For which they were called the Great. What do we know about Alexander III? Assessments by the Russian intelligentsia of the situation in Russia under Alexander II Labor movement and the emergence of Marxism

If you take a closer look at those former rulers who are called “great” today, you might be very surprised! It turns out that the “greatest” are those who harmed the Russian people the most! And all this is instilled in us from early childhood...

It has long been no secret to any sane person that we live in a world that someone created not for people, or rather, not for all people; in which the overwhelming majority lives according to the rules of a tiny minority, and the world is extremely hostile, and the rules are aimed at destroying the majority. How could this happen? How did the frail David manage to perch himself on the neck of the huge Goliath and chase him, carefreely dangling his legs? By cunning and deception, mostly. One of the ways in which the majority has been forced to obey the minority is by falsifying the past. The very smart, but devilishly cruel Pope spoke openly about this:

“Therefore, in order to subjugate peacefully, I use a very simple and reliable method - I destroy their past... For without a past a person is vulnerable... He loses his ancestral roots if he does not have a past. And just then, confused and unprotected, he becomes a “blank canvas” on which I can write any story!.. And would you believe it, dear Isidora, people are only happy about this... because, I repeat, they cannot live without the past (even if they don’t want to admit it to themselves). And when there is none, they accept anything, just so as not to “hang” in the unknown, which for them is much more terrible than any stranger’s, made-up “story” ... "

This method of “peaceful submission” turned out to be much more effective than submission by force. For it acts unnoticed by the subordinates, little by little plunging them into mental sleep, and the subordinates do not experience unnecessary inconvenience - they do not dirty their hands and do not wave their swords. Their main weapon is pen and ink. This is how they act, of course, after all the bearers of the truth, of whom there have always been few, were physically destroyed, information about them was distorted, sometimes to the contrary, and all their heritage was carefully collected and taken away to themselves, down to the last leaf. What they could not take away was destroyed without hesitation. Let us remember that the Etruscan library in Rome and the Alexandrian library were destroyed, and the library of Ivan the Terrible disappeared without a trace.

The Russian Tsar, who, in his Manifesto on the inviolability of autocracy dated April 29, 1881, announced a departure from the liberal course of his father, who gave a free hand to the revolutionary movement, which developed with Jewish money, and brought to the fore " maintaining order and authority, observing the strictest justice and economy. Returning to the original Russian principles and ensuring Russian interests everywhere“No one calls them great and no one erects colossal monuments.. Alexander III is generally extremely unpopular among Russian liberals, neither contemporary to him nor contemporary to us.

They gave him a reputation as slow-witted, a limited person with mediocre abilities and (oh, horror!) conservative views. The famous statesman and lawyer A.F. Koni, who acquitted the terrorist Vera Zasulich in the case of the assassination attempt on the mayor of St. Petersburg, General F. Trepov, nicknamed him “a hippopotamus in epaulets.” And the Minister of Railways of the Russian Empire, and later of Finance, S.Yu. Witte, gave him the following description: Emperor Alexander III was “below average intelligence, below average abilities and below average education; in appearance he looked like a big Russian peasant from the central provinces, and, nevertheless, with his appearance, which reflected his enormous character, beautiful heart, complacency, justice and at the same time firmness, he undoubtedly impressed.” And it is believed that he treated Alexander III with sympathy.

Reception of volost elders by Alexander III in the courtyard of the Petrovsky Palace in Moscow. Painting by I. Repin (1885-1886)

What did Alexander III do to deserve such an attitude?

It was during his reign that Russia made a giant leap forward, pulling itself out of the swamp of liberal reforms into which Alexander II led it, and he himself died from them. A member of the terrorist party "People's Will" threw a bomb at his feet. What was happening in the country at that time was approximately the same rapid impoverishment of the people, the same instability and lawlessness that Gorbachev and Yeltsin inflicted on us almost a century later.

Alexander III managed to create a miracle. A real technical revolution has begun in the country. Industrialization proceeded at a rapid pace. The emperor managed to achieve stabilization of state finances, which made it possible to begin preparations for the introduction of the gold ruble, which was carried out after his death. He fought fiercely against corruption and embezzlement. He tried to appoint business executives and patriots who defended the national interests of the country to government posts.

The country's budget became surplus. The same Witte was forced to admit “...Emperor Alexander III was a good master not because of a sense of self-interest, but because of a sense of duty. Not only in the royal family, but also among dignitaries, I have never encountered that feeling of respect for the state ruble, for the state kopeck, which Emperor Alexander III possessed. He took care of every penny of the Russian people, the Russian state, like the best owner could not take care of it...”

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.

The population of Russia grew from 71 million people in 1856 to 122 million people in 1894, including the urban population - from 6 million to 16 million people. From 1860 to 1895, iron smelting increased 4.5 times, coal production - 30 times, oil - 754 times. 28 thousand miles of railways were built in the country, connecting Moscow with the main industrial and agricultural areas and seaports (the railway network in 1881-92 grew by 47%).

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 Russian river steamships increased from 399 in 1860 to 2539 in 1895, and sea ships - from 51 to 522.

At this time, the industrial revolution ended in Russia, and the machine industry replaced the old manufactories. New industrial cities (Lodz, Yuzovka, Orekhovo-Zuevo, Izhevsk) and entire industrial regions (coal and metallurgical in Donbass, oil in Baku, textile in Ivanovo) grew up.

The volume of foreign trade, which did not reach 200 million rubles in 1850, by 1900 exceeded 1.3 billion rubles. By 1895, domestic trade turnover increased 3.5 times compared to 1873 and reached 8.2 billion rubles.

(“History of Russia from antiquity to the present day” / edited by M.N. Zuev, Moscow, “Higher School”, 1998)

It was during the reign of Emperor Alexander III Russia has not been at war for a day(except for the conquest of Central Asia that ended with the capture of Kushka in 1885) - for this the king was called a “peacemaker.” Everything was settled exclusively by diplomatic methods, and without any regard for “Europe” or anyone else. He believed that Russia had no need to look for allies there and interfere in European affairs.

His words, which have already become popular, are known: “ In the whole world we have only two true allies - our army and navy. Everyone else will turn against us at the first opportunity. " He did a lot to strengthen the army and the defense capability of the country and the inviolability of its borders. " 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 " That's what he said and that's what he did.

He did not interfere in the affairs of other countries, but he did not allow his own country to be pushed around either.. Let me give you one example. A year after his accession to the throne, the Afghans, incited by English instructors, decided to bite off a piece of territory belonging to Russia. The king’s order was laconic: “ Kick him out and teach him a lesson!", which was done. 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 this, he awarded the head of the border detachment the Order of St. George, 3rd degree.

After this incident, Alexander III formulated his foreign policy very briefly: “ I will not allow anyone to encroach on our territory! »

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 and very calmly said: “ That's what I'll do with your two or three bodies ».

In his private life, he adhered to strict moral rules, was very pious, distinguished by frugality, modesty, undemanding to comfort, and spent his leisure time in a narrow circle of family and friends. I couldn't stand pomp and ostentatious luxury. He got up at 7 in the morning and went to bed at 3. He dressed very simply. For example, he could often be seen in soldier's boots with his trousers tucked into them, and at home he wore an embroidered Russian shirt.

He loved to wear a military uniform, which he reformed, taking the Russian costume as a basis, making it simple, easy to wear and fit, cheaper to produce and more suitable for military operations. For example, buttons were replaced with hooks, which was convenient not only for adjusting the uniform, but also an extra shiny object was eliminated, which in sunny weather could attract the attention of the enemy and cause his fire. Based on these considerations, plumes, shiny helmets and lapels were abolished. Such pragmatism of the emperor certainly offended the “refined taste” of the creative elite.

This is how the artist A.N. Benois describes his meeting with Alexander III:

“I was struck by its “cumbersomeness,” its heaviness and grandeur. The new military uniform introduced at the very beginning of the reign with claims to national character, its gloomy simplicity and, worst of all, these rough boots with trousers stuck in them outraged my artistic sense. But in reality, all this was forgotten, until then the very face of the sovereign was striking in its significance.”

In addition to his importance, the emperor also had a sense of humor, and in situations that seemed not at all conducive to him. So, in some volost government some man did not care about his portrait. All sentences of insult to His Majesty were necessarily brought to his attention. The man was sentenced to six months in prison. Alexander III burst out laughing and exclaimed: “ How! 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 M. Tsebrikova, an ardent supporter of the democratization of Russia and women's emancipation, was arrested for an open letter to Alexander III, which she printed in Geneva and distributed in Russia, and in which, according to her, “inflicted a moral slap in the face of despotism.” The king’s resolution was laconic: “ Let the old fool go! She was deported from Moscow to the Vologda province.

He was one of the initiators of the creation of the Russian Historical Society and its first chairman and a passionate collector of Russian art. After his death, the extensive collection of paintings, graphics, objects of decorative and applied art, and sculptures he collected was transferred to the Russian Museum, which was founded by his son, Russian Emperor Nicholas II, in memory of his parent.

Alexander III had a strong dislike for liberalism and the intelligentsia. His words are well known:
“Our ministers...wouldn’t indulge themselves in unrealistic fantasies and lousy liberalism”

He dealt with the terrorist organization "People's Will". Under Alexander III, many newspapers and magazines promoting the liberal “ferment of minds” were closed, but all other periodicals that contributed to the prosperity of their fatherland enjoyed freedom and government support. 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 and amounted to 804 titles.

Alexander III steadily put into practice his conviction that Russians should dominate Russia. The policy of protecting the interests of the state was also actively pursued on the outskirts of the Russian Empire. For example, the autonomy of Finland was limited, which until that time had enjoyed all the advantages of neutrality under the protection of the Russian army and the benefits of the endless Russian market, but stubbornly denied the Russians equal rights with the Finns and Swedes. All correspondence between the Finnish authorities and the Russians was now to be conducted in Russian, Russian postage stamps and the ruble received circulation rights in Finland. It was also planned to force the Finns to pay for the maintenance of the army on an equal basis with the population of indigenous Russia and to expand the scope of use of the Russian language in the country.

The government of Alexander III took measures to limit the area of ​​residence of Jews in the Pale of Settlement. In 1891, they were forbidden to settle in Moscow and the Moscow province, and about 17 thousand Jews who lived there were evicted from Moscow on the basis of the law of 1865, abolished for Moscow in 1891. Jews were prohibited from purchasing property in rural areas. In 1887, a special circular established the percentage rate for their admission to universities (no more than 10% in the Pale of Settlement and 2-3% in other provinces) and introduced restrictions on practicing law (their share in universities for legal specialties was 70%).

Alexander III patronized Russian science. Under him, the first university in Siberia was opened - in Tomsk, a project was prepared for the creation of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople, the famous Historical Museum was founded in Moscow, the Imperial Institute of Experimental Medicine opened in St. Petersburg under the leadership of I.P. Pavlova, Technological Institute in Kharkov, Mining Institute in Yekaterinoslavl, Veterinary Institute in Warsaw, etc. In total, by 1894 there were 52 higher educational institutions in Russia.

Domestic science has rushed forward. I.M. Sechenov created the doctrine of brain reflexes, laying the foundations of Russian physiology, I.P. Pavlov developed the theory of conditioned reflexes. I.I. Mechnikov created a school of microbiology and organized the first bacteriological station in Russia. K.A. Timiryazev became the founder of Russian plant physiology. V.V. Dokuchaev laid the foundation for scientific soil science. The most prominent Russian mathematician and mechanic P.L. Chebyshev, invented a plantigrade machine and an adding machine.

Russian physicist A.G. Stoletov discovered the first law of the photoelectric effect. In 1881 A.F. Mozhaisky designed the world's first airplane. In 1888, self-taught mechanic F.A. Blinov invented the 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. begins his research. Tsiolkovsky.

The only pity is that the takeoff lasted only 13 years. Oh, if only the reign of Alexander III would have lasted at least another 10-20 years! But he died before he even reached 50, as a result of kidney disease, which he developed after the terrible crash of the imperial train that happened in 1888. The roof of the dining car, where the royal family and entourage were located, collapsed, and the emperor held it on his shoulders until everyone got out from under the rubble.

Despite his impressive height (193 cm) and solid build, the king’s heroic body could not withstand such a load, and after 6 years the emperor died. According to one version (unofficial, but the official investigation was led by A.F. Koni), the train crash was caused by a bomb explosion planted by an assistant cook associated with revolutionary terrorist organizations. They could not forgive him for his desire to steadily “... To protect the purity of the “faith of the fathers”, the inviolability of the principle of autocracy and to develop the Russian people...", spreading the lie that the emperor died from rampant drunkenness.

The death of the Russian Tsar shocked Europe, which is surprising against the backdrop of the usual European Russophobia. French Foreign Minister Flourens 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 driven by the desire to give their people Western European culture, they looked for ideals outside of Russia... Emperor Alexander III wanted Russia to be Russia, so that, above all, it would be Russian, and he himself set the best examples of this. He showed himself to be the ideal type of a truly Russian person.”

Even the Marquis of Salisbury, hostile to Russia, admitted:

“Alexander III saved Europe many times from the horrors of war. From his deeds the sovereigns of Europe should learn how to govern their peoples.”

Alexander III was the last ruler of the Russian state who actually cared about the protection and prosperity of the Russian people, but they do not call him the Great and do not sing continuous panegyrics, like the previous rulers.

/Excerpts from Elena Lyubimova’s article “Why they were called Great,” topwar.ru/

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 Fedorovna). 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 in schools there). 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).

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

The already mentioned A.I. had a different opinion on the peasant issue. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky and their revolutionary followers. Views of A.I. Herzen were based on the idea of ​​“communal (Russian) socialism.” Disappointed with Europe, he writes that Russia does not have to go through the stages of development that European countries went through and developed to certain social ideals. In its way of life, Russia is closer to those ideals. And the secret of this is in the Russian rural community. This community, however, needs a certain development and change, since in its modern form it does not represent a satisfactory solution to the problem of the individual and society: the individual in it is suppressed, absorbed by society. Having preserved the land community throughout its history, the Russian people “are closer to the socialist revolution than to the political revolution.” Socialism in the community is justified by him with the following arguments: firstly, democracy, or “communism” (i.e. collectivism) in managing the life of the rural artel. At their meetings, “in peace,” the peasants decide the general affairs of the village, elect local judges, a headman who cannot act contrary to the will of the “peace.” This general management of everyday life is due to the fact - and this is the second point characterizing the community as the embryo of socialism - that people use the land together.

The collectivism of the community and the right to land constituted, according to A.I. Herzen, those real embryos from which, subject to the abolition of serfdom and the elimination of autocratic despotism, a socialist society can develop. Herzen believed, however, that the community itself does not represent any socialism. Due to its patriarchal nature, it is devoid of development in its present form; For centuries, the communal system has lulled the people's personality; in the community it is humiliated, its horizons are limited to the life of the family and the village. In order to develop the community as the embryo of socialism, it is necessary to apply Western European science to it, with the help of which only the negative, patriarchal aspects of the community can be eliminated.

"Community socialism" A.I. Herzen and his work at Kolokol have left rich material for researchers. In Soviet times, a large amount of literature was published about him. The works of N.M. deserve special attention. Pirumova on revolutionary populism in general and on A.I. Herzen in particular. Her assessment of the thinker is interesting. In the book “Alexander Herzen: revolutionary, thinker, man,” she called “true humanism, inner freedom, dialectical thinking, an all-encompassing ability of understanding, high courage and nobility” “truly inherent in Herzen.”

Developed the theory by A.I. Herzen N.G. Chernyshevsky looked at the community differently. For him, the community is a patriarchal institution of Russian life, which is called upon first to fulfill the role of a “comradely form of production” in parallel with capitalist production. Then it will displace the capitalist economy and finally establish collective production and consumption. After this, the community will disappear as a form of production association.

Ideas A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky formed, as we have already said, the basis of the populist teachings of P.L. Lavrova, P.N. Tkachev and M.A. Bakunin. However, of course, not without changes.

P.L. Lavrov considered the peasant community and the characteristics peculiar to Russia as a means of ensuring a non-capitalist path of development. He noted that the Russian peasantry, starting from the “time of troubles,” did not cease to protest at every opportunity and that the Russian peasantry was deeply convinced that all the land belonged to the people. Considering the history of the enslavement of the Russian peasantry, he explained that the peasantry had preserved the traditions of communal land ownership from ancient times. Lavrov was most interested in the problem of property relations within the peasant community. He believed that this was a closer form of socialist public ownership than private capitalist ownership.

Regarding the peasant reform P.L. Lavrov wrote that the circumstances that forced the autocracy to carry out reform were in the development of “opposition thought”, and not in the objective needs of the country’s economic situation. Lavrov, like all populists, explained the reasons for the reform by the development of “humane” and “liberation” ideas in society. At the same time, he wrote about the plight of the peasantry: “Every improvement in the position of the propertied class corresponds to fatally new disasters for the people.” And for all the payments that were taken from the peasants from the funds necessary to support the family, the people received nothing from the “caring government” except taverns, the spread of diseases, periodic hunger strikes and unbearable taxes.

Echoes P.L. Lavrov P.N. Tkachev, pointing out that the transfer of land to peasants as a result of the reform did not improve the situation of the people, but, on the contrary, led to increased exploitation, which took on increasingly sophisticated forms. Tkachev believed that the reform affected more legal relations, but did little to change the economic side of the life of peasants: legal dependence disappeared, but poverty and misery remained.

Recognizing the community as a feature of Russian life, Tkachev believed that this feature was not the result of an original development inherent only to the Slavic peoples, but a consequence of Russia’s slower progress along the same path that Western Europe had already traversed.

From the correct premise about the similarity of forms of communal ownership in different countries, Tkachev, like all revolutionary populists, made the controversial conclusion that the community that remained in Russia creates favorable conditions for Russian peasants, compared with Western European countries, for carrying out a socialist revolution. Believing that the idea of ​​collective property was deeply fused with the entire worldview of the Russian people, Tkachev argued that “our people, despite their ignorance, are much closer to socialism than the peoples of Western Europe, although they are more educated than them.”

Bakunin, regarding the community, is of the opinion that, in the form in which it has developed in Russia, it supports “patriarchal despotism,” kills individual initiative and generally absorbs the person into the “world.” There is no freedom in it, and therefore there is no progressive development. As an anarchist, Bakunin attributes all the negative features of communal life to the influence of the state, which, in his words, “finally crushed and corrupted the Russian community, already corrupted by its patriarchal principle. Under its yoke, communal electorate itself became a deception, and persons temporarily elected by the people themselves ... turned, on the one hand, into instruments of power, and on the other, into bribed servants of rich peasant kulaks." Thus, Bakunin is far from idealizing the rural community, but despite this, he does not reject the communal organization as such. However, unlike Chernyshevsky, who linked the building of socialism in Russia with the establishment of a democratic republic and saw in republicanism the most important condition for the development of the communal principle, Bakunin made the future of the community dependent on the complete destruction of the state and the exclusion of the principle of power from the life of the people. Regarding the situation of the Russian peasantry, he wrote that they are not able to pay the unaffordable taxes and payments imposed on them. In order to collect taxes and cover arrears that the peasant cannot pay, the tools of his labor and even his livestock are sold. The peasants are so ruined that they have neither seeds for crops nor the ability to cultivate the land.

Thus, having examined a number of completely different points of view in relation to power and the peasant question, we once again saw how wide the range of worldviews of the intelligentsia of that time was; radically opposing paradigms coexisted in one society. Why is this so? Yes, in essence, it is the nature of a person who will always be dissatisfied with something. And given the very difficult situation of incomplete transformations and the transition period, these dissatisfied sentiments flourished wildly. The ancients said correctly: “God forbid you live in an era of change!”

III. Intelli participationgeniuses in the revolutionary underground

And yet, why did the idea of ​​radical transformations grow so much and gain popularity among the intelligentsia, resulting in a whole series of terrorist attacks that ultimately ended with the murder of the man who transformed Russia, elevated it on the international stage and strengthened it from within? What prompted part of the intelligentsia to switch to such harsh methods of fighting the authorities that were implementing liberal reforms? This is what our chapter is about.

Nothing comes from nowhere, nothing disappears into nowhere - this law of physics has been known to everyone since school. We think that it is applicable not only to physical, but also to social phenomena. But this “out of nowhere” in a single state often has not only internal conditionality, but arises under the influence of external factors. In our case, this is the influence of European liberation movements of the second and third quarters of the 19th century, and, to the greatest extent, the revolutionary events of 1848-1849, the Paris Commune of 1871 and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. (let us remember both M.A. Bakunin and A.I. Herzen, who took part in the revolutions of 1848-49 in Rome and Paris (A.I. Herzen), Prague and Dresden (M.A. Bakunin)).

A.I. Herzen, in essence, under the influence of the failures of revolutionary France, the June reaction of 1848, loses faith in Europe (this is reflected in his book “From the Other Shore,” published in 1850 in German translation), and after the personal drama caused by the death of his mother and younger son in 1851 and later his wife in 1852, he is finally convinced that the future belongs to the Russian community. During this period of time, the works “On the Development of Revolutionary Ideas in Russia” (first published in 1851 in German; the French original was published in the same year; the Russian translation was published illegally in Moscow in 1861), “Russia” ( 1849), “Letter from a Russian to Mazzini” (1850), “Russian people and socialism” (1851). His magazine "The Bell" (1857 -1867) was read even in the Winter Palace.

In the article “The Russian People and Socialism” he calls Europe a “decrepit Proteus”, a “collapsing organism”. He notes with alarm and disappointment: “No legality, no truth, not even the guise of freedom; everywhere the unlimited domination of the secular Inquisition; instead of legal order - a state of siege. One moral engine controls everything - fear, and that is enough. All questions recede into the background before the all-consuming interest of reaction. Governments, apparently the most hostile, merge into a single, universal police. The Russian Emperor, without hiding his hatred of the French, awards the Parisian Prefect of Police; the King of Naples bestows an order on the President of the Republic. The Berlin King, wearing a Russian uniform, hurries to Warsaw to embrace his enemy, the Emperor of Austria<…>while he, a renegade from the one saving church, offers his help to the Roman ruler. Among these Saturnalia, among this Sabbath of reaction, nothing more protects individuals from arbitrariness.<…>You can hardly believe your eyes. Is this really the same Europe that we once knew and loved?" Here, A.I. Herzen's contempt for modern Europe and the leadership of Imperial Russia is clearly visible. He notes such a thing that Russia has an undoubted advantage - it is not something then frozen, but changing, even if often not for the better: “Russia is a completely new state - an unfinished building, where it still smells of fresh lime, where everything is working and being developed, where nothing has yet reached its goal, where everything is changing - often for the worse, but still changes." He sees salvation in the Russian rural community, which "saved the Russian people from Mongol barbarism and from imperial civilization, from landowners painted in European style and from the German bureaucracy."

It is impossible not to mention other factors that influenced the formation of Herzen as a theorist of “Russian socialism”. Here, of course, the Decembrist uprising played a role, awakening in Herzen’s soul the first, albeit still vague, revolutionary aspirations, the first thoughts about the struggle against injustice and tyranny. BUT. Lossky writes about it this way: “The awareness of the unreasonableness and cruelty of the autocratic political regime developed in Herzen an insurmountable hatred of all slavery and arbitrariness.” A.I. endured a lot. Herzen from the philosophy of Hegel. In Hegel's philosophy he found justification for the legitimacy and necessity of the struggle against the old and the final victory of the new. The point of connecting socialism with philosophy is in the works of A.I. Herzen's idea of ​​the harmonious integrity of man. The idea of ​​unity and being was also considered by Herzen in socio-historical terms, as the idea of ​​​​unifying science and the people, which will mark socialism. Herzen wrote that when the people understand science, they will come to creative creation of socialism. Already here a warning against “barracks communism” is heard, more clearly expressed by him in the 1860s in speeches against the anarchism of M.A. Bakunin.

The reform of 1861 did not live up to the hopes of A.I. Herzen for the complete liberation of the peasants, which would open a direct path for the development of the country towards socialism. Proving that after the reform Russia did not lose the opportunity to transition to socialism, bypassing capitalism, constitutes an important aspect of the development of the theory of “Russian socialism” in the 60s. Herzen outlines two paths of movement towards socialism: for the West, socialism is the setting sun, for the Russian people it is the rising sun.

Ideas A.I. Herzen were in many ways the foundation for the theories of the revolutionary populists of the 1860s - 70s. He asked a defining question: should Russia, on the path to socialism, repeat all phases of European development or will its life follow different laws? And he himself, with his theory, gave a negative answer to it, believing that Russia carries within itself the features of historical originality in the form of a rural community, artel labor and secular self-government. Therefore, it seemed to him that Russia would come to socialism, bypassing capitalism.

Indeed, the characterization of “Russian socialism” given by A.I. Herzen confirms this. He wrote in Kolokol in 1867: “We call Russian socialism that socialism that comes from the land and peasant life, from the actual allotment and the existing redistribution of fields, from communal ownership and communal management - and comes together with the workers’ artel towards that economic justice to which socialism in general strives."

The populists inherited from A.I. Herzen's idea of ​​Russia's non-capitalist path to socialism, faith in the rural community as the embryo of a future society, conviction in the socialist nature of the peasant revolution and the need to prepare it. They are also united by hatred of autocracy and the injustice of the class system, they are connected by concern for the well-being of the entire people, defense of freedom and enlightenment, revolutionary passion and irreconcilability to any manifestations of liberalism. They consciously expressed the interests of the peasant masses. A.I. Herzen attached special importance to the intelligentsia in the liberation movement. Among the Narodniks, this idea took the form of the enormous influence of the intelligentsia on the people.

And yet, not only A.I. Herzen influenced the development and dissemination of revolutionary views among the intelligentsia. There were also completely objective reasons for this, such as the imperfection of the peasant reform. Contrary to expectations about the complete liberation of peasants with land, it turned out that they became personally free, but had to pay redemption payments with interest for 49 years. At the same time, in a large number of cases, the size of the plots remaining under the “cut-off” system decreased and did not provide the peasants with a sufficient amount of land. Hence the numerous popular unrest and heated discussions of the problem in society. Let's take, for example, the uprising of the spring of 1861 in the village of Bezdna, when the unrest spread to 75 villages of Spassky, Chistopol, Laishevsky districts of the Kazan province and adjacent districts of the Samara and Simbirsk provinces. Then the uprising was brutally suppressed. On April 12, 1861, by order of General Apraksin, an unarmed crowd of 4,000 peasants was shot. According to the official report of the Kazan military governor to the Minister of Internal Affairs, 91 people were killed or died from their wounds, and more than 350 people were wounded. On April 19, 1861, the “interpreter” of the Manifesto, Anton Petrov, was shot. Of the 16 peasants brought before the military court, 5 were sentenced to flogging and imprisonment for various terms. Herzen's "Bell" responded violently to this tragedy. In the issue dated May 15, 1861 we read: “Yes, Russian blood flows like a river!<…>The government could have warned everything, both Polish and Russian blood, and now, for its unsteadiness, for its misunderstanding, for its inability to go to the end of anything, it is killing crowds of our brothers." And in the next issue dated June 1, 1861, it is indicated that , that such bloodshed might not have happened if Apraksin had waited for reinforcements in the form of four more companies, as a result of which the total number of soldiers would have been 1200 people and several guns, i.e. the peasants might have retreated and handed over the newly-minted interpreter of the “Manifesto.” But he acted with one company, as a result of which, after short negotiations, “a company of soldiers fired 5 volleys at a crowd of people a few steps away, at a crowd that was 50 times larger and could tear the soldiers into pieces. The poor people only groaned after each shot; their fair-haired heads fell, covered in blood, or crossed themselves, remembering the cherished words of the manifesto<…>Yes, repeating that he is dying for the king. The massacre was terrible." As a result, 70 people died, 15 people died of wounds the next day, and "a doctor sent from Kazan went to the site of the massacre two days after the murder. Until then, the wounded remained without help."

As a sign of mourning, on April 16, 1861, students of Kazan University and the Theological Academy organized a memorial service for the murdered peasants of the village. Abyss. About 400 people gathered in the Kazan cemetery church. University professor and prominent historian A.P. spoke to the audience. Shchapov. He made a passionate speech in defense of the oppressed people, paid tribute to the peasant martyrs and ended it with the words: “Long live the democratic constitution!” Shchapov was arrested, removed from teaching, and the Holy Synod decided to “subject to admonition and exhortation in the monastery.” However, under pressure from public protest, Alexander II reversed the decision of the Synod. Shchapov was allowed to live in St. Petersburg under police supervision.

The famous magazines Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo played no less a role. They published classics of our literature, known for their democratic sentiments. This is N.G. Chernyshevsky, and N.A. Dobrolyubov, and M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin and many others. Influenced by their freedom-loving voice, many students took to the streets in the fall of 1861 to protest against the “Temporary Rules” issued by the government in July 1861, which strengthened supervision of students and limited access to universities for commoners. The unrest that began in September 1861 in St. Petersburg spread to Moscow and Kazan in October. A massive street demonstration of St. Petersburg University students was dispersed by the police, hundreds of students were escorted to the Peter and Paul Fortress. Leading professors of the university spoke in defense of the students, among them N.I. Kostomarov and P.V. Pavlov, who were subjected to government persecution for this. In Moscow, a student demonstration ended with its participants being beaten by the police and arrested. The government's response to student protests in St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kazan was the temporary closure of universities. And again we see a violent reaction from Kolokol, which cites a letter from one of the eyewitnesses to the provocation and beating of students by gendarmes: “As soon as they entered the square, whistles were heard and gendarmes appeared from all sides from ambush.

There was a fight here. Many defended themselves, but all were taken; others fled, but then they were sheepskin coats, people rushed at them shouting: “Beat the Poles! They came to kill the governor!” They furiously took the students by the collars, threw them down, crushed them, the police saved them and told passers-by: “We are saving! The people are tearing the rioters apart!” It seemed strange. Why? How? But soon the thing was discovered; they were guards and soldiers in disguise, and with shouts they rushed to captivate the people. Two merchants were the first to discover this, recognizing the guard of their quarter, dressed in a sheepskin coat.<…>Enraged like animals, the gendarmes... rushed at anyone who had a student uniform.<…>While pulling the students out of the carriages, they dragged them along the ground and broke their faces. One was literally strangled on a scarf and two ladies picked him up dead on the boulevard and took him to the clinic themselves... The other, Karevin, was hit on the head with a stick by a gendarme; he fell dead - but soon raised his head, another gendarme ran over him with a horse and crushed him! They carried him away and they say he died."

This attitude towards students, who fought for their rights exclusively through peaceful, non-violent means, could not but outrage society. Even if what we have cited was published in a radical magazine, but even if we discard the comments, bare facts remain that testify to the arbitrariness of the authorities. And despite the fact that this happened in the year of the beginning of the Great Reforms, in the year of the liberation of 20 million people from serfdom, under a sovereign known for his liberal inclinations, there is already a contradiction. Yes, we are talking about the middle of the 19th century, when the introduction of the Constitution and the freedoms associated with it was not yet on the agenda, but such actions of the authorities against the backdrop of a general “thaw” in the internal political situation quite naturally caused an increase in anti-government sentiments in the educated part of society.

In radical circles, discontent resulted in numerous proclamations and the creation of the first “Land and Freedom” by the brothers Alexander and Nikolai Serno-Solovyevich, Nikolai Obruchev, Alexander Sleptsov and Alexander Putyata. This federation of circles and groups existed until 1864. Its program document was an article by N.P. Ogarev in “The Bell” “What do the people need?”, where he himself answered: “Very simply, the people need land and freedom.” The program put forward demands for the transfer to peasants of the land that they owned before the reform (and even an increase in insufficient allotments), the replacement of government officials with elected volost, district and provincial self-government bodies, the election of a central people's representative office, and a reduction in spending on the army and the royal court. Propaganda was considered the main means of influencing peasants. The peasantry was asked to “get closer to the army,... silently gather strength,... so that you can intelligently, firmly, calmly, amicably and strongly defend against the tsar and nobles the worldly land, the people’s will and human truth.” In total, there were about 400 people in “Land and Freedom”. Its leaders hoped for a peasant uprising in 1863, which, however, did not happen. Then serious contradictions arose within, also related to Polish events, and by 1864 it dissolved.

By the way, speaking about the Polish unrest, it is necessary to note the ambiguity of the attitude towards them in Russian society. Some supported him, others advocated his speedy suppression. And here again we consider it important to cite two diametrically opposed opinions of printed publications of conservative and revolutionary thought - “Moskovskie Vedomosti” by M.N. Katkov and "Bells" by A.I. Herzen. As you know, truth is born in a dispute, so we will try to get closer to it by reading completely different opinions on such a burning issue. In an article dated March 8, 1863, M.N. Katkov blames the petty nobility and the Catholic clergy for everything, without touching either the large landowners or the peasants: “Those classes in whose hands the land, capital, crafts and trade are still keeping aloof, and the whole uprising is the work of the gentry, the small, landless nobility, and the Catholic clergy, and not yet a whole people."

Moskovskie Vedomosti does not limit itself to this; it issues many harsh statements addressed to the rebels, as for example in issue 93 of April 30, where the rebels are accused of terror: “... the peasants in the Kingdom of Poland decisively do not sympathize with the uprising and are even hostile to it. But they are placed in This is a terrible situation: they are strangled and hanged by agents of the National Committee, and Russian troops cannot always provide them with protection.<…>In this state of affairs, the duty of every government, conscious of its responsibility, must be to liberate the civilian population from the power of terrorism."

And, of course, one of the most angry articles is devoted to the discovery of a project of uprising, signed by Mieroslawski, in the house of Count Andrei Zamoyski: “Lies, in this program of uprising, as well as in the Polish catechism, are elevated to the level of a sacred principle; the most impudent deception, nothing not shy, recommended in every line and extends to everything. To deceive the Russian government, to deceive the Russian people, to deceive the Polish people, to deceive the governments of the Western powers, to deceive the public opinion of Europe, to deceive our stupid socialists and crazy demagogues, to deceive everyone indiscriminately, this is the policy of the Polish patriots , this is their “saint on the right,” this is the task they have set for themselves.”

As can be seen from the above excerpts from the articles, the conservative-minded public had an extremely negative attitude towards such manifestations of disobedience. Radical sections of the intelligentsia, whose mouthpiece was Herzen’s “Bell,” took a different position. “Words of censure fall silent before the luxury of villainy, double-mindedness and stupidity that the St. Petersburg government has caused... and all this without leaving its babble about progress and liberalism,” writes A.I. Herzen. Kolokol calls our troops “gangs of drunken murderers,” “wild robbers,” “beasts who have fallen into the state of the Tsar’s guardsmen,” victims of “hunger, beatings, moral blindness and barracks training,” which the newspaper “Invalid” extols, saying that they “showed in all their splendor those properties that constitute the glory and beauty of every army.” Speaking about the suppression of the uprising, A.I. Herzen is metaphorical: “It is our sad lot, reluctantly, to mark the main features of the unequal battle of the Polish Laocoon with the St. Petersburg monster... On the one hand, heroism to the point of recklessness, poetry, love, great legends, will, helplessness and death. On the other, power-hungry whim, downtrodden obedience , remorse, strength and Prussian help." By the way, in addition to such emotional speeches, “The Bell” also contained letters from Russian officers in Poland, which very clearly described the predatory actions of our troops.

Of course, it should be noted that the articles by A.I. cannot be taken without due criticism. Herzen (as well as the articles of M.N. Katkov), but in the complex interweaving of social and national problems, such statements had a strong impact on the reader. Written on a topical topic, they could sway a person either to extreme leftist positions or make him a staunch conservative. The power of a printed word spoken at the right time increases tenfold.

We all remember the Karakozov shot on April 4, 1866. D. Karakozov himself was a member of the “Ishutintsy” circle, which operated from 1863 to 1866. under the banner of N.G.’s ideas Chernyshevsky. Their goal was to prepare a peasant revolution through a conspiracy of intellectual groups. Members of the circle tried to organize various kinds of production and household artels. In Moscow they opened a bookbinding and sewing workshop, a Sunday school and a Mutual Aid Society for poor students. In February 1866, a secret society called the "Organization" was created. They intend to spread its branches in the province. Dmitry Karakozov, without the consent of the others, on his own initiative made an attempt on the life of Alexander II: on April 4, 1866, he shot at the emperor near the Summer Garden in St. Petersburg, but missed and was captured. The court sentenced him to hanging, the rest of the circle members to various terms of hard labor and exile.

The reaction of conservative circles to such an incident, which, as is clear from Moskovskiye Vedomosti, came as a surprise, deserves attention. M.N. Katkov, in an article dated August 3, 1866, dedicated to the shot in the Summer Garden, is perplexed about this: “Is it possible to believe that schoolchildren, no matter how spoiled they were, not being in any sympathetic relationships in the environment, could constitute themselves the core of some significant organization? That the investigative commission drew attention to the ulcer of nihilism could not seem surprising, it was very natural; but the rumors seemed surprising that these nihilistic circles had closed by themselves into a vast and strong organization that swept the entire country. It was even stranger to assume that an organizing force appeared in this rust and mold called nihilism, at a time when there were no longer any doubts or hesitations in society regarding the properties of this pathetic phenomenon... It seemed strange that nihilism turned out to be capable to act precisely when he was apparently weakening and drying up in his sources, when many of his victims were freed from him as from a nightmare<…>when the student youth began to reveal an incomparably better spirit..."

It is quite understandable why there is some confusion in the words of M.N. Katkova. After all, before this incident, the kings could easily walk without security, since in the eyes of the people the power of the emperor was sacred. The events of the spring of 1866 shook up society, which could not believe that such a thing was possible.

Naturally, the attempt on the life of the Emperor could not but lead to a tightening of the regime. Despite the fact that reforms were in full swing, any departure from them was fraught with protests from the emboldened public. Measures such as the closure of Sovremennik, Russkoe Slovo, persecution of higher education, restriction of the rights of zemstvos and the delay in the reform of city government led to a wave of student unrest in the fall of 1868 - spring of 1869. As we see, the most favorable atmosphere has been established for the development of revolutionary ideas. And in such a situation, the secret society “People’s Retribution” arose, headed by S.G. Nechaev.

About the notorious murder of student I.I. Ivanov, who disagrees with S.G. Nechayev cannot speak otherwise than about the latter’s inhumanity and unbridled fanaticism. His Catechism of a Revolutionary is more like the ravings of a madman than the ethics of a revolutionary. To prove this, many points from there can be cited, but in order not to clutter up our research, we will cite only two of them: “item 6. Severe for himself, he must be harsh for others. All tender, pampering feelings of kinship, friendship, love ", gratitude and even honor itself must be crushed in him by the single cold passion of the revolutionary cause. For him there is only one bliss, one consolation, reward and satisfaction - the success of the revolution. Day and night he must have one thought, one goal - merciless destruction. Striving coldly and tirelessly towards this goal, he must always be ready to die himself and destroy with his own hands everything that interferes with its achievement.<…>clause 13. The revolutionary enters the state, class and so-called educated world and lives in it only with the goal of its complete, speedy destruction. He is not a revolutionary if he regrets anything in this world, if he can stop before exterminating a situation, a relationship, or any person belonging to this world, in which everything and everyone should be hated by him. So much the worse for him if he has family, friendship or love relationships in him - he is not a revolutionary if they can stop his hand." It must be said that the overwhelming majority of members of the revolutionary camp reacted extremely negatively to such thoughts and did not follow this path In the early 1870s, new circles were formed, such as the “Great Propaganda Society” of S. Perovskaya and M. Nathanson (“Chaikovites”), the circle of Alexander Dolgushin, which were destroyed by 1874.

Starting a conversation about the 1870s, we consider it useful to cite the data of V.S. Antonov on the social composition of participants in the revolutionary movement during these years in order to understand who was its main driving force:

Social composition	Number of participants	% to total
Craftsmen, handicraftsmen
Peasants
Soldiers, junior military specialists
Minor employees
Employees
Zemstvo employees
Business owners, merchants
Priests
Lawyers, actors
Officers, military officials
Writers
Doctors, paramedics, midwives
Students of lower and secondary general education and special schools
Seminarists
Military school students, cadets
Students and volunteers of higher education educational institutions

From these data it is clear that the decisive role was played by students, a significant part of whom, according to V.S. Antonov, went into the revolution from their junior years at universities and institutes. At the same time, he confirms his conclusions with statistics from the III Department for 1873-1877, according to which this figure is more than 50% (37.5% for V.S. Antonov). It will now be easier to understand what the revolutionary movement was like in the 1870s.

Two burning issues in Russia's domestic policy in the 1870s continued to remain: the peasant question and the position of the emperor's autocratic power. These two stumbling blocks motivated the revolutionaries of the time to action. In the 1870s, three main ideological lines took shape: propaganda, conspiratorial and “rebellious” (the anarchism of M.A. Bakunin). This period was characterized by both “going to the people” and the practice of terror, which ended with the assassination of Alexander II. By the way, speaking about “going among the people,” one cannot ignore the names of P.L. Lavrova and M.A. Bakunin, who ideologically prepared him.

P.L. Lavrov in his “Historical Letters” views the intelligentsia as “critically thinking individuals” who act as the engine of conscious changes in culture, as opposed to its unintentional changes.

The radical part of the intelligentsia, in his opinion, consists of individuals who are capable and willing to act in the interests of the people. They are still a minority; it is difficult for them to express themselves in a society in which there are no democratic freedoms. But the future lies with them: “In front of social forms, the individual is truly powerless, but his struggle against them is insane only when he cannot do so. But history proves that this is possible, and that even this is the natural way in which progress is made in history. So. , we have to pose and solve the question: how did weak individuals turn into social strength?” Answering this question, P.L. Lavrov defines three stages of such a transformation. At the first stage, individual critically thinking individuals enter the struggle for social progress. They realize the evil reigning around them and begin to fight it. In the second stage, the number of energetic people fanatically devoted to the cause of individual freedom grows. Their feat of self-sacrifice inspires the crowd, “their legend inspires thousands with the energy needed to fight.”

The main condition under which an individual becomes the driving force of progress is his connection with the masses, through a party capable of fighting for progress, for the implementation of the ideals of a just society. At the third stage, the party unites the efforts of individual critically thinking individuals, develops a strategy and tactics for the struggle for a bright future. However, the party cannot become the guiding force of historical progress if it is divorced from the masses. P.L. Lavrov was convinced that ideas can move humanity only when they become commonplace for a significant part of society. Hence his deep conviction that revolution can only be accomplished “through the people.” And since the bulk of the Russian people are poorly educated peasants, the main task of the intelligentsia, especially its youth, is to understand the needs of the people, and help them realize their strength, and together with them begin revolutionary transformations.

Looking ahead, let's say that the ideas of P.L. Lavrov played a certain role in “going to the people,” but, according to B.S. Itenberg, Lavrism was not a symbol of the movement and that many of the participants in the “walk” “saw in it an abstract teaching, far from the practical tasks of the struggle.”

M.A. Bakunin, in his main work “Statehood and Anarchy,” also pinned his hopes on the intelligentsia and called on them to go to the people: “They must go to the people, undoubtedly, because now everywhere, mainly in Russia, outside the people, outside the multimillion-dollar masses of unskilled workers there is no more life, no business, no future." Moreover, of the two paths along which he had to act - “more peaceful and preparatory” and “rebellious” - he chose the second. At the same time, M.A. Bakunin notes that the first option is remarkable, but is unlikely to be implemented, arguing as follows: “Those who draw such plans for themselves and sincerely intend to implement them, do this, no doubt, closing their eyes, so as not to see ours in all its ugliness. "Russian reality. You can predict in advance all the terrible, grave disappointments that will befall them at the very beginning of their fulfillment, because with the exception of perhaps a few, very few happy cases, the majority of them will not go beyond the beginning, will not be able to go."

The main goal in preparing the uprising, that is, moving along the second path, M.A. Bakunin sees it as first convincing the peasants that their main enemy is not an official or a landowner, but that everything comes from the tsar, that he is the main culprit of injustice: “Interpret, let him feel this in all possible ways and using all the deplorable and with the tragic incidents with which the daily life of the people is filled, to show him how all the bureaucratic, landowner, priestly and kulak furies, robberies, robberies, from which he cannot live, come directly from the tsarist power, rely on it and are possible only thanks to it, to prove to him, in a word, that the state so hated by him is the tsar himself and nothing other than the tsar - this is the direct and now main responsibility of revolutionary propaganda." The thinker believes that the people must be made to feel their unity, and in this unity they are indestructible. However, this is prevented by the isolation of the communities, which he proposes to overcome by establishing connections between the leading people of all villages, to establish such connections between peasants and workers. As a help, he suggests using a newspaper: “In order for a feeling and consciousness of real unity to be created in our people, it is necessary to organize a kind of people’s printed, lithographed, written or even oral newspaper that would immediately inform everywhere, in all corners, regions, volosts and villages of Russia about any private popular, peasant or factory revolt that breaks out in one place or another, as well as about major revolutionary movements carried out by the proletariat of Western Europe, so that our peasants and our factory workers do not feel alone , but would know, on the contrary, that behind him, under the same oppression, but with the same passion and will to free himself, stands a huge, countless world for the general explosion of the masses of unskilled workers preparing." And with all this, you need to be at the forefront and set a personal example to the masses.

Participants in both the first and second “walking among the people” were guided by such ideas, but the peasants did not listen to their propaganda and often handed them over to the police. Of the most high-profile cases, we have the famous “Trial of the 193”, where out of 4 thousand people arrested, some were released due to lack of evidence, some were exiled, 97 people either went crazy during the investigation or died before the trial, and 3 people out of 193 x of the accused passed away during the trial. It must be said that the publicity of the court hearings was relative. In volume 3 of the collection “Crimes of the State in Russia in the 19th Century,” edited by B. Bazilevsky, where there is a report on the court hearings in this case, the following words of the sworn attorneys and the answer to them from the first present are given: “ Meeting on October 18. As soon as the court entered, attorney at law Spasovich addressed the presence with a statement in which, pointing out the need for publicity and openness for the court, he petitioned the Special Presence to move the trial to another more spacious room, and to postpone the court hearings until one is found." Attorney Gerard also noted that “the lack of publicity would be contrary to the dignity of the Senate and would undermine faith in its justice.” To these words, the first present Senator Peters said that he did not see violations of publicity and that if there were any, he would be the first to speak about them, and justified his answer by the presence of the public “here and there; (at the same time, Peters pointed to the places behind the judge's chairs)" Regarding "here and there," defendant Ippolit Myshkin at the next meeting on October 20 said that these places were "probably for persons of the judicial department" and that they, along with "the three or four sitting subjects" behind the "double rows of gendarmes" is not yet real publicity.

A.F. also confirms what has been said. Kony, who wrote in his memoirs: “The seats behind the judges were always full of dignitary onlookers; gendarmes were stationed in large numbers in the courtrooms, and the gates of the judicial building, like the doors of the Temple of Janus, were tightly closed, as if the court itself was under siege.”

ON THE. Troitsky, who tried to present a complete picture of the trial of the “193s,” writes the following: “The imaginary organizers of the “community” were seated in the usual places for the defendants (the raised platform behind the barrier, nicknamed by the defendants “Golgotha”): Myshkin, Voinaralsky, Rogachev, Kovalin and V .F. Kostyurin... and all the other defendants took seats for the public.

Only the verified “public” and agents of the Third Section were admitted to the small number of remaining seats (10-12) with special tickets.”

Of particular interest is the speech of I. Myshkin, in which he substantiated the revolutionary program of the Narodniks. Here, in response to the charge of participating in an “illegal society” that aims to overthrow the existing system in the “more or less distant future,” the defendant responds that he is a member of some large social revolutionary party. The main task of this party is to establish a system that “satisfying the demands of the people as they are expressed in large and small popular movements and are universally inherent in the people’s consciousness, at the same time constitutes the fairest form of social organization,” which means “the land consisting from the union of independent productive communities." This can only be achieved through a social revolution, since the government blocks all peaceful paths to realize the task. The immediate goal is to achieve the merger of the “two main revolutionary streams” - the intelligentsia and the people, so that the same thing does not happen as in the European revolutions, where only the bourgeoisie benefited. This is what the participants in the movement of 1874-1875 strived for. Beginning to justify “going to the people,” I. Myshkin notes that “all movements of the intelligentsia correspond to parallel movements among the people and are even simple echoes of the latter.” Speaking further about the reasons for revolutionary activity, he talks about the creation of a social revolutionary party in the early 1860s and several reasons for this process: “It (the creation of the party - our note, A.V.) took place as an echo of popular suffering and popular unrest, with the participation of a well-known faction of the Russian intelligentsia, thanks mainly to two reasons: firstly, the influence on the intelligentsia of advanced Western European socialist thought and the largest practical application of this thought - the formation of the International Workers' Association; secondly, the abolition of serfdom, because after the peasant reform, a whole faction was formed among the tax-exempt classes, which experienced the full power of the state economic system, was ready to respond to the call of the people and served as the core of the social revolutionary party. This faction is the mental proletariat."

I. Myshkin makes caustic remarks regarding the real openness of society. He sarcastically notes that publicity is expressed only in the coverage of minor events, while society either does not know about significant popular unrest at all, or learns only through rumors. And therefore, in fact, the aspirations of the intelligentsia have their strong support among the people. However, in our opinion, if we proceed from the fact that these same people handed over the propagandists to the police, such confidence of I. Myshkin is based only on indirect arguments in the form of peasant unrest. The peasants were alien to the socialist ideas that the populists tried to instill in them. And the unrest is the desire to freely manage their own land without paying burdensome redemption payments. And yet the populists were confident that they were right.

The process gained great resonance both in Russia and abroad. Its results were far from government expectations. The court acquitted 90 of the 190 defendants (three died during the trial), 39 people were sentenced to exile, 32 to imprisonment for various terms, 1 to removal from office and a fine, and 28 people to hard labor for a term of 3.5 to 10 years. “Moreover,” writes N.A. Troitsky, “having formulated the verdict, the court listed the circumstances mitigating the guilt of the defendants, and on this basis petitioned the Tsar to commute the punishment for half of the convicts, including all those sentenced to hard labor, excluding Myshkin , to whom the members of the court could not forgive his speech." At the same time, according to N.A. Troitsky, Alexander II ordered 11 more people to be sent to penal servitude together with I. Myshkin, and 80 of the 90 acquitted were administratively sent into exile by the III department, again on the instructions of the tsar, i.e. the sentence was increased.

And yet, according to N.A. Troitsky, “the role of the “193” process as a factor that accelerated the transition of the populists to political struggle is undeniable and generally accepted. In this regard, it is significant that since 1878, following the process, a new, terrorist stage of the populist movement began. acts - the murder of the chief of gendarmes N.V. Mezentsev on August 4, 1878 - was revenge on Mezentsev for his demarche to the Tsar about changing the verdict in the case of "193".

And indeed, in 1878, the terrorist activities of the second “Land and Freedom”, created in 1876, intensified. Already on January 24, 1878 V.I. Zasulich shot at St. Petersburg mayor F.F. Trepov for ordering the flogging of a political prisoner. The government made the trial in this case public and again led to unexpected results - V.I. Zasulich was acquitted. The verdict was passed by the court presided over by A.F. Kony, who eventually fell into disgrace for a long time.

During the preparation for the hearing itself, the prosecution experienced difficulties, in particular, two of the likely candidates for prosecutors (Andreevsky and Zhukovsky) refused to conduct the case on various pretexts, and Kessel, who agreed, was, according to A.F. Koni, who knew him well, is much weaker than the representative of the defense, attorney at law Alexandrov. He expressed this idea in a conversation with the Minister of Justice Count Palen on the eve of the trial: “... I can assure you that it is difficult to make a more unsuccessful choice of prosecutor... He is already worried and frightened by this case. He has never spoken in such serious cases; good “an extra” and an expert in the investigative department, he is a completely insignificant opponent for Aleksandrov...” At A.F.’s proposal. Kony about the appointment of Maslovsky or Smirnov as prosecutor, Palen responded by saying that they were comrades of the prosecutor of the chamber, and he did not want to attach much importance to the case: “Every hint of a political nature was removed from the case ... with persistence, simply strange on the part of the ministry, which still recently inflated political affairs for the most insignificant reasons. I think that Palen was initially sincerely convinced that there was no political overtones here, and in this sense he spoke with the sovereign, but then, bound by this conversation and, perhaps, deceived by Lopukhin, he It was already difficult to give the case a different direction..." Palen tried with all his might to persuade the chairman of the court to side with the prosecution. Seeing A.F.’s reluctance Kony, Palen asked to at least give him a “cassation case in case of acquittal.” The chairman of the court did not heed any persuasion.

It’s interesting, by the way, the public’s opinion on Vera Zasulich’s trial. According to the testimony of the same A.F. Horses, the attitude towards the accused varied from “Bogolyubov’s mistress” and “scoundrel” to enthusiasm for her act: “The attitude towards the accused was twofold. In the higher spheres, where Trepov was always somewhat disdained, they found that she was Bogolyubov’s undoubted mistress and yet "scoundrel", but they treated her with some curiosity. I saw at Count Palen's in mid-February photographic cards of the "scoundrel" that Countess Palen had, which were passed around and produced a certain effect. The middle class had a different attitude. There were enthusiastic people in it who saw in Zasulich the new Russian Charlotte Corday; there were many who saw in her shot a protest for outraged human dignity - a formidable specter of awakening public anger; there was a group of people who were frightened by the doctrine of bloody lynching, visible in the actions of Zasulich. They shook in anxious thought heads and, without denying sympathy for Zasulich’s character, condemned her act as a dangerous precedent..." F.F. Many people disliked Trepov and did not feel any compassion for him after the assassination attempt: “The majority, who did not like Trepov and accused him of bribery, of violence against city government through the highest orders that imposed unexpected burdens on the city, rejoiced at the misfortune that befell him. “Serves it right!” - some said..., “to the old thief,” others added. Even among the police officials, supposedly loyal to Trepov, there was a hidden gloating against “Fedka,” as they called him among themselves. In general, there was no sympathy for the victim, and even his gray hair did not evoke much regret for the suffering. The main drawback of his energetic activity as a mayor - the lack of a moral lining in his actions - appeared before the general gaze with a brightness that obscured the undoubted merits of this activity, and the name Trepov did not evoke anything these days ", except for cruel indifference and completely heartless curiosity." Perhaps this attitude in society towards the victim partly contributed to the success of Vera Zasulich’s defense.

Similar documents

Study of the Russian intelligentsia, its origins. The problem of the intelligentsia in Russia, its fate in the twentieth century. Motivation and consequences of the expulsion of the intelligentsia repressed in 1922. Modern Russian intelligentsia: the end of the twentieth century and today.

abstract, added 01/22/2008


The intelligentsia as a unique phenomenon of Russian culture, representatives. Consideration of the causes of religious schism. Radishchev as the first representative of the Russian intelligentsia from Berdyaev’s point of view. The influence of the revolutionary intelligentsia on the apparatus of power.

course work, added 12/16/2012


Studying the contribution of the serf intelligentsia to the development of Russian national culture. The emergence of the first professional theaters. Descriptions of famous writers, poets, architects who came from serfdom. Major representatives of Russian musical culture.

abstract, added 07/12/2015


Economic situation and social status of the Russian intelligentsia before and after the 1917 revolution. Socio-psychological type and political priorities of the Russian intelligentsia of the early twentieth century. The ideological influence of Marxism on the cultural layer of Russia.

test, added 12/17/2014


Formation of centers of Russian emigration abroad, reasons for departure and main directions of emigrant flows. Cultural centers of the Russian foreign community. Features of the life and activities of representatives of the Russian intelligentsia abroad.

test, added 04/29/2010


The concept of intelligentsia. Its special position in the province. Power and society. The intelligentsia is a moral example. Social activities of moral knights: teachers and doctors. Representatives of literature and art. Technical and military intelligentsia.

course work, added 07/05/2008


Biography of Alexander II, awarded a special epithet in Russian pre-revolutionary and Bulgarian historiography - Liberator. The activities of Alexander II as the greatest reformer of his time. Peasant reform (abolition of serfdom in 1861).

abstract, added 11/05/2015


A study of the position of the Orthodox Church during the reign of I. the Terrible, during the period of oprichnina terror. Metropolitans of the Russian Church in the 60-70s. XVI century. Monasteries and land holdings of the church during the oprichnina. Punitive measures against the Novgorod diocese.

test, added 06/18/2013


Reasons for the abolition of serfdom in 1861 during the reign of Emperor Alexander II. Institutions involved in preparing the reform. Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom. The meaning and results of the peasant reform, its contradictions.

presentation, added 10/11/2014


The theory of sovereignty, the church as a moral counterbalance to the Russian autocracy during the reign of Ivan IV. The significance of accepting the patriarchate and its role in the fight against impostors and Polish-Swedish invaders. Reforms of Patriarch Nikon and the beginning of the schism.

Alexander III made attempts to approach the resolution of issues of the development of industry and trade in Russia at a higher level, for this he attracted the country's scientific and industrial intelligentsia, as well as highly educated entrepreneurs who made a great contribution to the development of science and production. For example, in 1882 the All-Russian Exhibition took place in Moscow. An industrial congress was supposed to be timed to coincide with it, but two well-known societies - the “General Assistance to the Development of Industry and Trade” and the “Imperial Russian Technical Society” - that took part in organizing the 1872 congress were unable to agree; two congresses met, both in late summer of 1882. There were few industry representatives at these congresses. Officials and the emerging intelligentsia continued to dominate, especially those related to production: engineers, professors of technical schools, statisticians; but there were also Zemstvo people as representatives of agriculture and even writers. There were few industrialists, but they were more organized. For the first time, a new group that had recently been created, the organization of miners of the south of Russia, showed itself here.

One of the main issues discussed at both congresses was the issue of tariff policy. Protectionist sentiment was strong, but on the main issue of a duty on agricultural implements the free traders won. It is characteristic that the leaders at this congress were not farmers or factory owners, but intellectuals - representatives of science. The Agrarians were headed by Professor L.V. Khodsky, and industrialists Professor D.I. Mendeleev, but industrialists have already put forward a number of serious speakers who knew how to speak and knew what they wanted to say. These were: representative of the southern miners N.S. Avdakov, Moscow representative S.T. Morozov, Chairman of the Fair Committee G.A. Krestovikov.

In 1882, a congress of miners of the Kingdom of Poland also arose, which very quickly became one of the most influential organizations in Russia. It is followed by congresses of oil industrialists, which begin to meet in 1884. From the very beginning, this group was more syndicate than social in nature and was distinguished by a fierce struggle waged among the magnates of the oil industry - the firms of Nobel, Rothschild, Mantashev and other, smaller enterprises.

The congresses of Ural miners that existed since 1880 were a much less influential group, but the Permanent Advisory Office of Railway Workers (1887), which united metallurgical plants by region, immediately occupied a prominent place among other industrial organizations. The representative of the Moskovsky district, Yu.P., plays a large role in it. Alien, in the fight against the dictatorship of southern factories. During the reign of Alexander III, groups of flour millers, sugar refineries, distilleries, and manganese industrialists emerged. “No less interesting than congresses,” writes P.A. Berlin - represented the numerous shows that the Moscow bourgeoisie arranged for its ministers. New leaders continually appeared at the post of Minister of Trade and Industry, and each of them considered it their duty to go to Moscow and introduce themselves to its famous bourgeoisie. At the same time, speeches were invariably made both by the new minister and by representatives of the big bourgeoisie, and again in these speeches there were no sharpened and distinct political slogans, there was still the same constant petitioning part, but along with this there was also a tone that made the music of these congresses to representative ears, a tone of discontent and a desire for political change. In addition to the usual harassment and petitions, there were also unusual, although very vaguely expressed, demands for political reform.”

Thus, the factory and industrial intelligentsia, educated merchants and entrepreneurs had to adapt to the difficult life circumstances of the renewed time of the second half of the 19th century, therefore their business transactions were of a unique nature and were small in volume, designed for quick profits and were most often carried out on the basis of commodity exchange. The originality of the Russian merchants was most clearly manifested in their everyday habits; professional skills were passed on by inheritance: the merchants were not focused on receiving a special education. Russian commerce gravitated towards natural exchange of goods. From the point of view of money and credit, it remained until the middle of the nineteenth century at the level that Western Europe had overcome in the Middle Ages. The pre-capitalist nature of Russian commerce was also reflected in the fact that fairs occupied the most important place in trade; they existed until the end of the 19th century.

Merchants, industrial intelligentsia and entrepreneurs played a vital role in the cultural development of society, as they were engaged in charitable activities and invested heavily in science, culture and education.

In the working environment, leaders began to appear who directed the activities of the workers, made their speeches organized, aimed them at getting an education in order to competently conduct the struggle, be able to clearly and correctly explain the ideology of the speeches, be reasoned in conversations with the owners of factories and enterprises and not reduce confrontation with the government only leads to the removal of the king. One of the first Russian Marxists was G.P. Plekhanov, former Bakuninist and leader of the Black Redistribution. Other members of this organization also joined him: V.I. Zasulich, P.B. Axelrod, L.G. Deitch, V.N. Ignatov.

In 1883, meeting in Geneva, they united in the group “Liberation of Labor”. G.V. Plekhanov stated that the struggle for socialism also includes the struggle for political freedoms and a constitution. Contrary to Bakunin, he believed that the leading force in this struggle would be industrial workers. G.V. 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.” The immediate goal of the Russian socialists G.V. Plekhanov considered 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. In the same work, “Socialism and Political Struggle,” he put forward the thesis of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” which played a very sad role in the socialist movement.

In another work, “Our Disagreements,” G.V. 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 capitalism. 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 Disagreements” became a significant event in the development of Russian economic thought and in the social movement, although G.V. Plekhanov underestimated the resilience of the peasant community.

The Liberation of Labor group saw its main task in promoting Marxism in Russia and rallying forces to create a workers’ party. G.V. Plekhanov and V.I. Zasulich translated a number of works by K. Marx and F. Engels. The group managed to organize the publication of the “Workers' Library”, consisting of popular science and propaganda brochures. Whenever possible, they were transported to Russia. One after another, Marxist circles began to appear in Russia, in whose activities students actively participated.

One of the first - under the leadership of student Dimitar Blagoev - arose in 1883, 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, D. Blagoev was exiled to Bulgaria, but his group existed for another 2 years. In 1889, another group arose among students of the St. Petersburg Technological Institute, headed by M.I. Brusnev.

In 1888, a Marxist circle appeared in Kazan. Its organizer was N.E. Fedoseev, expelled from the gymnasium for “political unreliability.” In the fall of 1888, N.E. joined the circle. Fedoseev came V.I. Ulyanov. The young man was immediately attracted to Marxist teaching; it seemed to him that it carried such a charge that could blow up the entire unjust world. The first steps towards creating a strong and centralized organization V.I. Ulyanov undertook only in 1895.

The leaders of the labor movement also played a vital role in the political development of society, in the spiritual improvement of workers, and the growth of their consciousness and education.

In the 80-90s of the 19th century, the role of the scientific intelligentsia, publicists, writers and philosophers significantly revived and strengthened. This time is considered the heyday of conservative ideology. This political movement is openly promoted by Mikhail Nikiforovich Katkov. In 1884, in Moskovskie Vedomosti, he called on the government for “firm power capable of inspiring saving fear.” When the government of Alexander III introduced a new conservative university charter in 1884, M.N. Katkov proclaimed from the pages of his publication: “So, gentlemen, stand up: the government is coming, the government is returning!” . He warmly welcomed the policies of Alexander III and enjoyed the personal favor of the emperor.

Openly conservative beliefs were defended in the 80s by a representative of the literary intelligentsia, Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontyev (1831-1891), writer, publicist, literary critic, in the books “East, Russia and the Slavs” and “Our New Christians F.M. Dostoevsky and Count Leo Tolstoy." K.N. Leontyev named M.N. Katkov “our political Pushkin” and, unlike the latter, gave a religious and philosophical justification for the course of the government of Alexander III towards strong power and the suppression of both revolutionary and liberal free-thinking.

Philosophical views of K.N. Leontyev took shape under the influence of the Russian ideologist N.Ya. Danilevsky (1822-1885), who justified the government’s tough position and propagated the idea of ​​national superiority of the Russian people over other nations. Concept of N.Ya. Danilevsky justified the great power aspirations of tsarism. K.N. Leontyev and N.Ya Danilevsky, as representatives of the scientific intelligentsia, came to the court of Alexander III, since they were consistent and principled opponents of the very idea of ​​progress, which, from their point of view, brings the people closer to mixed simplification and death.

Representatives of the intelligentsia, guided by the liberal-populist theory of “small deeds,” believed that the intelligentsia should abandon revolutionary tasks and confine itself to cultural work in the countryside. A.P. Chekhov in his work “The House with a Mezzanine” showed how the absolutization of this theory spiritually robs the heroine of the story, Lida Volchaninova, who fanatically surrendered to it. However, in the “theory of small affairs” there was also a deep belief in culture and the fruitful significance of educational work. The conviction that an army of peaceful workers was needed, able to spread the benefits of culture everywhere, in the deepest and most helpless corners of the earth, was the idealistic side of the spirit of that era. It was the 80s that were characteristic for the final formation of “a type of unknown, prematurely worn out, always somewhat sad, but at the same time selfless and disinterested cultural workers who are scattered across the face of the Russian land and do their own little work.”

The time of deep disappointment in politics, in revolutionary forms of struggle against social evil, made Tolstoy’s preaching of moral self-improvement extremely relevant to part of the literary intelligentsia of Russia in the 80s-90s. It was in the 80s that the religious and ethical program for the renewal of life finally took shape in the philosophical and journalistic works of the great writer L.N. Tolstoy, and Tolstoyism became one of the popular social movements of the 80s of the nineteenth century. Religious and ethical system of L.N. Tolstoy is based on the doctrine of true life, the meaning of which is spiritual love-reverence, love for one’s neighbor as oneself. The more life is filled with such love, the closer a person is to its spiritual essence, which is God. Representations by L.N. Tolstoy's ideas about true life are concretized in the doctrine of moral self-improvement of man, which includes the five commandments of Christ from the Sermon on the Mount set out in the Gospel of Matthew. The basis of the self-improvement program is the commandment of non-resistance to evil through violence. Teachings of L.N. Tostogo was taken up by a significant part of the Russian intelligentsia of the 80s. Followers of L.N. Tolstoy left the cities, organizing agricultural colonies, and engaged in propaganda of Tolstoy’s ideas among the people among religious sectarians-Stundists, Pashkovites and others.

In the era of the 80s, a student of another thinker, Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov (1828-1903), began to gain popularity. His views are largely shared by F.M. Dostoevsky. Under the influence of N.F. Fedorov, the worldview of the Russian philosopher V.S. is formed. Solovyov and K.E Tsiolkovsky. At the heart of his book “Philosophy of the Common Cause” is a grandiose idea about man’s complete mastery of the mysteries of life, about victory over death and the achievement by mankind of unparalleled power and authority over the blind forces of nature.

From the point of view of N.F. Fedorov, “progress leading humanity to self-destruction and death must be stopped and turned in the other direction: towards knowledge of the historical past and mastery of the forces of nature that doom new generations of people to death.”

In the 80s, along with the democratic ideology of the intelligentsia, the philosophical aesthetics of Russian decadence appeared. A book by N.M. is published. Minsky “In the Light of Conscience”, in which the author preaches extreme individualism. The influence of Nietzschean ideas increases, Max Stirner with his book “The One and His Property” is brought out of oblivion and proclaimed almost an idol.

In the late 80s and early 90s, Russia was losing intellectuals of the revolutionary-democratic period one after another: M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, N.G ​​Chernyshevsky, Eliseev and others.

Thus, the Russian philosophical intelligentsia of the 80s-90s developed their ideas, disseminated among the educated segments of the population. Many philosophical ideas help Alexander III strengthen his power and influence the population of Russia.

Representatives of the industrial intelligentsia and entrepreneurs played a vital role in the cultural development of the entire society, as they were engaged in charitable activities and invested heavily in science, culture and education.

The scientific intelligentsia contributed to the development of science, the progress of industrial enterprises and trade in Russia. Truly, under Alexander III, Russia experienced an intellectual and cultural takeoff, which led simultaneously to the triumph of enlightenment and to the aesthetics of despair of the era of modernity and decadence.

INTELLIGENCE, AS WAS TOLD

Grows in attics and cellars

Russian spiritual greatness.

He'll come out and hang it on poles

Each other for the slightest difference.

I. Guberman

Some intellectuals use reason, others worship reason.

G.K. Chesterton

Raznochintsy

Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the number of nobles grew - the very core of the “Russian Europeans”... If in the era of Peter there were only about 100 thousand people, then by the beginning of the 19th century there were at least 500 thousand nobles, and by the beginning of the 20th century in the empire There are about 1,300 thousand people officially recognized as nobles. If in 1700 there were approximately 140 noble Russian people per nobleman, then by 1800 there were only 100–110 people, and in 1900 – 97–98 people. If we take only the Russian population, then by 1900 there were approximately 50 people per nobleman.

The state does not want to expand the number of the privileged class; Moreover, the nobility itself does not want this. But the state needs officials, officers and soldiers too much; the Table of Ranks pumps an ever-increasing percentage of the population into nobles.

During Peter's reign, the number of officials increased fourfold (despite the fact that the population as a whole decreased by 25%); from the time of Peter to the time of Catherine, the number of officials increased at least three times, with the population doubling, and from 1796 to 1857 the number of officials increased six times (with the population doubling over the same years). And not all of these new officials ended up among the nobles.

Initially, the government wanted not too many to become nobles from non-nobles. It wanted production from non-nobles to nobles to remain possible, but it would not be a system, but a rare exception.

This is stated quite openly in Peter’s Decree of January 31, 1724: “Do not appoint secretaries from among the nobility, so that they cannot become assessors, advisers and higher.”

Catherine II, by the Decree of 1790 “On the rules of promotion to civil ranks”, increases the ranks that give the right to hereditary nobility - now only VIII rank gives such a right, for promotion to which, moreover, noblemen need to serve only 4 years, but non-noblemen you must serve 12 years in class IX.

Paul I, by Decree of 1787 “On observation, when electing officials to positions, seniority and place of ranks,” confirmed the same rules, despite all his dislike for his mother’s undertakings.

Nicholas I literally stated the following: “My empire is ruled by twenty-five thousand chiefs,” and introduced the “Charter on Civil Service,” laws of 1827 and 1834, which determined the rules for entry into the service and promotion up the ladder of ranks. According to these laws, the time periods for ascending the ladder of ranks were different for nobles and non-nobles, and hereditary nobility was no longer given by the VIII, but by the V class.

Under Alexander II, from 1856, only those who reached class IV became a nobleman, and this class was bestowed only by the tsar personally. In 1856, even a special class of “honorary citizens” was introduced - officials who had served themselves; people seem to be respected, but still not nobles... As a result, if there were few non-noble officers in the 19th century, about 40% of the total officer corps, then in 1847 there were 61,548 officials with class ranks, and of these nobles - less than 25 thousand people.

And then there is the non-timetable bureaucracy - the lowest clerical employees who are not included in the timesheet and do not receive ranks: copyists, messengers, couriers and other very small, insignificant officials. Their number was a third or a quarter of all officials. In their ranks, the nobleman is an exception.

“As a result, by the beginning of the 19th century, a special social class of lower and middle bureaucrats had formed, within which the Thomas Opiskin family was reproduced from generation to generation.”

In 1857, 61.3% of officials were commoners. For the first time, the vague word “raznochinets” was used under Peter, in 1711. At the end of the 18th century, the authorities officially explained who they were - commoners: they included retired soldiers, their wives and children, children of priests and bankrupt merchants, minor officials (in short, those who could not gain a foothold on the rigid steps of the feudal hierarchy). They were forbidden to buy land and peasants or engage in trade. Their destiny is the bureaucratic service or “free professions” - doctors, teachers, journalists, lawyers, and so on.

The government of the Russian Empire itself created a layer located below the nobility, but possessing many of its privileges - albeit to a lesser extent. Since the time of Peter III, an official has the right to personal integrity - he will not be flogged for any offense. He can get a passport for traveling abroad, send his son to a gymnasium, and in old age he will be given an insignificant pension. And of course, the police will speak to the most intimidated Akaki Akakievich in a completely different way than to a non-official, non-service person.

An official can be very poor, he can vegetate in complete insignificance if we compare him with the rich and important ranks; but still, he is some kind of person, but a cog in the management mechanism of the huge Russian Empire, and everyone understands that he is still not some kind of person.

Service people shave, dress in frock coats, and by these signs they are “Russian Europeans.”

It would seem that this is about servicemen, and commoners are doctors, teachers, and artists. But the government is trying to extend its “official-uniform” privileges to those who, by the very meaning of their activities, should have had an independent status.

Paul I introduced the honorary titles of manfactory-counselor, equivalent to the VIII class. “Professors at the Academy” and “doctors of all faculties” were given the IX rank of titular adviser. The rank is low... Remember the famous song?

He was a titular councilor,

She is the general's daughter.

He timidly declared his love,

She sent him away.

The titular adviser went

And he drank out of grief all night.

And rushed around in a wine mist

Before him is the general's daughter.

Scientists are generally not highly valued; even Lomonosov only received the rank of V class from Catherine II at the end of his life - the rank of state councilor.

But they, too, are all shaven, all in frock coats and European-style shirts, they can all clearly pronounce “notebook” and “officer”, quite correctly.

So nobles are not necessarily nobles at all, this is the elite of the merchant class, or those who graduated from gymnasiums, universities, institutes... Every service person and everyone traditionally educated, since the time of Peter, is a “European” by definition. The government tried to ensure that everyone in this circle had a clear and unambiguous rank for everyone, to put them, so to speak, in the general order, to make them, as it were, officials of the Russian Empire... in the department of progress.

In the 18th century, even members of the Academy of Arts wore uniforms - so to speak, ministers of the muses. And for civilian (!) officials there were 7 options for official uniforms: dress, festive, ordinary, everyday, special, travel and summer - and there was a detailed schedule of which day to wear. The emperors personally did not hesitate to delve into the details of these uniforms, their insignia, methods of sewing and wearing.

No less attention is paid to the methods of titling.

Persons of classes I–II should be addressed as Your Excellency; to persons III–IV – Your Excellency. To officials with ranks V–VIII - your honor, and to all subsequent ones - your honor.

By the middle of the 19th century, it was finally determined that mainly hereditary nobles became high excellencies and excellencies. There are, of course, exceptions, but they are exceptions because they happen very rarely. The commoners crawl at best to the level of high nobility, and not all of them, only if they are lucky.

People of free professions

No matter how hard the government tries, it cannot create a harmonious feudal hierarchy, where it is always clear who is above whom. Life becomes more complicated and cannot be squeezed into this hierarchy. Lawyers, doctors, artists, writers, are often called “people of liberal professions” - they can work both for hire and as private entrepreneurs, selling their services.

In Europe, people of these professions perceive themselves as a special part of the burghers. In Russia they are trying to make them part of a state corporation. They themselves recognize themselves as a special group of society - the intelligentsia.

Intelligentsia

The writer Pyotr Dmitrievich Boborykin lived from 1836 to 1921. During his long, almost 85-year life, he wrote more than fifty novels and stories. He was praised, appreciated, awarded... But his literary merits were completely forgotten, and Boborykin went down in history as the creator of the word “intelligentsia”. He introduced this word into use in the 1860s, when he published the magazine “Library for Reading”.

The word comes from the Latin Intelligentsia or Intellegentia - understanding, knowledge, cognitive power. Intelligens is translated from Latin as knowing, understanding, thinking. The word intelligentsia immediately began to mean at least three different entities.

Firstly, all educated people in general. IN AND. Lenin called the intelligentsia “...all educated people, representatives of liberal professions in general, representatives of mental work... Unlike representatives of physical labor."

If so, then the intellectuals were kings, warriors and priests in Ancient Egypt and Babylon, medieval kings and monks, and in Ancient Rus' - not only the chronicler Nestor, but also princes Vladimir and Yaroslav. And what?! These princes are already literate, know languages, and even write legal texts and teachings for children.

Moreover, the intellectuals then were Peter I, all subsequent Russian tsars and most of their entourage. In the 18th–19th centuries, all officers and generals, all officials and priests should be included in this layer...

Vladimir Ilyich himself would not agree with such an interpretation, but this is how it turns out.

Secondly, the number of intellectuals included all cultural figures, the entire layer that creates and preserves cultural samples.

It is obvious that the creators of culture are not necessarily included in this social stratum, and it is necessary to create verbal monsters such as “noble intelligentsia”, “bourgeois intelligentsia” and even “peasant intelligentsia”. After all, Pushkin and Leo Tolstoy are creators of culture, but they have nothing to do with the intelligentsia as a social stratum. And since such a social stratum does not exist in any other country, then Kipling, and Galsworthy, and Balzac, just like Pushkin and Leo Tolstoy, are in one sense intellectuals, but in another they have nothing to do with the intelligentsia at all.

Pushkin’s letter to the famous Moscow University professor, historian and publicist Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin is known, and the letter contains the following words: “I regret that you have not yet dealt with Moscow University, which must sooner or later throw you out of its midst, for nothing alien can remain in no body. And scholarship, activity and intelligence are alien to Moscow University."

Pushkin as a persecutor of the intelligentsia?!

Go figure...

Thirdly, the intelligentsia began to be called “the social stratum of people professionally engaged in mental, primarily. complex, creative work, development and dissemination of culture."

This definition is somewhat more difficult to understand... Indeed, what kind of work should be considered sufficiently complex and creative? Who is considered the developer and disseminator of culture?

By this definition, one can deny the right to be called intellectuals to Pushkin and Leo Tolstoy - for them, fees were only one of the sources of income. Professionals – but not really...

Or you can exclude engineers from the list of intellectuals: decide that they do not develop culture.

In a word, this definition opens the way to any arbitrariness. It is not for nothing that the mentioned combinations such as “noble intelligentsia”, “feudal intelligentsia”, “technical intelligentsia” or “creative intelligentsia” appeared. In general, clarification is needed.

There are some other difficulties...

First: not everyone who was ready to be considered an intelligentsia by the intellectuals themselves wanted to treat it that way. For example, in 1910, students of the Electrotechnical Institute got into a violent fight with students of the University - they did not want to be called intellectuals. "We are working! - the students - future engineers - proudly declared. “We are workers, not the intelligentsia!”

Second: those who did not want to be allowed in were constantly trying to get into the intelligentsia: for example, rural obstetricians, paramedics, telegraph operators, machinists, station guards (in the sense of those on the railway). And what?! Their work is something that still needs to be learned, mental work; who dares to say that this work is not creative and difficult?! Moreover, they live in the midst of the people, differ little from them and, probably, bring culture to them.

True, the intelligentsia, who have higher education and live in cities, have a difficult attitude towards this intelligentsia... Even more difficult than the nobility treated the intelligentsia - that is, they strongly doubt both its culture and its differences from the people... Even if they recognize this intelligentsia , then with reservations: they say, this is “rural intelligentsia” or “local intelligentsia”. I even heard about the “railway intelligentsia.”

And doubts of this kind do not contribute to the consolidation of forces and the unification of the entire social stratum.

Fourthly, a certain layer of “fighters against autocracy” was often called the intelligentsia.

Very often those who devoted themselves to “building a new society”, “destroying the old dark world”, “fighting oppression”, “fighting for the working peasantry”, and so on, called themselves intellectuals. Now in Russia this category of people is most associated with Marxists and Social Democrats. But Russia was full of Narodnaya Volya members, from whom the Socialist Revolutionaries gradually grew, and anarchists of various directions, and nationalists from Russian Black Hundreds to Ukrainian supporters of Petlyura or Pilsudski.

That is, ideologically this group is incredibly diverse and fluid. All the time, new parties and parties, some groups and groupings arise, “directions” are spun off and “teachings” are created... But in the main this category is very similar... In each “teaching” and “direction” they consider only themselves to be right, and not only right, but simply the only decent, honest and decent people. Phrases like “Every decent person should!” or “All self-respecting people...” (after which an incredible prejudice is expressed) - this is only an external manifestation of their incredible, indecent aggressiveness.

Each “order of fighters for something” is extremely aggressive towards all other orders, and towards everyone who is not a member of any order at all. Each order considers itself, and only itself, to be the intelligentsia... At the very least, others who are ideologically close, but classify as the intelligentsia someone who does not “fight” at all - this is beyond their strength!

These “orders of fighters” created a bad reputation for the word “intelligentsia” and for anyone who wants to define themselves by this word. It is precisely those whom the “order of fighters” would willingly take as a kind of living banner—the famous and famous, that very “culture-bearing layer”—who are beginning to disown the intelligentsia.

It became widely known that the famous poet Afanasy Fet started a habit: while driving around Moscow, he ordered the coachman to stop near Moscow University and, carefully lowering the window, spat in the direction of the “citadel of knowledge.” It is unlikely that this has anything to do with Fet’s particular “reactionality” or his obscurantism. Rather, it turns out that, from Fet’s point of view, Moscow University was precisely the breeding ground for obscurantism...

But the most widespread disavowal of Russian intellectuals from the intelligentsia is associated with the collection “Vekhi,” the origin of which is as follows: the publishers ordered articles about the intelligentsia from several of the most famous scientists and publicists of that time. Let me emphasize once again: all future authors of “Vekhi” are famous, bright people, the word “famous” or “outstanding” is firmly added to the surname of each of them. Statements by the authors of “Vekhi”: S.N. Bulgakova, M.O. Gershenzon, A.S. Izgoeva, B.A. Kistyakovsky, P.B. Struve, N.A. Berdyaev is the voice of those whom the “avant-garde of the revolutionary masses” would very much like to consider “our own.” But who, with poorly hidden disgust, did not want to be “one of our own”. I will not quote “Vekhi”, referring those interested to the original source. I highly recommend reading “Vekhi” - it’s an impressive book, and the desire to be called an “intellectual” immediately becomes less.

Fifthly, the intelligentsia began to be called the same social stratum of Russian Europeans that arose back in the 18th century: lower than the nobility, but incomparably higher than the people.

The “layer” itself really liked this definition.

Can the work of a copyist or even a collegiate assessor, a rank of VIII class, be called very creative? How much culture was developed and spread by a dentist or gynecologist in the city of Przemysl or Bryansk - judge for yourself. But how does it sound!

In the future, we will talk about the intelligentsia in only one meaning of the word: as a social stratum.

So: from the very beginning, the intelligentsia very clearly realized and stipulated in many texts that they were in no way the nobility! This was extremely important for the intelligentsia!

But in the same way, the intelligentsia also knew that they were not the people. She rooted for the people, wanted their enlightenment, liberation and introduction to cultural values...

But the intelligentsia itself is not the people, it knows this very precisely. Previously, back in the 18th century, there was a formula that was even included in official documents: “nobility and people.” Now “the intelligentsia and the people” are emerging.

Growth in the number of intelligentsia

According to the 1897 census, the intelligentsia in the Russian Empire numbered 870 thousand people. Of these, 4 thousand engineers, 3 thousand veterinarians, 23 thousand employees on the boards of roads and shipping companies, 13 thousand telegraph and postal officials, 3 thousand scientists and writers, 79.5 thousand teachers, 68 thousand private teachers, 11 thousand tutors and governesses , 18.8 thousand doctors, 49 thousand paramedics, pharmacists and midwives, 18 thousand artists, actors and musicians, there were 151 thousand employees of the state civil administration, 43.7 thousand generals and officers.

421 thousand people worked in the management apparatus of industry and landowners' farms.

However, not all officials, and especially the military, would agree to call themselves intelligentsia.

By 1917, in just 20 years, the number of intelligentsia had doubled and reached one and a half million people. The intelligentsia was extremely unevenly distributed throughout the country. In Central Asia, there were 4 times fewer doctors per 10 thousand inhabitants than in European Russia. The density of the intelligentsia was concentrated in the cities, but St. Petersburg and Moscow no longer played the absolute role that they had in the early to mid-19th century.

Among rural teachers, the number of people from peasants and bourgeoisie by 1917 increased six times compared to 1880 and amounted to almost 60% of all rural teachers.

Intelligentsia in other countries

Actually, the word “intelligentsia” is known in Europe, but only one country in Europe uses this word in the same sense: Poland. There, even such famous people as Mr. Adam Michnik or Mr. Jerzy Pomianowski call themselves intellectuals.

That is, some people liked to be intellectuals: those “progressive” and “advanced” who call for a “cleansing storm” and for “building a bright future.” The Frenchman Jean-Paul Sartre and the American Jew Howard Fast called themselves intellectuals.

Others, like H.G. Wells or Thomas Veblen, spoke of the special role of the intelligentsia in the world. Allegedly, it is replacing the capitalist class, and in the future, smart people, learned intellectuals will push the bourgeoisie out of power and become the government of the world. For them, the word “intelligentsia” also turned out to be convenient.

During a conversation with Herbert Wells, Comrade Stalin explained that “capitalism will be destroyed not by the “organizers” of production, not by the technical intelligentsia, but by the working class, because this layer does not play an independent role.”

Why did Stalin think that the working class plays an independent role is a separate question, and it’s not me who should be asking it.

But it was not possible to carry out explanatory work with all the intellectuals. A descendant of immigrants from Russia, the American physicist Isaac (Isaac) Asimov, escaped it. In his science fiction books, he created a world of the future, where all events and prospects are counted, taken into account and controlled from the standpoint of reason by incredibly smart scientists.

But, of course, the vast majority of European intellectuals will not even think of becoming intellectuals. They are perplexed about this word: they understand that their intellectuals and Russian intellectuals are not exactly the same thing. It’s more difficult to express what the difference is. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines intelligentsia as: “A special type of Russian intellectual, usually in opposition to the government.”

Throughout Europe, and then throughout the world, the word “intelligentsia” is applied mainly to the countries of the “third world” - to countries of catching up modernization. So they write: “intelligentsia of the Ibo people”, or “intelligentsia of Malaysia”. There really is an intelligentsia there, very similar to the Russian one! Just as the Russian intelligentsia was not bourgeois, but patriarchal, so this one is patriarchal.

But most importantly, like the Russian intelligentsia of the 19th century, the intelligentsia in Malaysia, Nigeria, India and Indonesia are a bunch of people who have become part of European culture. They are local Europeans surrounded by a sea of ​​natives. There are still few of them, society is in dire need of qualifications and competence - therefore everyone is valuable; These people occupy an important, visible position in society. But overall, this situation is ambiguous and fragile. Every country of “catch-up modernization” is in a kind of unstable, suspended state: no longer patriarchal, not yet industrial.

Those who have become an enclave of modernization in such a rapidly changing country are even more divided. After all, the split runs through their souls. They are Europeans and natives at the same time. Europeans are civilizational; natives - by their place of birth, by belonging to their people.

Like the Russians, every local intelligentsia is raging, giving a bunch of ideas, politicking, trying to “show the right path.” After all, the country’s path has not yet been determined, it is unclear, and there is room to chart a course.

In the middle - end of the 20th century, the same thing is happening in many countries that happened in Russia a century earlier.

Intelligentsia and nobility

At the beginning of the 19th century, there was only one layer of Russian Europeans. In the mid-19th century there are two of them, and they don’t particularly like each other. The nobles consider the intelligentsia... well, let's put it bluntly - they consider them not cultured enough.

According to the rather witty definition of Chamberlain D.N. Lyubimov, the intelligentsia is “a layer between the people and the nobility, devoid of the good taste inherent in the people.”

A.K. Tolstoy simply mocked the intelligentsia, ranging from the relatively innocent:

Stood in the corner, shabby and lonely,

Some kind of college registrar.

And right down to “...it gives me pleasure to publicly express my way of thinking and piss off the bastard.”

As they say, short and clear.

The intelligentsia did not remain in debt, calling the nobles “satraps”, “exploiters”, “reactionaries” and “holdings”, not only in private conversations, but also in completely official writings. Citizen Pisarev stated that “Pushkin is no taller than boots,” as they say, “in all seriousness.” After all, Pushkin is a nobleman and did not reflect the aspirations of the working people.

During the funeral of A. Nekrasov, he was compared to Pushkin... They say that in some respects he was no lower. And then - a multi-voiced cry: “Higher! He was much taller!” Back in the 1950s and 1960s, one could meet old people from the Narodnaya Volya intelligentsia, who didn’t give a damn about Pushkin, but adored Nekrasov and constantly sang songs based on his poems.

New split consciousness

And with all this, the same duality of consciousness immediately falls on the intellectual - the Russian European - as on the nobleman. He also gets used to scolding the country from which he was born and which he loves, to serve what he regards with irony.

But the intellectual has another “split”: he is a European, but he is a recent descendant of the natives. Almost all the privileges of the nobility extend to the intellectual - but he has not very distant ancestors to whom these privileges did not extend at all.

The intellectual quite sincerely feels a spiritual homeland in the estates of the old nobility, admires the genius of the great writers with the historical names Tolstoy, Pushkin and Turgenev. We are Russian Europeans, and the history of all Russian Europeans is our history. We are invisibly present during Lomonosov’s disputes with Bayer, and at the meeting of the first graduates of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum...

Sooner or later, we all realize this very harshly: part of the history of Russian Europeans took place without us and our ancestors. Lomonosov argued with Bayer, the lyceum students shouted “Vivat” and drank champagne - and our ancestors at that time were natives. Perhaps they accepted what was happening to them as the norm, as something natural. But we cannot consider as something natural either the parade alle of brides and grooms lining up according to height, or a greyhound puppy at a woman’s breast.

Try to imagine your great-great-great-grandmother nursing this puppy or that she is being flogged in the same legendary master's stable. Personally, I’m not doing well: I’m starting to feel dizzy.

I remember well the moment when I took my girlfriend around Trigorskoye, the estate of A.S.’s friends. Pushkin. There is now a historical and landscape reserve there, and an expedition worked there: they were excavating the Voronich settlement, which Pushkin so loved to visit. My friend arrived later, I showed her the park, the manor house, the bends of Soroti, the excavations of the famous settlement...

“You know, I’m still somehow looking with my eyes to see where the master’s stable was here...” my friend quietly dropped at the end of the day.

This was exactly my feeling. Moreover, I remember the history of my family from the era of Alexander I. They were no longer serfs in that era. My friend is a third-generation peasant woman, and her ancestors never lived in Trigorskoye. So this memory is not family, not blood. This is the memory of one's class. That part of the people to which the intelligentsia or descendants of intellectuals belong.

We are Russian Europeans, there are no words... but we are different from the nobles. And many things separate us from the nobles. Even in the 21st century, some stone still remains in one’s bosom.

Intelligentsia and people

But in one thing, at least in one thing, the nobility and the intelligentsia were deeply united - in their attitude towards the people. The dispute was only about who would lead this very people: the nobility or the intelligentsia? Or one of the “orders of struggle for something there”?

The nobility led the people to the bright heights of progress, beating them to make them understand: the survivors will later appreciate it, the beaten will learn.

The intelligentsia can say whatever they want, but they do the same thing. The same claims to leadership, to possession of the highest cultural values, to knowledge “how it should be done.” The same despotic demand for the “people” to be remade in the intelligentsia’s way. The same attitude towards the main part of the people as natives subject to re-education.

From the book The Great Civil War 1939-1945 author

Civil war, as it was said According to the underground Oryol regional committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, in July 1942, 60 partisan detachments with a total number of 25,240 people operated in the Oryol region. According to German data, directly against Lokotskaya

author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

EMPIRE, AS WAS TOLD Peter I called his state an empire. Rather, he was wishful thinking. Under Elizabeth, the Russian Empire won the Seven Years' War and emerged as a powerful European power. They began to take her into account. They began to fear her. Imperial

From the book The Truth about Catherine’s “Golden Age” author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

NATIVES, AS WAS TOLD But complete and depressing lack of rights is only one of the troubles that befell the bulk of the people... and maybe not even the most terrible evil. Apparently, even more terrible in their situation was to belong to the category of natives, behind

From the book The Worst Russian Tragedy. The truth about the Civil War author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

Chapter 5 APPARATUS, AS WAS TOLD Those who felt good In the winter of 1917/18, at least a million people out of the three million former population fled from Petrograd. Tens of thousands of people died of hunger and cold in their unheated apartments. The city's sewer system did not work and

From the book Russia, washed in blood. The worst Russian tragedy author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

Chapter 5 Apparatus, as it was said Those who felt good In the winter of 1917/18, at least a million people out of the three million former population fled from Petrograd. Tens of thousands of people died of hunger and cold in their unheated apartments. The city's sewer system did not work and

From the book Russia under the old regime author Pipes Richard Edgar

From the book “Jewish Dominance” - fiction or reality? The most taboo topic! author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

Lords of the world, as was said. In Russia, a kind of “sealed steamer” on which Leon Trotsky and his company traveled to Russia in 1917 is still surrounded by a great mystery. Even the lazy one hasn’t written about the “sealed carriage”, but what about the steamship? The same

author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

Natives, as was said By the middle - end of the 18th century, the Russian people were clearly divided into two... well, if not into two peoples in the true sense, then at least into two, as scientists say, subethnic groups. Each of them has everything that a real person should have

From the book Non-Russian Rus'. Millennial Yoke author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

Stability, as it was said Since the time of Catherine, any new monarch will have to deal with this thickness: with a multitude of organized, armed people who know how to get together and choose their leaders. With owners of almost all land aware of their rights and interests and

From the book Project Russia. Choosing a path author author unknown

Chapter 9 Intelligentsia When considering and analyzing one of the key problems of our time - the place and role of the intelligentsia in strengthening or destroying the moral foundations of society, we proceeded from impartiality and tried to be objective. Ready to listen to everyone's opinion

From the book Russian Revolution. The agony of the old regime. 1905-1917 author Pipes Richard Edgar

From the book Forbidden Rurik. The truth about the “calling of the Varangians” author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

Varangian Rurik, as was said. Specifically, “our” Rurik is sometimes identified with King Rerik of Hedeby in modern Denmark. Little is known about him - mainly that he died before 882. According to another version, Rurik is Eirik Emundarson, the king of the Swedish state with

From the book The Forbidden Truth about Russians: Two Nations author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

Chapter 3 INTELLIGENCE, AS WAS TOLD, Russian spiritual greatness is growing in attics and cellars. They'll come out and hang each other on poles for the slightest difference. I. Guberman Some intellectuals use reason, others worship reason. G.K.

From the book The Roswell Mystery author Shurinov Boris

Chapter 21. From “it was - it was not” to the search for the site of the disaster And if we assume that the seller of the film document does not confuse anything by calling Socorro-Magdalene, are we trying to deceive ourselves and link the film to an incident that is now relatively well known to us? For

From the book Routes: Russian schoolchildren about migrations, evacuations and deportations of the twentieth century author Shcherbakova Irina Viktorovna

“All this was, was, was...” The fate of a family of special settlers from the Lower Volga region Anna Molchanova, Anna Noskova P. Pervomaisky, Sysolsky district of the Komi Republic, scientific supervisor T.A. Popkova About the concept of the work and the authors of the memoirsFor several years in a row, we, two

From the book Impatience of Thought, or Historical Portrait of the Radical Russian Intelligentsia author Romanovsky Sergey Ivanovich