 1893 did workers' unrest gradually subside.

A new important factor in Russian social life was the emergence of Marxism, closely associated with the formation of the industrial proletariat and the growth of the labor movement. The severe blows and disappointments that the revolutionary populists experienced at the turn of the 70s and 80s forced them to rethink and reevaluate a lot. Some of them began to experience disappointment in the revolutionary capabilities of the peasantry, to realize the ideological crisis that in the early 1880s. experienced populism and tried to find a way out in a complete revaluation of values. The eyes of yesterday’s “villagers” turned towards the working class. Moreover, the socialist movement in the West at that time took on a Marxist tint.

One of the first Russian Marxists was G.V. Plekhanov, a former Bakuninist and leader of the “Black Redistribution”. He was joined by other members of this organization - V.N. Ignatov, V.I. Zasulich, L.G. Deitch and P.B. Axelrod. In 1883, meeting in Geneva, they united in the “Emancipation of Labor” group. Two years later, the group became smaller: Deutsch was detained by German police and handed over to Russian authorities, and young Ignatov died of tuberculosis. Plekhanov, the undisputed leader of the group, also turned out to be its main worker. The main goals of the group: dissemination of the ideas of Marxism in Russia, criticism of populism, analysis of issues of Russian life from the perspective of Marxism.

The Liberation of Labor group came to the following conclusions. Post-reform Russia is moving along the capitalist path, and this must inevitably lead to the complete disintegration of the community. Thus, the Narodniks’ hopes for the triumph of “communal socialism” have no basis. But at the expense of the impoverished peasantry, the proletariat will grow and strengthen. It is he who can and must lead Russia to socialism by establishing his dictatorship and carrying out the necessary transformations in all spheres of life. To do this, it is necessary to give the proletarian movement the necessary direction, introduce into it a scientifically developed ideology, and equip it with a unified program of action. Such tasks can only be accomplished by a revolutionary intelligentsia imbued with the spirit of Marxist teaching. But in order for such an intelligentsia to appear, it is necessary to win personnel for it in the ideological struggle, first of all, from the populists, both liberal and revolutionary.

The Liberation of Labor group saw its main task in promoting Marxism in Russia and rallying forces to create a workers’ party. For this purpose, Plekhanov and Zasulich are translating into Russian the most important works of K. Marx, F. Engels and their followers (in fairness, it must be admitted that they were not the first translators of Marx - his “Capital” was translated by G.D. back in 1872). Lopatin) and create their original works, in which they analyze the situation in Russia from a Marxist position. The group managed to organize the publication of the “Workers' Library,” which consisted of popular science and propaganda brochures. Whenever possible, they were transported to Russia.

The books of G.V. played a particularly important role in the spread of Marxism. Plekhanov’s “Socialism and Political Struggle” (1883) and “Our Differences” (1885). Sharply criticizing the basic postulates of populist ideology and persistently proving the advantages of Marxism, Plekhanov and his comrades sought to attract at least part of the revolutionary-minded public with them.

In the first of them, he decided to reckon with his populist past. Contrary to Bakunin, and partly Chernyshevsky, Plekhanov declared that the struggle for socialism also included the struggle for political freedoms and a constitution. Also contrary to Bakunin, he believed that the leading force in this struggle would be industrial workers. Plekhanov believed that there should be a more or less long historical gap between the overthrow of the autocracy and the socialist revolution. He warned against “socialist impatience,” and against attempts to force the socialist revolution. Their saddest consequence, he wrote, could be the establishment of “renewed tsarist despotism on a communist lining” (!!!).

Plekhanov considered the immediate goal of the Russian socialists to be the creation of a workers' party. He called not to intimidate liberals with the “red ghost of socialism.” In the fight against autocracy, the workers will need the help of both liberals and peasants. True, in the same work “Socialism and Political Struggle” there was a thesis about the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, which played a very sad role in the socialist movement and the fate of Russia.

In another work, “Our Disagreements,” Plekhanov tried to explain Russian reality from a Marxist point of view. Contrary to the populists, he believed that Russia had already irrevocably entered the period of capitalist development. In the peasant community, he argued, there has long been no former unity, it is split into “red and cold sides” (rich and poor), and therefore cannot be the basis for building socialism. In the future, there will be complete collapse and disappearance of the community. The work “Our Differences” became a significant event in the development of Russian economic thought and in the social movement, although Plekhanov clearly underestimated the vitality of the peasant community.

The appearance of Plekhanov's first Marxist works in Russia caused an explosion of indignation among convinced populists. Plekhanov was accused of “apostasy,” “insulting the sacred,” and going “to the service of reaction.” There were even ceremonial burnings of his books.

Nevertheless, one after another, Marxist circles began to appear in Russia. One of the first, under the leadership of the Bulgarian student Dimitar Blagoev, arose in 1883 - almost simultaneously with the Liberation of Labor group. A connection was established between them. Members of the Blagoev circle - St. Petersburg students - began propaganda among the workers. In 1885, Blagoev was exiled to Bulgaria (due to the breakdown of Russian-Bulgarian relations), but his group existed for another two years. In 1889, another group arose among students of the St. Petersburg Technological Institute, headed by M.I. Brusnev.

The weak point of all these circles was their weak connection with the workers, i.e. with those who, according to Marx, should become the main active force of the future revolution.

In 1888, a Marxist circle appeared in Kazan. Its organizer was 17-year-old N.E. Fedoseev, expelled from the gymnasium for political unreliability. In the fall of 1888, former student V.I. came to Fedoseev’s circle for the first time. Ulyanov...

IN AND. Ulyanov (Lenin) was born in Simbirsk (now Ulyanovsk) in the family of public school inspector I.N. Ulyanov. The large family was happy and quite prosperous until 1886, when the father suddenly died. From that time on, misfortunes haunted this family. In the same year, 1886, the eldest son Alexander, a student at St. Petersburg University, together with several comrades began preparing an assassination attempt on the Tsar. In March 1887, they were arrested without completing the intended deed and hanged. Vladimir (the second son in the family) was finishing high school at that time. His words are known (and canonized by official Soviet history): “No, we will not go that way. This is not the way to go!” However, the meaning of these words is unclear. He had no idea about Marxism then. Most likely, seeing his mother’s grief, he renounced the revolutionary path. Moreover, according to his own recollections, before this event he was a quiet, diligent and very religious boy. However, the execution of his adored older brother turned his entire future life upside down.

In the fall of 1887, V. Ulyanov entered the law faculty of Kazan University, but did not study for long. In December he participated in a student meeting. Many who attended were expelled from the university and expelled from the city - including a freshman from Ulyanov. After a short exile to the family estate of his mother's family - the village of Kokushkino, Vladimir Ulyanov returned to Kazan and filed a petition to restore the university. His mother was also concerned about the same thing. Many participants in the meeting were reinstated, but Ulyanov’s petitions aroused a wary attitude (the brother of a hanged terrorist!). IN AND. Ulyanov asked for permission to go abroad to continue his education - and was again refused. From the time of his expulsion from the university until 1891, V.I. Ulyanov did not have specific occupations. At this difficult time for him, feeling rejected, he came to Fedoseev’s circle. Marxist teaching immediately attracted the young man. He soon realized that it carried such a charge that could blow up this entire unjust world.

In 1891 V.I. Ulyanov was finally allowed to take exams as an external student at the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University. Having received a university diploma, he took the position of assistant attorney at the Samara District Court. Here he handled minor criminal and civil cases, without receiving satisfaction from his service (he did not win a single case!). He continued to attend meetings of Marxists, gradually becoming involved in underground work.

The legal education, acquired hastily as an external student, had almost no effect on the views of V.I. Ulyanov, nor on his writings. On the contrary, a faithful follower of Chernyshevsky, he treated “bourgeois” law and “bourgeois” constitutions with contempt. He valued civil liberties only because they made it possible to conduct socialist propaganda without hindrance.

In 1893, V.I. Ulyanov transferred from Samara to St. Petersburg to the same position, but did not conduct any business here. From now on, he devoted all his energy to organizing the Marxist movement, propaganda among workers and polemics with the populists. During the fight against populism, V.I. Ulyanov, willingly or unwillingly, borrowed many of his features. He never hid his admiration for the Narodnaya Volya, for their well-functioning and clearly functioning organization. His dream was to create a disciplined and united party, leading an army of millions of proletariat, which, in turn, would carry along the peasantry. Through the Narodnaya Volya members, his ideological kinship stretches to Tkachev, and through him to Nechaev.

I. Ulyanov took the first steps towards creating a strong and centralized organization in 1895. He traveled abroad, where he met with Plekhanov. In the fall of the same year, he participated in the creation in St. Petersburg, on the basis of several small circles, of the citywide “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class.” The “Union” became the largest of all previously existing social democratic (Marxist) organizations. Its creation became an important milestone in the history of Russian Marxism. Compared to circles, the “Union of Struggle” was an organization of a new type: much more numerous, disciplined, and possessing a clear, well-thought-out internal structure. Its leadership included V. I. Ulyanov, G.M. Krzhizhanovsky, N.K. Krupskaya, Yu.O. Martov (Tsederbaum) and others. District groups were subordinated to the leadership center, and workers' circles were subordinate to them. Contacts were maintained with many factories. Leaflets were published, the first issue of the newspaper was being prepared.

However, on the night of December 8-9, 1895, the police arrested 57 members of the “Union”, incl. and Ulyanov. In 1897, he was exiled to Siberia - to the village of Shushenskoye, Yenisei province (where, however, he lived very freely). The St. Petersburg “Union of Struggle” continued to operate. The apogee of his activity was the leadership in 1896 of a grandiose strike of textile workers that covered 19 factories. Thus, it was the “Union of Struggle” that for the first time managed to lead the workers’ struggle and lead them along.

On February 26, 1845, at three o'clock in the afternoon, the residents of the capital were notified of the addition to the royal family by the 301st salvo of cannons from the Peter and Paul Fortress. The future Emperor Alexander III was born.

Even before Emperor Alexander III ascended the throne, the elder of the Glinsk Hermitage, Iliodor, had a vision in which, in the form of stars in the sky, the future of the last Russian Tsars was revealed to him. The elder was predicted both the villainous murder of Alexander II and the future of Emperor Alexander III: “And I see in the east another star, surrounded by its own stars. Its appearance, size and brilliance surpassed all stars seen before. But even this star’s days were mysteriously shortened. Xie is the star of Emperor Alexander III.” Indeed, the reign of Emperor Alexander III is one of the brightest pages of Russian history, which ended so suddenly and was unfairly forgotten by descendants.

We can say with confidence that Alexander III was a true image of the Orthodox Russian Monarch, endowed with amazing gifts from God. He was a true Orthodox Christian, a true anointed one of God, who was guided in his service by Christ's Commandments and relied in every possible way on God's help. “The heart of a king is in the hand of the Lord, like streams of water: wherever He wants, He directs it.” (Prov. 21:1) Alexander III was amazingly merciful to his subjects and possessed the true breadth and generosity of the Russian soul. And at the same time, he was a stern master, fairly punishing both external and internal enemies of his Fatherland.

"Russian people! Cherish the Tsarist Autocracy like the apple of your eye! - said Archbishop Nikon Rozhdestvensky. Tsarist Autocracy is the guarantee of our national happiness, it is our national treasure, which other nations do not have, and therefore whoever dares to talk about limiting it is our enemy and traitor!” Saint Theophan, the Recluse of Vyshensky, also spoke about this: “We have long been characterized by the fundamental elements of Russian life, so strongly and fully expressed by the usual words: Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality. This is what needs to be preserved! When these principles weaken or change, the Russian people will cease to be Russian.”

Twenty years later, after the death of Alexander III, our people were deprived of genuine Russian power, and the country was plunged into destructive turmoil, which continues to this day. What is Russian power? If we draw parallels between the reign of Alexander III and our present day, we will see that the more clearly the figure of the Russian Tsar-Peacemaker appears before us, the smaller and more insignificant the current politicians become, ready to sell Russia for their own benefit and momentary glory. Isn’t it time to stop looking for imaginary well-being for our Motherland in every new model of society, and return to the true foundations of Orthodox Russian life.

ACCESSION TO THE THRONE
The accession of the heir to Tsarevich Alexander Alexandrovich to the throne took place the day after the death of his father, Emperor Alexander II, who was killed by terrorists. “You are getting a Russia that is confused, shattered, confused, yearning to be led with a firm hand, so that the ruling power can see clearly and know firmly what it wants and what it does not want and will not allow in any way...” - wrote on the day of Alexander’s assassination II Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, one of the outstanding political figures of that time, teacher of Alexander III.

Tsarevich Alexander Alexandrovich had a hard time with the frequent attempts on his father’s life and considered the authorities’ fight against the revolutionary movement insufficient. He knew that no amount of liberal concessions could extinguish the nascent revolutionary movement; it could only be destroyed. Pobedonostsev also wrote to the Tsar about this: “The crazy villains who killed your parent will not be satisfied with any concession and will only become furious. They can be appeased, the evil seed can be torn out only by fighting them to the death and to the stomach, with iron and blood. It is not difficult to win: until now everyone wanted to avoid the fight and deceived the late Emperor, you, themselves, everyone and everything in the world, because they were not people of reason, strength and heart, but flabby eunuchs and magicians. No, Your Majesty, there is only one true, direct way to get on your feet and begin, without falling asleep for a minute, the most holy struggle that has ever happened in Russia. The whole people are waiting for the sovereign decision to do this, and as soon as they feel the sovereign will, everything will rise, everything will come to life and there will be freshness in the air.”

For safety reasons, the Emperor and his family moved to Gatchina, which became his residence for the entire duration of his reign. The Emperor was annoyed - “...I was not afraid of Turkish bullets and now I have to hide from the revolutionary underground in my country.” However, the tsar understood that in the interests of Russia, he simply did not have the right to risk his life.

Six regicides of Alexander II were sentenced to death. However, voices began to be heard about the abolition of the death penalty for convicts. Leo Tolstoy was one of the first to write to the Emperor with a request to forgive the murderers, slyly referring to the Truths of Christ: “And I tell you, love your enemies.” Pobedonostsev, through whom Tolstoy wanted to convey the message to the Tsar, refused to fulfill his request and very aptly answered the compassionate count: “... having read your letter, I saw that your faith is one, and mine and the church’s are different, and that our Christ is not your Christ. I know mine as a man of power and truth, healing the paralytic, but in yours I saw the features of a paralytic who himself requires healing.” Nevertheless, the letter reached Alexander III’s desk through Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich.

Pobedonostsev, worried that the Tsar’s will might waver under pressure from the liberal public, wrote: “...Today a thought has been put into motion that terrifies me. People have become so depraved in their thoughts that they consider it possible to spare convicted criminals from the death penalty... Can this happen? No, no, and a thousand times no...” But the Tsar was adamant even without this. In Konstantin Petrovich’s letter, he wrote: “Be calm, no one will dare come to me with such proposals, and that all six will be hanged, I guarantee that.” Which is what was done.

On April 29, 1881, a manifesto was announced, where Alexander III proclaimed his intention to bring Russia to order and tranquility: “The voice of God commands us to stand vigorously in the work of government, trusting in Divine providence, with faith in the power and truth of autocratic power, which we are called upon to assert.” and protect her for the good of the people from all attempts on her life. May the hearts of our faithful subjects, struck by confusion and horror, all who love the Fatherland and devoted from generation to generation to the hereditary royal power, be encouraged. Under its shadow and in indissoluble union with it, our land has experienced more than once great turmoil and has come to strength and glory in the midst of severe trials and disasters, with faith in God, who arranges its destinies.

Devoting ourselves to our great service, we call on all our faithful subjects to serve us and the state faithfully to the eradication of sedition that disgraces the Russian land, to the establishment of faith and morality, to the good upbringing of children, to the extermination of untruth and theft, to the establishment of truth in the functioning of institutions , given to Russia by its benefactor - our beloved parent."

The society, mortally tired of terrorists, revolutionary agitation, frightened, disappointed in the weak supreme power, greeted the statement of the new monarch with enthusiasm. It's time to restore order. All work on the draft constitution, begun under Alexander II, was curtailed. “...I will never allow the restriction of autocratic power, which I find necessary and useful for Russia!” - wrote the Emperor. For all the destroyers of the Fatherland, sad times were coming, the times of the “Black Reaction,” as the liberals called the reign of Emperor Alexander III.

"BLACK REACTION"
In September 1881, Alexander III approved the “Regulations on measures to protect state order and public peace,” which introduced emergency measures in territories declared to be in a “state of exception.” Local governors-general received special powers: they now had the power to close public and private meetings and industrial enterprises without giving reasons. Criminal cases, at the request of governors general or the minister of internal affairs, were transferred to a military court operating under martial law. Police authorities, at any time of the day or night, could carry out searches and arrest suspicious persons for up to two weeks without bringing charges. Alexander III refused to recognize revolutionaries as normal people with whom one could negotiate. The tsar’s resolution on the program of the “People’s Will” party, composed by Alexander Ulyanov in the Peter and Paul Fortress, sounded quite intelligible and unambiguous: “This is a note not even from a madman, but from a pure idiot!”

One of the first practical steps of the new government to prevent “ferment of minds” and stop liberal propaganda was to strengthen censorship. “Experience shows,” wrote K. P. Pobedonostsev, “that the most insignificant people - some former moneylender, liquid factor, newspaper peddler, member of the Jacks of Hearts gang, bankrupt roulette owner - could found a newspaper, attract talented employees and launch his publication on the market as an organ of public opinion.” The arguments presented by Pobedonostsev seemed convincing to Alexander III, and several publications were closed. The resolution of the new Tsar on the memorandum regarding their closure at the end of March 1881 sounded unequivocal: “It was high time...”. To consider issues on the cessation of periodicals, an accelerated and simplified procedure was introduced - the final decision, which became a verdict on a particular magazine or newspaper, was made by a meeting of four ministers (internal affairs, justice, public education and the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod).

Censorship did not leave public libraries and public reading rooms unattended. The presence of 133 titles of books and periodicals were considered unacceptable.

But all the strictness of censorship was directed only against the destroyers and enemies of Russia. Nevertheless, decent people who want prosperity for their fatherland, on the contrary, received complete freedom. “You can write about anything; You can criticize any measure, even one approved by me, but under one condition - that there is no personal abuse or indecency” - these are the words of Alexander III himself about freedom of the press. By the end of the reign of Alexander III, about 400 periodicals were published in Russia, a quarter of which were newspapers. The number of scientific and specialized journals has increased significantly, reaching 804 titles.

Another important direction in the fight against nihilism for the new government was establishing order among the students. It was in this social environment that Alexander III and his closest associates saw the source of the most persistent and united opposition to the government; It was in universities and academies that revolutionaries over the years successfully recruited the most desperate terrorists. Having taken the post of Minister of Internal Affairs in 1882, Count D. A. Tolstoy, known for his rigor and determination, began to restore order in his former fiefdom - the Ministry of Public Education.

In August 1884, Alexander III approved the university charter, the draft of which Count D. A. Tolstoy proposed to Alexander II. The new charter dealt a heavy blow to university self-government, replacing the elective principle with the ministerial appointment of rectors, deans, and professors. Those who did not agree with the new order, regardless of their previous merits and scientific works, were dismissed without regret.

The main goal of the new charter was the desire to make students only listeners and visitors to lectures, not connected with each other in anything other than their studies. All student corporate organizations, communities, and circles were strictly prohibited. Alexander III, when discussing the draft of a new university charter, took the position of supporters of turning universities into administrative-state institutions.

Simultaneously with restrictive measures in relation to higher education, the authorities tried to raise the level of basic literacy of the population. In the matter of public education, Alexander III paid special attention to parochial schools, designed not only to teach literacy and arithmetic, but also to morally educate peasant children on the principles of Orthodox morality, “to establish among the people the Orthodox teaching of Christian faith and morality and to communicate the initial useful knowledge". In 1884, new rules on parochial schools were issued, and the following year, a special council was created under the Holy Synod to manage these educational institutions, which were divided into two categories: parochial schools proper and church literacy schools, differing in the volume of disciplines taught and duration of study. The children were taught by local priests and teachers appointed by the diocesan bishop. The allocation of parochial schools by 1893 reached three million rubles, compared to 55 thousand in 1882. Over the years, more than 25 thousand parochial schools were opened, and their total number was 29,945.

Alexander III was no less irritated by the state of the judiciary than by university freedoms and unrest among students. Too much here seemed to him not typical of Russian traditions brought to Russia from Europe. The principles of irremovability and independence of judges, the institution of sworn attorneys - all these innovations, in the opinion of Alexander III, were alien to the Russian people and did not correspond to the national character.

For Alexander III, as an Orthodox person, the basic law always remained the biblical commandments: “Honor your father and mother... Do not kill. Don't commit adultery. Don’t steal...” The judicial reform of the 60s led legislation away from these fundamental principles into the labyrinths of sophistry and shrouded the truth in the fog of lawyer’s eloquence. “Laws become a net not only for citizens, but, more importantly, for the authorities themselves, called upon to apply the law, constraining for them, with a multitude of restrictive and contradictory regulations, the freedom of reasoning and decision that is necessary for the reasonable action of the authorities,” wrote K. P. Pobedonostsev.

In an effort to rectify the situation, Alexander III over the course of a number of years adopted decrees bringing the judicial authorities into strict compliance with the actions of the state apparatus controlled by the supreme power. By 1886, cases of a political nature were finally removed from the jurisdiction of jury trials. A series of decrees and circulars have successively increased the level of supervision of the Minister of Justice over the courts.

“And so the darkness of turmoil, cut through by the bright light of the royal word, like lightning, began to quickly dissipate,” writes historian Nazarevsky. - Sedition, which seemed irresistible, melted like wax in the face of fire, disappeared like smoke under the wings of the wind. Turmoil in the minds began to quickly give way to Russian sanity, licentiousness and self-will gave way to order and discipline. Freethinking no longer trampled Orthodoxy as a kind of ultramontanism and our native Church as clericalism. The authority of the undisputed and hereditary national supreme power has again returned to its historical traditional heights.”

Liberals of all stripes, remembering with fear the time of order in the Russian State, constantly repeated and repeat false tales about the horrors of the “rampant black reaction.” What really happened? From 1881 to 1890, only 74 death sentences were handed down in political cases, of which only 17 were carried out. 106 people were sent to hard labor. Often the emperor personally overturned the death sentence and commuted the punishment of those convicted. Alexander III abolished the death penalty for the famous terrorist Vera Figner and her three comrades. Sometimes the case did not even go to trial. Having learned that the midshipman of the naval crew, Grigory Skvortsov, who was involved in the activities of the underground group, sincerely repented, the emperor ordered his release without subjecting him to prosecution.

Order in Russia was restored with a strict hand. Alexander III made decisions guided by the voice of conscience. His reign was terrible only for those who did not want to see Russia as a great and Orthodox power. However, everything that was aimed at the good of the fatherland was encouraged in every possible way. Despite the restrictive measures in relation to students and the intelligentsia, it was during the reign of Alexander III that there was a rapid growth of national self-awareness, expressed in the flourishing of Russian culture, art, and philosophy.

In 1888, a new university was opened in Tomsk, and in 1889, the Higher Women's Courses began classes again. By 1894, there were 52 higher educational institutions in Russia, where 25,166 students studied. The total cost of maintaining universities in 1880 was 3,157 thousand rubles, and in 1894 - 4,300 thousand rubles. In 1894, the country had 177 men's gymnasiums, 58 pro-gymnasiums, 104 real schools, 55 theological seminaries, 163 women's gymnasiums of the Ministry of Public Education, 61 women's diocesan schools, 30 institutes, 30 women's gymnasiums of the department of Empress Maria Feodorovna and 34 cadet corps.

During these years, a national medical clinical school was formed in Russia. Among the luminaries of medical science of that time were such luminaries as S. P. Botkin, F. I. Inozemtsev, I. M. Sechenov, G. A. Zakharyin, F. F. Erisman, N. V. Sklifosovsky. In 1886, the Ministry of Public Education allocated 2,450 thousand rubles for the construction of the largest clinical campus in Europe for the medical faculty of Moscow University, which became one of the centers of domestic science and medical practice. In the country at that time there were over 3 thousand scientists and writers, 4 thousand engineers, 79.5 thousand teachers, 68 thousand private teachers, 18.8 thousand doctors, 18 thousand representatives of liberal professions.

The Tsar encouraged Russian national art in all its branches. During the reign of Alexander III, L. N. Tolstoy, N. S. Leskov, A. N. Ostrovsky created works, and the talent of A. P. Chekhov gained strength. Painting, ballet, and music acquire truly national characteristics. For the first time, Russia is becoming one of the recognized centers of world culture, and the works of Russian writers, composers, and painters have forever entered the treasury of world art.

Alexander III, of course, required titanic efforts to lead Russia along the intended course with a firm hand. Alexander III's ardent Faith and trust in the Will of the Creator always served as support and support on this path. “It’s so desperately difficult at times that if I didn’t believe in God and His unlimited mercy, of course, there would be nothing left to do but put a bullet in my forehead. But I am not cowardly, and most importantly, I believe in God and believe that happy days will finally come for our dear Russia. Often, very often, I remember the words of the Holy Gospel: “Let not your heart be troubled, believe in God and believe in Me.” These powerful words have a beneficial effect on me. With complete trust in the mercy of God, I end this letter: “Thy will be done, Lord!” - wrote the Emperor.

PEACEMAKER “I’m glad that I was in the war (being Tsarevich, Alexander Alexandrovich participated in the war in the Balkans - ed.) and saw for myself the horrors associated with the war, and after that, I think that every person with a heart cannot desire war, but Every ruler to whom God has entrusted the people must take all measures to avoid the horrors of war.” These words of Alexander III did not diverge from deeds - throughout the years of his reign, Russia lived in peace. The people fully appreciated this, calling their king “Peacemaker.” A very typical example of the Russian Emperor’s foreign policy is the incident on the Russian-Afghan border, which happened a year after Alexander’s accession to the throne. Under the influence of England, which looked with fear at the growth of Russian influence in Turkestan, the Afghans occupied Russian territory adjacent to the Kushka fortress. The commander of the military district telegraphed the Tsar, asking what to do. The king was firm and laconic: “Kick him out and teach him a lesson!” After a short battle, the Afghans fled shamefully. They were pursued for several dozen miles by our Cossacks, who wanted to capture the English instructors who were with the Afghan detachment. Unfortunately, the British managed to escape. Afghan losses amounted to more than five hundred people. The Russians lost nine. British society was indignant and demanded that its government take decisive action against Russia. The British Ambassador in St. Petersburg was ordered to protest and demand an apology. “We will not do this,” said the emperor, and on the dispatch of the English ambassador he wrote a resolution: “There is no need to talk to them.” After that, he awarded A.V. Komarov, head of the border detachment, the Order of St. George, 3rd degree. The definition of Russian foreign policy in this incident was formulated by Alexander very briefly: “I will not allow anyone to encroach on our territory!” Soon a new threatening note arrived from London. The British military command was seriously concerned about developing a campaign against Russia. The response of the Russian Tsar was the mobilization of the Baltic Fleet. Considering that the British navy was at least five times larger than the Russian one, this act can be considered an act of extreme courage, unyielding will and unshakable position on the international stage. Two weeks passed. London fell silent, and then timidly proposed forming a commission to consider the Russian-Afghan incident. Another conflict began to brew with Austria-Hungary due to Russian intervention in Balkan problems. At a dinner in the Winter Palace, the Austrian ambassador began to discuss the Balkan issue in a rather harsh manner and, getting excited, even hinted at the possibility of Austria mobilizing two or three corps. Alexander III was calm and pretended not to notice the ambassador’s harsh tone. Then he calmly took the fork, bent it into a loop and threw it towards the Austrian diplomat's device. This is what I will do with your two or three buildings,” the Tsar said calmly. Not recognizing the terms of the shameful Peace of Paris of 1855, according to which Russia was prohibited from having a navy on the Black Sea, Alexander III decided to launch several warships in Sevastopol, where a coalition of European powers had humiliated the Russian name. But no one in Europe even dared to effectively oppose the decision of the Russian Tsar. Thanks to Russia's tough position, all of Europe was spared wars during the reign of Alexander III. In all the intricacies of European politics, Russia was not given the last place, and not a single cannon in Europe dared to fire without the knowledge of the Russian Tsar. One of the main vectors of Russian foreign policy was rapprochement with France, which gave Europe peace for many years. In 1887, Alexander III mediated negotiations between France and Germany and prevented an imminent military clash. The grateful French built the Alexander III Bridge in Paris, which is still a landmark of the French capital. Alexander III did not look for allies and did not believe flattering diplomatic speeches. “Russia has only two allies - its army and navy,” he liked to repeat. When Pobedonostsev tried to persuade the emperor to make a statement to European diplomats about Russia's love of peace, Alexander III was relentless. “I am very grateful to you for your good intention, but Russian sovereigns have never addressed representatives of foreign states with explanations and assurances. “I do not intend to introduce this custom here, to repeat from year to year banal phrases about peace and friendship to all countries, which Europe listens to and swallows every year, knowing well that all these are just empty phrases that prove absolutely nothing,” this is was the Tsar's answer. All thirteen years of the reign of Alexander III, the country lived in peace and political stability, unusual for Russia. Only direct intervention could force the peacemaker king to involve himself in the war. The nine Russian soldiers who died on the Russian-Afghan border were the first and only victims of armed conflict during the entire reign of the sovereign peacemaker.

MASTER
Alexander III understood perfectly well that his dreams of a strong and powerful Russian state would remain fantasies without strengthening the economic and financial base, without creating a modern army and navy capable of withstanding any threat to national interests. He understood that this was impossible to achieve without caring for the well-being and prosperity of all layers of Russian society: a strong national producer, a manufacturer, a banker, and a peasant. Order in the economic and business spheres, as well as in the political sphere, was imposed by the sovereign master just as decisively and harshly. To a large extent, the success of his economic activities was due to his ability to select the right personnel and not stand on ceremony with those who, in his opinion, were not coping with their responsibilities. When one day one of the ambitious ministers decided to threaten resignation, Alexander III remarked: “When I want to throw you out, you will hear from me about it in very specific terms.”

One of the first economic measures was to reduce the tax burden on the peasantry. To compensate for budget losses, new taxes were introduced: excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, sugar. New drinking rules were introduced to regulate the circulation of alcohol, thanks to which income in 1881-1886 increased from 224.3 million rubles to 237 million rubles, and the consumption of alcoholic beverages decreased. On the personal instructions of Alexander III, preparations were underway for the introduction of a state wine monopoly as one of the most important sources of income for the empire. In this, the tsar turned out to be very prudent: the monopoly introduced after his death brought the Russian budget up to 30% of income. Strict control over expenses and reduced inflation made it possible to achieve financial stabilization within a few years. In just three years, from 1881 to 1894, bank capital increased by 59%. For the first time in many years, Russia managed to achieve a deficit-free budget. Tightening customs policy and simultaneous encouragement of domestic producers led to rapid growth in production. Customs taxes on foreign goods almost doubled, which led to a significant increase in government revenues.

Huge Russia needed reliable and convenient transport routes for successful development. The development of the railway industry has become one of the priority areas in the field of transport. Simultaneously with the construction of state highways, the government begins to buy out railways that were in private hands, trying to subordinate the strategic industry to state control. During the thirteen years of the reign of Alexander III, the length of railway lines increased by 50%. A fantastic project was also carried out to build the Trans-Siberian Railway - the longest road in the world. In just 13 years (at that level of technology), Russian people laid rails through the steppes, taiga, mountains, building hundreds of bridges and tunnels. This road solved several important problems. Firstly, Russian goods could enter the Chinese market, and, secondly, the road opened up the possibility of a stable supply of weapons, soldiers and everything that could firmly keep the Far Eastern region within the Russian Empire.

Throughout the years of the reign of the peacemaker emperor, intensive reorganization of the army continued. The tsar, thrifty in spending, financed the maintenance and rearmament of the army without the slightest hesitation. “Our Fatherland, undoubtedly, needs a strong and well-organized army, standing at the height of the modern development of military affairs, but not for aggressive purposes, but solely to protect the integrity and state honor of Russia,” the emperor wrote.

All tinsel and pomp disappeared from army life. Regular parades were sharply reduced, their place was replaced by large maneuvers, which Alexander III often personally observed. The rearmament of the army was in full swing. In addition to the most modern weapons, on the personal instructions of the tsar, the army dressed in a more practical and easy-to-wear uniform. It was under Alexander III that the army received the S.I. Mosin rifle, the famous three-line rifle, which served the Russian army in two world wars. The number of officer corps increased by almost two thousand people. At the same time, the requirements for military education were significantly increased.

There was a real boom in the rearmament of the fleet. The fleet received the most modern types of ships. In addition to the Baltic and Black Seas, Russia also had to develop the Far East. This task was successfully accomplished, and by the end of the reign of Alexander III, Russia, which had virtually no modern navy, came to third place in the world after England and France. Naturally, such events would be impossible without the growth of heavy industry, metallurgical and shipbuilding plants, and the development of all sectors of the national economy. And this growth has been simply phenomenal. During the 13 years of the reign of Alexander III, steel production increased by 159%, coal production by 110%, oil by 1468%! Most enterprises used advanced technologies and introduced the latest forms of large-scale industrial production. Shares of Russian enterprises were highly quoted on world exchanges. With the growth of industry, a need arose to create decent working conditions for workers. Labor legislation has been constantly improved. A special factory inspection was established, and Russia became the first country in the world to begin monitoring working conditions.

The appearance of large cities has changed. St. Petersburg under Alexander III became one of the most prestigious and prosperous capitals of the world, with developed infrastructure, electric lighting, a modern public utilities system, urban transport and telephone communications. Rapid growth was also observed in agriculture. Agricultural products accounted for 81.5% of the state's total export earnings. Russia produced up to 15% of the world's wheat crop, more than half of the world's flax and rye crop. New branches of agriculture appeared, such as industrial cheese making and butter making. Alexander III attached special importance to caring for the Russian peasantry. He wanted to go down in history under the name of the “peasant king.”

During the reign of Alexander III, Russia's budget grew almost nine times! For comparison, in England during the same time it increased by 2.5 times, and in France by 2.6 times. The gold reserves were more than doubled. In 1893, income already exceeded expenses by almost 100 million rubles. The Russian ruble has become a hard international currency. The state of the economy, internal and external stability were not slow to affect the well-being of the people. Private deposits in state savings banks have increased 33 times over 13 years! By the end of the 19th century, Russia had become one of the most powerful world powers in both the political, military and economic spheres. And the main credit for this belongs to the Russian Emperor Alexander III.

By the grace of God, Alexander the Third, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Tsar of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland and so on, so on, so on...” The title of the Russian Emperor was long and great. Over the centuries, Russia was created, grew, and became stronger, gathering many different tribes and peoples under the royal scepter and power. Of course, for the Great Empire, spread out in two parts of the world, interethnic issues became one of the most important. One careless step could lead to catastrophic consequences for the existence of a strong state. Alexander the Third brilliantly coped with the task of preserving internal peace, pursuing a national policy that fully corresponded to the real state of affairs in the Russian Empire.

“For a monarchy to be possible in such a diverse state, the predominance of any one nation is necessary, capable of giving the tone of the general state life and the spirit that could be expressed in the supreme power,” wrote L.A. Tikhomirov. It was the Russian people (including Little Russians and Belarusians) who for centuries were the state-forming nation and made up the majority of the inhabitants of the Empire. It should be noted that Alexander III himself was Russian to the core. He considered himself a native Rusak, emphasizing this by his manner of dressing, speaking, his tastes, and preferences.

Like any truly Russian person, Alexander III was a deeply religious Orthodox Christian. Orthodoxy was recognized as the first and dominant religion in the Russian Empire, and the Tsar was its supreme defender and guardian of dogmas. The tsar was especially concerned about the Church, the clergy, public education, and the development of parochial schools. Under him, 13 new episcopal departments were established; parishes that were closed during the previous reign were opened; in predominantly Catholic Western Rus', Orthodox church brotherhoods were restored; many new monasteries and temples were built. With special patronage for everything Russian, it was the religious sign that was of great importance. The transition to Orthodoxy was welcomed in every possible way and, of course, removed any questions about a person’s national origin, opening up areas of activity and service that were previously closed to him. There was no discrimination based on ethnicity in Russia, and there was no legally established dominant nation. The peoples of Russia constituted a single organism living according to the same laws. The life of national minorities was regulated by the “Regulations on Foreigners” and was limited to supervision of their self-government, prosecution for serious crimes, protection from outside restraint - drunkenness, enslavement under the guise of hiring. At the same time, there were regions on the territory of the Empire where the Russian and Orthodox population in general were subjected to open discrimination by local authorities. Similar areas included the Baltic lands, where the ruling class was the local German nobility, almost autonomous in its self-government. This situation required an immediate settlement from the Russian Tsar.

Alexander III obliged to accept for consideration documents written not only in German, but also in Russian. The German names of cities are renamed: Dorpat becomes Yuryev, Dinaburg - Dvinsk, Gunteburg - Ust-Narva. At the famous Dorpat University, renamed Yuryevsky, a general university charter is being introduced instead of the German law. Russian teachers are taking the place of German professors who left their departments. An influx of students from all the provinces of Russia begins. From now on, the ancient educational institution begins to train specialists for all of Russia, and not just for the semi-German Baltic provinces. The publication of publications in Russian begins. The opportunity to teach Russian to children is opening up. For the construction of Orthodox churches in the Baltic region, 70 thousand rubles were allocated from the treasury annually. Pursuing the policy of Russification, Alexander III did not pursue the goals of infringing on the rights of all other peoples except the Russian. In his opinion, the essence of the policy was to ensure the priorities of Orthodox subjects, protect their interests and create a powerful state. The Tsar could not and did not want to put up with discrimination against Russians.

Attempts at Russification were perceived most painfully in the Kingdom of Poland, which for a long time could not accept the idea of ​​losing independence. However, the formation of a strong bourgeoisie and a prosperous Polish proletariat led most Poles away from rebellion towards loyal nationalism and soft cultural opposition. Trying to strengthen the influence of Orthodoxy in the Western Region, Alexander III nevertheless tries not to lose relations with the Vatican. And this was justified: by agreement with the Pope, all Catholic bishops were appointed by the Russian Emperor. After canonical confirmation in office, new bishops first had to take an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign and Heir to the Throne, and only after that to the head of the Vatican. St. Petersburg’s position in relation to the annexed territories of Central Asia was wise and flexible. Religious institutions and courts were left intact. The local population was granted the right of traditional self-government, observance of rituals and customs. Tolerance towards Islam was manifested even in small things, for example, when presenting state awards and orders, when images of Orthodox saints were replaced by a double-headed eagle.

The ideological Bolshevik myth about Russia as a prison of nations is an ordinary lie. Thanks to the wise national policy of the Russian autocracy, all the peoples of Russia lived side by side for several centuries, not knowing internecine conflicts and religious wars.

THE JEWISH QUESTION
The legislation on Jews at the time of Alexander III's accession to the throne consisted of a long list of unclear and contradictory provisions that completely confused the problem. Many figures in the era of Alexander II were of the opinion that it was possible to assimilate Jews and that they should be given equal rights with the Russian people. However, all the relaxations only led to a growing strengthening of the position of the Jews, who began to have a pernicious influence on the cultural and intellectual life of society. A huge number of Jews found themselves in the ranks of the revolutionaries, where they captured all the key positions in socialist groups and parties. The head of the Kyiv Gendarmerie Directorate, General V.D. Novitsky, recalled: “Until 1881, Jews were a timid, intimidated, quiet element, but with an increase in the percentage of Jewish participants in political affairs, the character of the Jews completely changed, and they became arrogant, ignorant, decisive , vicious and bold in their undertakings; in political affairs and during interrogations they behaved in an intrusive, impudent and defiant manner; there were no limits to their impudent techniques and behavior, unprovoked by anything. The Jew, who had previously been afraid of any weapon, began to arm himself with a revolver, a knife, a dagger, and in general the Jews reached the point of self-defense, arming themselves with firearms, and began to offer armed resistance, having, in addition to revolvers, also special iron sticks, the tips of which were filled with lead and represented a deadly edged weapons when striking."

The situation became very difficult, and a wave of Jewish pogroms swept across the country.

With the coming to power of Alexander III, the authorities' complacent attitude towards Jews began to change. Alexander III, convinced of the ineffectiveness of his father's policy of assimilation, took a position of limiting the growing influence of the Jewish elite.

It should be noted here that the motive of religion in relations with Jews has traditionally played a decisive role. By a decision of the Governing Senate in 1889, it was recognized that the only basis for limiting the rights of Jews was their religion. Jews who converted to Christianity (and not necessarily Orthodoxy) were freed from all restrictions, receiving opportunities for careers and entrepreneurship.

For those who continued to remain adherents of the Jewish religion, there were a number of restrictions in many areas of life: the right of residence and freedom of movement, admission to educational institutions, trade and industry, purchases of real estate, entry into the civil service and participation in local government, order serving military service, admitting Jews to the bar.

Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, the mayor of Moscow, was considered one of the most rigid supporters of the policy of limiting the rights of the Jewish population. As a result of the restrictive measures he took, almost twenty thousand Jews were evicted from Moscow.

Unlike other foreigners, all Jews who had reached the age of 21 were required to perform military service. However, it was impossible for them to make a career in the military department. And they themselves were not at all attracted to military service, and many of them tried by all means to evade conscription. Restrictions on the rights of the Jewish population were met extremely negatively by the Russian liberal public, and gave rise to strong anti-government sentiments in the Jewish diaspora, pushing many of its representatives to emigrate.

The government did not prevent them from leaving the country. Alexander III, in a letter from Baron G. O. Gunzburg, petitioning for an improvement in the situation of the Jews in Russia, wrote a resolution: “... if their fate is sad, then it is intended by the Gospel.”

RUSSIAN TSAR
In Alexander III the image of the ruler whom the Russian people always looked forward to was concentrated. He sought to set by personal example a model of behavior that he considered correct for each of his subjects. It is unlikely that any of the twelve predecessors of Alexander III on the Russian imperial throne was more devout and sincerely religious. For Alexander III, believing was as natural as breathing. He knew Orthodox worship very well and often visited the church. Alexander III, who attached great importance to family ties, himself was an example of an Orthodox family man. Love and harmony distinguished the marriage of the Emperor and Empress. For him, the bonds of marriage were inviolable, and children were the pinnacle of marital happiness. Maria Feodorovna was inseparable from her husband, accompanying him not only at official receptions, but also at military maneuvers, parades, hunting and trips around the country. However, her influence on her husband extended only to personal, family relationships. In the family and caring about raising children, Alexander III found rest from intense, exhausting work.

The All-Russian Emperor hated pomposity and ostentatious luxury. He got up at seven in the morning, washed his face with cold water, put on peasant clothes, brewed coffee himself in a glass coffee pot and, filling a plate with dry bread, had breakfast. After the meal, he sat down at his desk and began his work. He had an entire army of servants at his disposal. But he didn't bother anyone. He had bells and bells in his office. He didn't call them. Some time later his wife came to him, two footmen brought a small table. Husband and wife had breakfast together. For breakfast they had hard-boiled eggs and rye bread with butter.

In addition to the audiences and state receptions that he attended, every day piles of decrees, orders, and reports were placed on the table in front of him, which he had to read and sign. His working day lasted until late at night; he spared neither himself nor his ministers. At the insistence of the Empress and the doctors, he gave his word that he would study only until 3 am, and ordered that he be reminded of the time. If Alexander did not stop studying, then the valet had to report a second time, after which he was obliged to turn off the lights, despite the Emperor’s protests.

In his resolutions, made in the margins of documents, reports and letters, Alexander was often harsh and even rude. He didn't care about subtle expressions. “Disappointing” is a royal note regarding a regrettable event. The august assessment of other governors or officials sounds even harsher: “what a herd of pigs” or “what a beast.” Responding to the advice of his mother-in-law, the Danish queen, on how to rule Russia, Alexander quite impartially cuts her off: “I, a natural Russian, find it extremely difficult to rule my people from Gatchina, which, as you know, is in Russia, and you, foreigner, you imagine that you can successfully govern from Copenhagen.” Count S.D. Sheremetev wrote about this character trait of Alexander: “In general, he was not shy and expressed himself definitely, aptly, uniquely, not embarrassed by anyone’s presence. Strong words were inherent in his nature, and this is again a Russian trait, but there was no bitterness in the words. It was a need to vent and sometimes scold from the shoulder, without betraying one’s good nature.”

Emperor Alexander III was a very witty man. There is a known case when in some volost government some man spat on his portrait. Cases of lese majeste were tried in the District Courts, and the verdict was necessarily brought to the attention of the Sovereign. The offending man was sentenced to six months in prison and this was brought to the attention of the Emperor. Alexander III laughed Homerically, and when he laughed, it could be heard throughout the palace.

How! - shouted the Emperor. - He didn’t give a damn about my portrait, and for this I will feed him for another six months? You are crazy, gentlemen. Send him to hell and tell him that I, in turn, didn’t give a damn about him. And that's the end of it. This is something unprecedented!

The writer Tsebrikova was arrested on some political matter and the Emperor was informed about it. And the Emperor deigned to write the following resolution on paper: “Release the old fool!” All of St. Petersburg, including ultra-revolutionary St. Petersburg, laughed to the point of tears. Ms. Tsebrikova’s career was completely destroyed; out of grief, Tsebrikova left for Stavropol-Caucasian and for two years could not recover from the “insult,” causing smiles to everyone who knew this story.

There is a saying that it is the retinue that makes the king. The personality of Alexander III completely contradicts this established measure of the merits of statesmen. There were no favorites in his circle. Here everything was decided by one person - the All-Russian autocrat Alexander Alexandrovich Romanov.

The myth of Alexander III as an inveterate alcoholic has become quite widely circulated in pulp historical literature. In fact, all eyewitness accounts of this turned out to be, to put it mildly, exaggerated. Alexander III, like his father Alexander II, grandfather Nicholas I and great-grandfather Paul I, never abused alcohol. Not only in drinking, but also in food, he was very moderate, not to mention the Orthodox fasts, which Alexander III strictly observed.

In his free time, the Emperor enjoyed doing physical labor: sawing wood, clearing snow, chopping ice. He had amazing endurance and considerable physical strength, but he never showed it in the presence of strangers. The Emperor himself said that he could bend a horseshoe and tie a spoon in a knot, but he did not dare to do this, so as not to provoke the wrath of his wife.

During the train accident that occurred near the Borki station with the imperial train, Alexander III and his family miraculously survived. When the carriage of the derailed train began to collapse, with a superhuman effort Alexander lifted the ceiling, which was ready to collapse, allowing the women to get out. A picture of a terrible train accident appeared before the eyes of the victims. On both sides of the embankment there were piles of twisted metal and boards, and broken glass creaked underfoot. Confused people rushed along the canvas, groans and crying were heard. The light rain and snow stung the face painfully, but the people, who were in a state of shock, did not notice the cold. Seeing the general panic and confusion, the Tsar took charge of the rescue efforts. The guard soldiers were ordered to fire volleys into the air - this relay carried the distress signal to Kharkov. Finally, military doctors appeared with dressings, and they began to provide first aid to the victims. For five hours, without ever raising his voice, without reproaching anyone, without making a remark, the Emperor gave orders, organized work, and encouraged the wounded. Only when all the victims were evacuated did he go to Lozovaya station. Alexander III did not like pomp. At palace balls, the Empress was the center of attention, while the Emperor stood on the sidelines with a gloomy and clearly unhappy look. In those cases when the balls, in his opinion, were too long, the Emperor began to kick the musicians out of the ballroom one by one. Sometimes there was only one drummer left on the podium, afraid to both leave his place and stop playing. If the guests continued to dance, the Emperor also turned off the lights, and the Empress, forced to bow to the inevitable, gracefully said goodbye to the guests, smiling sweetly: “It seems to me that His Majesty wishes us to go home.” Many of those who met Alexander note his extraordinary kindness. A subtle observer and psychologist, lawyer A.F. Koni, recalled his conversation with the tsar: “Alexander III, at times propping his head with his hand, did not take his eyes off me... In these eyes, deep and almost touching, a soul shone, frightened in her trust in people and helpless against lies, of which she herself was incapable. They made a deep impression on me. If Alexander III looked his ministers in the face like this during their reports, then it simply becomes incomprehensible to me how some of them, often quite deliberately, could mislead him. ..” The French Minister of Foreign Affairs Flourens, after the death of the Russian Emperor, eloquently said: “Alexander III was a true Russian Tsar, such as Russia had not seen for a long time. Of course, all the Romanovs were devoted to the interests and greatness of their people. But, motivated by the desire to give their people Western European culture, they looked for ideals outside of Russia - either in France, or in Germany, or in England and Sweden. Emperor Alexander III wished for Russia to be Russia, for it to be first and foremost Russian, and he himself set the best examples of this. He showed himself to be the ideal type of a truly Russian person.”

The initial period of the reign of Alexander III. After the death of Alexander II, his second son Alexander III (1881-1894) ascended the throne. A man of rather ordinary abilities and conservative views, he did not approve of many of his father’s reforms and did not see the need for serious changes (primarily in solving the key issue - providing peasants with land, which could significantly strengthen the social support of the autocracy). At the same time, Alexander III was not devoid of natural common sense and, unlike his father, had a stronger will.
Soon after the assassination of Alexander II, which sowed panic in high circles, the leaders of Narodnaya Volya were arrested. April 3, 1881 involved in the assassination attempt on the late Emperor SL. Perovskaya, A.I. Zhelyabov, N.I. Kibalchich, N.I. Rysakov and T.M. Mikhailov were hanged, and G.M. Gelfman soon died in prison.
On March 8 and 21, meetings of the Council of Ministers were held at which the Loris-Melikov project was discussed. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, former educator of Alexander III and prominent conservative K. P. Pobedonostsev sharply opposed the project, considering it a prototype of the constitution. And although the guardians of the project made up the majority, Alexander III postponed its consideration, after which they did not return to it.
April 29, 1881 A royal manifesto written by Pobedonostsev was published. It spoke of protecting the autocracy from any “encroachments,” that is, from constitutional changes. Having seen hints in the manifesto of abandoning reforms altogether, the liberal ministers resigned - D.A. Milyutin, M.T. Loris-Melikov, A.A. Abaza (Minister of Finance). Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich was removed from the leadership of the fleet.
The director of the Police Department, which replaced the III Division, became V.K. Pleve, and in 1884 - I.P. Durnovo. The political search was directly led by Lieutenant Colonel G.P. Sudeikin, who, largely with the help of converted revolutionaries, primarily S.P. .Degaev, almost completely defeated “People's Will”. True, in December 1883 he himself was killed by Degaev. who considered his cooperation with the police unprofitable, but this, of course, could not save the revolutionary movement.
In parallel with the police in March, the “Holy Squad”, which emerged in March 1881, fought against the revolutionaries, which included more than 700 officials, generals, bankers, including P. A. Shuvalov, S. Yu. Witte, B. V. Sturmer S. With the help of its own agents, this voluntary organization tried to undermine the revolutionary movement. But already at the end of 1881, Alexander III ordered the dissolution of the “Holy Squad,” the existence of which indirectly indicated the inability of the authorities to independently cope with “sedition.”
In August 1881, according to the “Regulations on measures to protect state order and public peace,” the Minister of Internal Affairs and provincial authorities received the right to arrest, expel and bring to trial suspicious persons, close educational institutions and enterprises, ban the publication of newspapers, etc. . Any locality could be declared in fact a state of emergency. Introduced for 3 years, the “Regulation” was extended several times and was in force until 1917.
But the authorities did not limit themselves to repression alone, trying to carry out certain positive changes. The first government of Alexander III included several liberal ministers, primarily the Minister of Internal Affairs N. P. Ignatiev and Finance N. X. Bunge. Their activities are associated with such measures as the abolition in 1881 of the temporary obligation of peasants, the reduction of redemption payments, and the gradual abolition of the heavy poll tax. In November 1881, a commission headed by Loris-Melikov’s former deputy, M. S. Kakhanov, began work on a local government reform project. However, in 1885 the commission was dissolved, and its activities had no real results.
In April 1882, Ignatiev proposed to Alexander III to convene a Zemsky Sobor in May 1883, which was supposed to confirm the inviolability of the autocracy. This caused sharp criticism from Pobedonostsev, and the tsar, who did not want any elected representation, was also dissatisfied. Moreover, autocracy, in his opinion, needed no confirmation. As a result, in May 1882, N.P. Ignatiev was replaced as Minister of Internal Affairs by the conservative D.A. Tolstoy.
The period of counter-reforms. Ignatiev's resignation and his replacement by Tolstoy marked a departure from the policy of moderate reforms carried out in 1881-1882 and a transition to the offensive against the transformations of the previous reign. True, it was only about “correcting” the “extremes” committed under Alexander II, which were, in the opinion of the Tsar and his entourage, “alien” in the Russian environment. The corresponding measures were called counter-reforms.
In May 1883, during the coronation celebrations, Alexander III made a speech to representatives of peasant self-government - volost elders, in which he called on them to follow the “advice and leadership of their leaders of the nobility” and not rely on “free additions” to the peasants’ plots. This meant that the government intended to continue to rely on the “noble” class, which had no historical perspective, and did not want to solve the country’s most important problem - land.
The first major counter-reform was the university statute of 1884, which sharply limited the autonomy of universities and increased tuition fees.
In July 1889, the zemstvo counter-reform began. Contrary to the opinion of the majority of members of the State Council, the position of zemstvo chiefs was introduced, designed to replace peace mediators and justices of the peace. They were appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs from among the hereditary nobles and could approve and remove representatives of peasant self-government, impose punishments, including corporal, resolve land disputes, etc. All this created great opportunities for arbitrariness, strengthened the power of the nobles over the peasants and in no way did not improve the work of zemstvo bodies.
In June 1890, the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” were adopted. It introduced the class principle of elections to zemstvos. The first curia was noble, the second - urban, the third - peasant. For nobles, the property qualification was lowered, and for representatives of cities it was increased. As for the representatives from the peasants, they were appointed by the governor from among the candidates elected by the peasants. However, having again encountered the opposition of the majority of the State Council, Alexander III refrained from completely eliminating the election and all-class status of zemstvo bodies.
In 1892, a new city regulation was adopted, according to which the electoral qualification was increased, and the mayor and members of the city government became civil servants subordinate to the governors.
Counter-reforms in the field of justice lasted for several years. In 1887, the ministers of the interior and justice received the right to declare court sessions closed, and the property and educational qualifications for jurors increased. In 1889, cases of crimes against the order of government, malfeasance, etc. were removed from the jurisdiction of jury courts. However, the publicity of most courts, competitiveness, and the irremovability of judges remained in force, and the plans of the Minister of Justice appointed in 1894 in 1894 N V. Muravyov's complete revision of the judicial statutes of 1864 was prevented by the death of Alexander III.
Censorship policies have become stricter. According to the “Temporary Rules on the Press,” adopted in August 1882, the Ministries of Internal Affairs, Education and the Synod could close “seditious” newspapers and magazines. Publications that received a warning from the authorities were subject to preliminary censorship. Special circulars prohibited coverage in the press of such topics as the labor question, land redistribution, problems of educational institutions, the 25th anniversary of the abolition of serfdom, and the actions of the authorities. Under Alexander III, the liberal newspapers “Strana”, “Golos”, “Moscow Telegraph”, the magazine “Domestic Notes” edited by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, a total of 15 publications, were closed. The non-periodical press was also persecuted, although not as harshly as newspapers and magazines. Total in 1881-1894. 72 books were banned - from the freethinker L.N. Tolstoy to the completely conservative N.S. Leskov. “Seditious” literature was confiscated from libraries: works by L.N. Tolstoy, N.A. Dobrolyubov, V.G. Korolenko, issues of the magazines “Sovremennik” for 1856-1866, “Notes of the Fatherland” for 1867-1884. More than 1,300 plays were banned.
A policy of Russification of the outskirts of the empire and infringement of local autonomy was actively pursued. In Finland, instead of the previous financial autonomy, mandatory acceptance of Russian coins was introduced, and the rights of the Finnish Senate were curtailed. In Poland, now called not the Kingdom of Poland, but the Privislensky region, compulsory teaching in Russian was introduced, and the Polish Bank was closed. The policy of Russification was actively pursued in Ukraine and Belarus, where virtually no literature was published in national languages, and the Uniate Church was persecuted. In the Baltics, local judicial and administrative bodies were actively replaced by imperial ones, the population converted to Orthodoxy, and the German language of the local elite was supplanted. The policy of Russification was also carried out in Transcaucasia; The Armenian Church was persecuted. Orthodoxy was forcibly introduced among Muslims and pagans of the Volga region and Siberia. In 1892-1896. The Multan case, fabricated by the authorities, was investigated, accusing Udmurt peasants of making human sacrifices to pagan gods (in the end, the defendants were acquitted).
The rights of the Jewish population, whose residence the government sought to limit to the so-called “Pale of Settlement,” were limited. Their residence in Moscow and the Moscow province was limited. Jews were prohibited from purchasing property in rural areas. In 1887, the Minister of Education I.P. Delyanov reduced the enrollment of Jews in higher and secondary educational institutions.
Social movement. After the assassination of Alexander II, liberals sent an address to the new tsar condemning the terrorists and expressing hope for the completion of reforms, which, however, did not happen. In conditions of intensified reaction, opposition sentiments are growing among ordinary zemstvo employees - doctors, teachers, statisticians. More than once zemstvo officials tried to act beyond the scope of their powers, which led to clashes with the administration.
The more moderate part of the liberals preferred to refrain from manifestations of opposition. The influence of liberal populists (N.K. Mikhailovsky, N.F. Danielson, V.P. Vorontsov) grew. They called for reforms that would improve the lives of the people, and above all for the abolition of landownership. At the same time, liberal populists did not approve of revolutionary methods of struggle and preferred cultural and educational work, acting through the press (the magazine “Russian Wealth”), zemstvos, and public organizations.
However, in general, government oppression (often quite senseless) stimulated discontent among the intelligentsia and contributed to its transition to radical positions.
The main ideologists of the reaction are the chief prosecutor of the Synod, K. P. Pobedonostsev, the editor-in-chief of Moskovskie Vedomosti and Russky Vestnik, M. N. Katkov, and the editor of the magazine Citizen, V. P. Meshchersky. They condemned liberal reforms, defended the narrowly understood identity of Russia and welcomed the counter-reforms of Alexander III. “Stand up, gentlemen,” Katkov wrote gloatingly about the counter-reforms. “The government is coming, the government is coming back.” Meshchersky was supported, including financially, by the par himself.
There is a crisis in the revolutionary movement associated with the defeat of Narodnaya Volya. True, scattered populist groups continued to operate after this. The circle of P.Ya. Shevyrev - A.I. Ulyanov (brother of V.I. Lenin) even prepared an assassination attempt on Alexander III on March 1, 1887, which ended with the arrest and execution of five conspirators. Many revolutionaries completely abandoned their previous methods of struggle, advocating an alliance with the liberals. Other revolutionaries, disillusioned with populism with its naive hopes for the peasantry, became increasingly imbued with the ideas of Marxism. In September 1883, former members of the “Black Redistribution” who lived in Switzerland - P. B. Axelrod, G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Zasulich, L. G. Deich - created the social democratic group “Emancipation of Labor” , which began to publish Marxist literature in Russian and laid the theoretical foundations of Russian social democracy. Its most prominent figure was G. V. Plekhanov (1856-1918). In his works “Socialism and Political Struggle” and “Our Disagreements,” he criticized the populists and pointed out Russia’s unpreparedness for a socialist revolution. Plekhanov considered it necessary to form a social democratic party and carry out a bourgeois democratic revolution, which would create the economic prerequisites for the victory of socialism.
Since the mid-80s, Marxist circles have emerged in Russia itself in St. Petersburg, Odessa, Kiev, Kharkov, Kazan, Vilno, Tula, etc. Among them, the circles of D. N. Blagoev, N. E. Fedoseev, M. I. stood out. Brusnev, P.V. Tochissky. They read and distributed Marxist literature and carried out propaganda among the workers, but their significance was still small.
Work question. The situation of workers in Russia, the number of which had noticeably increased compared to the pre-reform period, was difficult: there was no labor protection, social insurance, or restrictions on the length of the working day, but an almost uncontrolled system of fines, low-paid female and child labor, mass layoffs, and reductions in wages were widespread. All this led to labor conflicts and strikes.
In the 80s, the government began to take measures to regulate relations between workers and employers. In 1882, the use of child labor was limited, and a factory inspectorate was created to oversee this. In 1884, a law introduced training for children who worked in factories.
An important milestone in the development of the strike movement and labor legislation was the strike at Morozov’s Nikolskaya manufactory in Orekhovo-Zuevo in January 1885. It was organized in advance, 8 thousand people took part in it, and it was led by P. A. Moiseenko and V. S. Volkov . The workers demanded that the manufacturer streamline the system of fines and dismissal rules, and that the government limit the arbitrariness of employers. More than 600 people were expelled to their native villages, 33 were put on trial but acquitted (Moiseenko and Volkov, however, were expelled after the trial administratively).
At the same time, the government satisfied some of the workers' demands. Already in June 1885, the exploitation of women and children at night was prohibited, a system of fines was streamlined, the income from which now went not to the employer, but to the needs of the workers themselves, and the procedure for hiring and firing workers was regulated. The powers of the factory inspection were expanded, and provincial presences were created for factory affairs.
A wave of strikes swept through enterprises in the Moscow and Vladimir provinces, St. Petersburg, and Donbass. These and other strikes forced factory owners in some cases to increase wages, shorten working hours, and improve workers' living conditions.
Foreign policy. During the reign of Alexander III, Russia did not wage wars, which earned the tsar the reputation of a “peacemaker.” This was due both to the opportunity to play on the contradictions between European powers and general international stability, and to the emperor’s dislike of wars. The executor of Alexander III's foreign policy plans was Foreign Minister N.K. Gire, who did not play an independent role like Gorchakov.
Having ascended the throne, Alexander III continued to establish ties with Germany, the most important trading partner and potential ally in the fight against England. In June 1881 Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary renewed the “Union of the Three Emperors” for 6 years. The parties promised to maintain neutrality in the event of war between one of them and the fourth power. At the same time, Germany entered into a secret agreement with Austria-Hungary directed against Russia and France. In May 1882, Italy joined the alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary, which was promised assistance in the event of a war with France. This is how the Triple Alliance emerged in the center of Europe.
The “Union of the Three Emperors” brought certain benefits to Russia in its rivalry with England. In 1884, Russian troops completed the conquest of Turkmenistan and approached the borders of Afghanistan, which was under the protectorate of England; from here it was a stone's throw to the main British colony - India. In March 1885, a clash occurred between a Russian detachment and Afghan troops led by British officers. The Russians won. England, seeing this as a threat to its Indian possessions, threatened Russia with war, but was unable to put together an anti-Russian coalition in Europe. Support for Russia from Germany and Austria-Hungary, who did not want England to become too strong, played a role in this. Their position helped Alexander III get Turkey to close the Black Sea straits to the British fleet, which protected southern Russia from it. England had to recognize Russian conquests in Central Asia. Already in 1885, the drawing of the Russian-Afghan border by Russian-British commissions began.
Under Alexander III, Russia's position in the Balkans weakened. In 1881, a pro-German group came to power in Bulgaria. In 1883, Bulgaria entered into an agreement with Austria-Hungary. In 1885, Alexander III opposed the annexation of Eastern Rumelia to Bulgaria (in violation of the decisions of the Berlin Congress), although he threatened Turkey that he would not tolerate its invasion of Rumelia. In 1886, after the pro-Austrian regime came to power in Bulgaria, Russia tore relations with her In this conflict, Germany and Austria-Hungary did not support Russia, because they themselves wanted to strengthen their positions in the Balkans. After 1887, the “Union of Three Emperors” was not renewed.
In the context of worsening relations with France, Bismarck signed a “reinsurance agreement” with Russia for 3 years in 1887. It provided for the neutrality of Russia in the event of an attack by France on Germany and the neutrality of Germany in the event of an attack on Russia by Austria-Hungary. Then, in 1887, Alexander III managed to keep Germany from attacking France, the defeat of which would have unnecessarily strengthened Germany. This led to a worsening of Russian-German relations and an increase in import duties on each other's goods by both countries. In 1893, a real customs war began between the two countries.

In conditions of hostility with England, Germany and Austria-Hungary, Russia needed an ally. They became France, which was constantly threatened by German aggression. Back in 1887, France began to provide large loans to Russia, which helped stabilize Russian finances. French investments in the Russian economy were also significant.
In August 1891, Russia and France signed a secret agreement on joint action in the event of an attack on one of them. In 1892, a draft military convention was developed, which provided for the number of troops on both sides in the event of war. The Russian-French alliance was finally formalized in January 1894. It seriously changed the balance of power in Europe, splitting it into two military-political groupings.
Socio-economic development. Under Alexander III, measures were taken to modernize the economy, on the one hand, and economic support for the nobility, on the other. Major successes in economic development were largely associated with the activities of the ministers of finance - N. X. Bunge, I. V. Vyshnegradsky, S. Yu. Witte.
Industry. By the 80s of the XIX century. The industrial revolution ended in Russia. The government patronized the development of industry with loans and high duties on imported products. True, in 1881 an industrial crisis began, associated with the economic consequences of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. and reduction in the purchasing power of the peasantry. In 1883 the crisis gave way to depression, in 1887 a revival began, and in 1893 a rapid growth of industry began. Mechanical engineering, metallurgy, coal and oil industries continued to develop successfully. Foreign investors increasingly invested their money in them. In terms of the rate of coal and oil production, Russia ranked 1st in the world. The latest technologies were actively introduced at enterprises. It should be noted that heavy industry provided less than 1/4 of the country's output, noticeably inferior to light industry, primarily textiles.
Agriculture. In this industry, the specialization of individual regions increased, the number of civilian workers increased, which indicated a transition to the bourgeois path of development. In general, grain farming continued to predominate. Productivity increased slowly due to the low level of agricultural technology. The fall in world grain prices had a detrimental effect. In 1891 - 1892 A terrible famine broke out, killing more than 600 thousand. people Under these conditions, the shortage of land among peasants became an extremely acute problem; Alexander III did not want to hear about increasing peasant plots at the expense of landowners; True, in 1889 a law was passed that encouraged the resettlement of peasants to empty areas - the settlers received tax breaks, exemption from military service for 3 years and a small monetary allowance, but permission for resettlement was given only by the Ministry of the Interior. In 1882, the Peasant Bank was created, which provided low-interest loans to peasants to purchase land. The government tried to strengthen the peasant community and at the same time reduce the negative features of communal land use: in 1893, the exit of peasants from the community was limited, but at the same time it was difficult to redistribute land, which reduced the interest of the most enterprising peasants in the careful use of their plots. It was prohibited to mortgage and sell communal lands. An attempt to regulate and thereby reduce the number of family divisions, made in 1886, failed: the peasants simply ignored the law. To support the landed estates, the Noble Bank was created in 1885, which, however, did not stop their ruin.
Transport. Intensive construction of railways continued (under Alexander III, more than 30 thousand km were built). The railway network near the western borders, which was of strategic importance, developed especially actively. The iron ore-rich region of Krivoy Rog was connected with the Donbass, the Urals - with the central regions, both capitals - with Ukraine, the Volga region, Siberia, etc. In 1891, construction began on the strategically important Trans-Siberian Railway, connecting Russia with the Far East. The government began to buy out private railways, up to 60% of which by the mid-90s ended up in the hands of the state. The number of steamships by 1895 exceeded 2,500, increasing more than 6 times compared to 1860.
Trade. The development of commerce was stimulated by the growth of the transport network. The number of shops, stores, and commodity exchanges has increased. By 1895, domestic trade turnover increased 3.5 times compared to 1873 and reached 8.2 billion rubles.
In foreign trade, exports in the early 90s exceeded imports by 150-200 million rubles, largely due to high import duties, especially on iron and coal. In the 80s, a customs war began with Germany, which limited the import of Russian agricultural products. In response, Russia raised duties on German goods. The first place in Russian exports was occupied by bread, followed by timber, wool, and industrial goods. Machines, raw cotton, metal, coal, tea, and oil were imported. Russia's main trading partners were Germany and England. Holland. USA.
Finance. In 1882-1886, the heavy capitation tax was abolished, which, thanks to the skillful policy of the Minister of Finance Bunge, was generally compensated by increasing indirect taxes and customs duties. In addition, the government refused to guarantee the profitability of private railways at the expense of the treasury.
In 1887, Bunge, who was accused of being unable to overcome the budget deficit, was replaced by I.V. Vyshnegradsky. He sought to increase cash savings and increase the exchange rate of the ruble. To this end, successful exchange operations were carried out, indirect taxes and import duties increased again, for which a protectionist customs tariff was adopted in 1891. In 1894, under S. Yu. Witte, a wine monopoly was introduced. As a result of these and other measures managed to overcome the budget deficit.
Education. Counter-reforms also affected the education sector. They were aimed at raising a trustworthy, obedient intelligentsia. In 1882, instead of the liberal A.N. Nikolai, the reactionary I.P. Delyanov became the Minister of Education. In 1884, parochial schools came under the jurisdiction of the Synod. Their number increased by 1894 almost 10 times; the level of teaching in them was low; the main task was considered to be education in the spirit of Orthodoxy. But still, parochial schools contributed to the spread of literacy.
The number of gymnasium students continued to grow (in the 90s - more than 150 thousand people). In 1887, Delyanov issued a “circular about cooks’ children,” which made it difficult to admit children of laundresses, cooks, footmen, coachmen, etc. to the gymnasium. Tuition fees have increased.
In August 1884 a new University Charter was adopted, which essentially abolished the autonomy of universities, which now fell under the control of the trustee of the educational district and the Minister of Education. The rector, deans and professors were now appointed, not so much taking into account scientific merit as political reliability. A fee was introduced for students to attend lectures and practical classes.
In 1885, the uniform for students was reintroduced; in 1886, the period of military service for persons with higher education was increased to 1 year. Since 1887, a certificate of political reliability was required for admission to universities. The government has significantly reduced spending on universities, making scientific research more difficult. Some free-thinking professors were fired, others left in protest. Under Alexander III, only one university was opened - in Tomsk (1888). In 1882, higher medical courses for women were closed, and in 1886, admission to all higher courses for women ceased, the elimination of which was sought by K. P. Pobedonostsev. True, the Bestuzhev courses in St. Petersburg nevertheless resumed work, albeit in a limited number.
Culture of Russia in the 2nd half of the 19th century. The science. This period was marked by new important discoveries in various branches of science. I.M. Sechenov created the doctrine of brain reflexes, laying the foundations of Russian physiology. Continuing research in this direction, I. P. Pavlov developed a theory of conditioned reflexes. I. I. Mechnikov made a number of important discoveries in the field of phagocytosis (the protective functions of the body), created a school of microbiology and comparative pathology, together with N. F. Gamaleya organized the first bacteriological station in Russia, and developed methods to combat rabies. K. A. Timiryazev did a lot to study photosynthesis and became the founder of domestic plant physiology. V.V. Dokuchaev gave rise to scientific soil science with his works “Russian Chernozem” and “Our Steppes Before and Now”.
Chemistry has achieved the greatest successes. A. M. Butlerov laid the foundations of organic chemistry. D.I. Mendeleev in 1869 discovered one of the basic laws of natural science - the periodic law of chemical elements. He also made a number of discoveries not only in chemistry, but also in physics, metrology, hydrodynamics, etc.
The most prominent mathematician and mechanic of his time was P. L. Chebyshev, who was engaged in research in the field of number theory, probability, machines, and mathematical analysis. In an effort to put the results of his research into practice, he also invented a plantigrade machine and an adding machine. S. V. Kovalevskaya, author of works on mathematical analysis, mechanics and astronomy, became the first woman professor and corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. A. M. Lyapunov gained worldwide fame for his research in the field of differential equations.
Russian physicists made a significant contribution to the development of science. A.G. Stoletov conducted a number of important studies in the field of electricity, magnetism, gas discharge, and discovered the first law of the photoelectric effect. In 1872, A. N. Lodygin invented a carbon incandescent lamp, and P. Ya. Yablochkov in 1876 patented an arc lamp without a regulator (Yablochkov candle), which from 1876 began to be used for street lighting.
In 1881, A.F. Mozhaisky designed the world's first aircraft, the tests of which, however, were unsuccessful. In 1888, self-taught mechanic F.A. Blinov invented a caterpillar tractor. In 1895, A.S. Popov demonstrated the world's first radio receiver, which he had invented, and soon achieved a transmission and reception range of 150 km. The founder of astronautics, K. E. Tsiolkovsky, began his research, having designed a simple wind tunnel and developed the principles of the theory of rocket propulsion.
2nd half of the 19th century was marked by new discoveries of Russian travelers - N. M. Przhevalsky, V. I. Roborovsky, N. A. Severtsov, A. P. and O. A. Fedchenko in Central Asia, P. P. Semenov-Tian-Shan- Sky in the Tien Shan, Ya. Ya. Miklouho-Maclay in New Guinea. The result of the expeditions of the founder of Russian climatology A.I. Voeikov across Europe, America and India was the major work “Climates of the Globe”.
Philosophical thought. During this period, philosophical thought flourished. The ideas of positivism (G.N. Vyrubov, M.M. Troitsky), Marxism (G.V. Plekhanov), religious philosophy (V.S. Solovyov, N.F. Fedorov), later Slavophilism (N.Ya. Danilevsky, K.N. Leontiev). N.F. Fedorov put forward the concept of mastering the forces of nature, overcoming death and resurrection with the help of science. The founder of the “philosophy of unity” V.S. Solovyov nurtured the idea of ​​​​merging Orthodoxy and Catholicism and developed the doctrine of Sophia - the comprehensive divine wisdom that rules the world. N. Ya. Danshkevsky put forward a theory of cultural-historical types that develop similarly to biological ones; He considered the Slavic type to be gaining strength and therefore the most promising. K. Ya. Leontyev saw the main danger in Western-style liberalism, which, in his opinion, leads to the homogenization of individuals, and believed that only autocracy can prevent this homogenization.
Historical science is reaching a new level. In 1851-. 1879 29 volumes of “History of Russia from Ancient Times” by the outstanding Russian historian S. M. Solovyov were published, which outlined the history of Russia until 1775. Although the author was not yet aware of many sources, and a number of the positions he put forward were not confirmed, his work still retains its scientific significance. Solovyov’s pen also includes studies on the partitions of Poland, Alexander I, inter-princely relations, etc. Solovyov’s student was V. O. Klyuchevsky, author of the works “The Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'”, “The Origin of Serfdom in Russia”, “The Lives of Old Russian Saints as a Historical source”, etc. His main work was “Course of Russian History”. An important contribution to the study of the history of the Russian community, church, and zemstvo councils was made by A.P. Shchapov. Research into the era of Peter I and the history of Russian culture brought fame to P. Ya. Milyukov. The history of Western Europe was studied by such prominent scientists as V. I. Gerye, M. M. Kovalevsky, P. G. Vinogradov, N. I. Kareev. Prominent scholars of antiquity were M. S. Kutorga, F. F. Sokolov, F. G. Mishchenko. Research on the history of Byzantium was carried out by V. G. Vasilievsky, F. I. Uspensky, Yu. A. Kulakovsky.
Literature. In the 60s, critical realism became the leading trend in literature, combining a realistic reflection of reality with interest in the individual. Prose takes first place compared to the previous period. Its brilliant examples were the works of I.S. Turgenev “Rudin”, “Fathers and Sons”, “On the Eve”, “The Noble Nest” and others, in which he showed the life of representatives of the noble society and the emerging common intelligentsia. I. A. Goncharov’s works “Oblomov”, “Cliff”, “Ordinary History” were distinguished by their subtle knowledge of life and the Russian national character. F. M. Dostoevsky, who in the 40s joined the Petrashevites, later revised his views and saw the solution to the problems facing Russia not in reforms or revolution, but in the moral improvement of man (novels “The Brothers Karamazov”, “Crime and Punishment” ", "Demons", "Idiot", etc.). L. Ya. Tolstoy, author of the novels “War and Peace”, “Anna Karenina”, “Resurrection”, etc., rethought Christian teaching in a unique way, developed the idea of ​​​​the superiority of feelings over reason, combining harsh (and not always constructive) criticism of Russian society time with the idea of ​​​​non-resistance to evil through violence. A. N. Ostrovsky depicted in his plays “The Dowry”, “The Thunderstorm”, “The Forest”, “Guilty Without Guilt” and others the lives of merchants, officials, and artists, showing interest in both purely social and eternal human issues. The outstanding satirist M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin highlighted the tragic sides of Russian reality in “The History of a City,” “The Golovlev Gentlemen,” and “Fairy Tales.” A.P. Chekhov paid special attention in his work to the problem of the “little man” suffering from the indifference and cruelty of others. The works of V. G. Korolenko are imbued with humanistic ideas - “The Blind Musician”, “Children of the Dungeon”, “Makar’s Dream”.
F. I. Tyutchev continued the philosophical tradition in Russian poetry in his works. A. A. Fet dedicated his work to the celebration of nature. The poetry of N. A. Nekrasov, dedicated to the life of the common people, was extremely popular among the democratic intelligentsia.
Theater. The leading theater in the country was the Maly Theater in Moscow, on the stage of which P. M. Sadovsky, S. V. Shumsky, G. N. Fedotova, M. N. Ermolova played. The Alexandria Theater in St. Petersburg was also an important center of culture, where V.V. Samoilov, M.G. Savina, P.A. Strepetova played, however, being in the capital, it suffered more from interference from the authorities. Theaters emerge and develop in Kyiv, Odessa, Kazan, Irkutsk, Saratov, etc.
Music. The national traditions in Russian music, laid down by Glinka, were continued by his student A. S. Dargomyzhsky and the composers of the “Mighty Handful” (named so by V. V. Stasov, which included M. A. Balakirev, M. P. Mussorgsky, A. P. Borodin, N. A. Rimsky-Koreakov, Ts. A. Cui. One of the most outstanding composers of this period was P. I. Tchaikovsky, author of the operas "Eugene Onegin", "Mazeppa", "Iolanta", "The Queen of Spades" , ballets "Swan Lake", "Sleeping Beauty", "The Nutcracker". A conservatory was opened in St. Petersburg in 1862, and in Moscow in 1866. Choreographers M. Petipa and L. Ivanov played a huge role in the development of ballet.
Painting. Characteristic democratic ideas penetrated into the painting of the post-reform period, as evidenced by the activities of the Itinerants. In 1863, 14 students of the Academy of Arts refused the mandatory competition on the theme of German mythology, far from modern life, left the Academy and created the Artel of St. Petersburg Artists, which in 1870 was transformed into the Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions. Its members included portraitist I. N. Kramskoy, masters of genre painting V. G. Perov and Ya. A. Yaroshenko, landscape painters I. I. Shishkin and I. I. Levitan. V. M. Vasnetsov ("Alyonushka", “Ivan Tsarevich on the Gray Wolf”, “The Knight at the Crossroads”), V. I. Surikov dedicated his work to Russian history (“The Morning of the Streltsy Execution”, “Boyaryna Morozova”, “Menshikov in Berezovo”). I. E. Repin wrote both on modern (“Barge Haul Haulers on the Volga”, “Religious Procession in the Kursk Province”, “They Didn’t Expect”), and on historical topics (“Cossacks writing a letter to the Turkish Sultan”, “Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan”). The largest battle painter of that time was V.V. Vereshchagin (“Apotheosis of War”, “Mortally Wounded”, “Surrender!”). The creation of the Tretyakov Gallery, which exhibited a collection of paintings by the merchant-philanthropist P. M. Tretyakov, which he donated to the city of Moscow in 1892, played a major role in the popularization of Russian art. In 1898, the Russian Museum opened in St. Petersburg.
Sculpture. Prominent sculptors of that time were A. M. Opekushin (monuments to A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov, K. M. Baer), M. A. Antokolsky (“Ivan the Terrible”, “Peter I”, “Christ before people"), M. O. Mikeshin (monuments to Catherine II, Bogdan Khmelnitsky, supervision of work on the monument “Millennium of Russia”).
Architecture. The so-called Russian style was formed, imitating the decor of ancient Russian architecture. The buildings of the City Duma in Moscow (D. N. Chichagov), the Historical Museum in Moscow (V. O. Sherwood), and the Upper Trading Rows (now GUM) (A. N. Pomerantsev) were built in this manner. Residential buildings in large cities were built in the Renaissance-Baroque style with its characteristic richness of forms and decoration.