The initial period of the reign of Alexander III. After the death of Alexander II, his second son Alexander III (1881-1894) entered the throne. A man of rather ordinary abilities, conservative views, he did not approve of many of his father's reforms and did not see the need for serious changes (primarily in solving the key issue - providing the peasants with land, which could significantly strengthen the social support of the autocracy). At the same time, Alexander III was not without natural common sense and, unlike his father, had a stronger will.
Shortly after the assassination of Alexander II, which sowed panic in higher circles, the leaders of the "Narodnaya Volya" were arrested. April 3, 1881 involved in the assassination attempt on the late emperor SL. Perovskaya, A. I. Zhelyabov, N. I. Kibalchich, N. I. Rysakov and T. M. Mikhailov were hanged, and G. M. Gelfman soon died in prison.
On March 8 and 21, meetings of the Council of Ministers were held at which the Loris-Melikov project was discussed. Ober-prosecutor of the Holy Synod, former educator of Alexander III and a prominent conservative K.P. Pobedonostsev sharply opposed the project, considering it a prototype of the constitution. And although the project guards made up the majority, Alexander III postponed its consideration, after which they did not return to him.
April 29, 1881 the royal manifesto written by Pobedonostsev came out. It talked about protecting the autocracy from any "treachery", that is, against constitutional changes. Seeing in the manifesto hints of refusal of reforms in general, liberal ministers - D.A. Milyutin, M.T. Loris-Melikov, A.A. Abaza (Minister of Finance) resigned. Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich was removed from the leadership of the fleet.
V.K. Pleve became the director of the Police Department, which replaced III Division, and in 1884 I.P. Durnovo The political search was led by Lieutenant Colonel G.P. Sudeikin, who was largely assisted by the revolutionaries, especially S.P. . Degayev, almost completely defeated the "People’s Will." True, in December 1883 he himself was killed by Degas. who considered his cooperation with the police unprofitable, but this, of course, could no longer save the revolutionary movement.
In parallel with the police in March, the “Sacred Squad” that emerged in March 1881 fought with the revolutionaries, which included more than 700 officials, generals, bankers, including P. A. Shuvalov, S. Yu. Witte, B. V. Shturmer S with the help of their own agents, this voluntary organization tried to undermine the revolutionary movement. But already at the end of 1881, Alexander III ordered the dissolution of the "Sacred Squad", the existence of which indirectly spoke of the authorities' inability to cope with "sedition" on their own.
In August 1881, according to the "Regulation on Measures to Preserve Public Order and Public Peace", the Minister of the Interior and the provincial authorities received the right to arrest, expel and bring to trial suspicious persons, close educational institutions and take prisoners, ban newspapers, etc. . Any locality could be declared virtually in a state of emergency. Introduced for 3 years, the “Regulation” has been extended more than once and was valid until 1917.
But the authorities were not limited to repression alone, trying to carry out certain positive changes. The first government of Alexander III included several liberal ministers, primarily Minister of the Interior N.P. Ignatiev and Finance N.X. Bunge. Their activities are associated with such measures as the abolition in 1881 of the temporarily liable position of peasants, the reduction of redemption payments, the gradual abolition of heavy poll tax. In November 1881, a commission headed by former Loris-Melikov M. S. Kakhanov began work on a draft local government reform. However, in 1885 the commission was dismissed, and its activities had no real results.
In April 1882, Ignatiev proposed that Alexander III convene the Zemsky Sobor in May 1883, which was to confirm the inviolability of the autocracy. This aroused sharp criticism of Pobedonostsev, and the tsar, who did not want any elected representation, was dissatisfied. In addition, the autocracy, in his opinion, needed no confirmation. As a result, in May 1882, N.P. Ignatiev was replaced by the conservative D.A. Tolstoy as Minister of the Interior.
The period of counter-reforms. Ignatiev’s resignation and his replacement by Tolstoy marked a departure from the policy of moderate reforms carried out in 1881-1882 and a transition to the offensive against the transformations of the previous reign. True, it was only a question of “correcting” the “extremes” admitted under Alexander II, which, in the opinion of the Tsar and his entourage, were “alien” in the Russian environment. Relevant measures were called counter-reforms.
In May 1883, during the coronation celebrations, Alexander III delivered a speech to representatives of peasant self-government - volost foremen, in which he urged them to follow the "advice and guidance of their leaders of the nobility" and not rely on "free cuts" to allotments of peasants. This meant that the government intends to continue to rely on the “noble” estate, which did not have a historical perspective, and does not want to solve the country's most important problem - the land.
The first serious counter-reform was the university charter of 1884, which severely limited the autonomy of universities and increased tuition fees.
In July 1889, the implementation of the Zemstvo counter-reform began. Contrary to the opinion of the majority of members of the State Council, the post of Zemstvo chiefs was introduced to replace the mediators and justices of the peace. They were appointed by the Minister of the Interior from among the hereditary nobles and could approve and dismiss representatives of peasant self-government, impose punishments, including corporal, solve land disputes, etc. All this created great opportunities for arbitrariness, strengthened the power of the nobles over the peasants and in no way did not improve the work of zemstvo bodies.
In June 1890, the "Regulation on Provincial and County Zemstvo Institutions" was adopted. It introduced the class principle of elections to zemstvos. The first curia was noble, the second urban, the third peasant. For noblemen, the property qualification decreased, for representatives of cities it increased. As for the representatives from the peasants, they were appointed by the governor from among the candidates elected by the peasants. However, again having encountered opposition from the majority of the State Council, Alexander III refrained from completely eliminating the electiveness and omnipotence of the Zemstvo bodies.
In 1892, a new city position was adopted, according to which the election qualification was increased, and the mayor and members of the city government became public servants subordinate to the governors.
For several years, counter-reforms in the area of \u200b\u200bthe court were stretched. In 1887, the Ministers of the Interior and Justice received the right to declare the court closed, the property and educational qualifications for the jury increased. In 1889, cases of crimes against the administrative order, official crimes, etc. were removed from the jurisdiction of the jury. However, the publicity of the majority of the courts, the adversarial nature of the judges remained valid, and the plans of the Minister of Justice appointed in 1894 in 1894 N .V. Muravieva on the complete revision of the judicial charters of 1864 was prevented by the death of Alexander III.
Censorship policy tightened. According to the “Provisional Rules on the Press,” adopted in August 1882, the ministries of internal affairs, education, and the Synod could close “seditious” newspapers and magazines. Publications that received a warning from the authorities were subject to preliminary censorship. Special circulars forbade press coverage of topics such as the labor issue, land redistribution, problems of educational institutions, the 25th anniversary of the abolition of serfdom, and the actions of the authorities. Under Alexander III, the liberal newspapers Strana, Golos, Moskovsky Telegraph, and the journal Domestic Notes edited by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin were closed, with a total of 15 publications. Non-periodical press was also persecuted, although not as severe as newspapers and magazines. In total, in 1881-1894. 72 books were banned - from the freethinker L.N. Tolstoy to the completely conservative N.S. Leskov. The "seditious" literature was withdrawn from the libraries: the works of L.N. Tolstoy, N.A. Dobrolyubov, V. G. Korolenko, the issues of the Sovremennik magazines for 1856-1866, and the "Domestic Notes" for 1867-1884. more than 1,300 plays were banned.
The policy of Russification of the outskirts of the empire and infringement of local autonomy was actively pursued. In Finland, instead of the previous financial autonomy, the mandatory acceptance of Russian coins was introduced, the rights of the Finnish Senate were cut. In Poland, now called not the Kingdom of Poland, but the Privislen region, compulsory teaching in Russian was introduced, the Polish Bank was closed. The policy of Russification was actively pursued in Ukraine and Belarus, where virtually no literature was published in national languages, the Uniate Church was persecuted. In the Baltic states, local judicial and administrative bodies were actively replaced by general imperial ones, the population converted to Orthodoxy, the German language of the local elite was supplanted. The policy of Russification was carried out in Transcaucasia; The Armenian Church was persecuted. Orthodoxy was forcibly introduced among Muslims and pagans of the Volga and Siberia. In 1892-1896 the Multan case, fabricated by the authorities, was charged with accusing the Udmurt peasants of making human sacrifices to pagan gods (as a result, the defendants were acquitted).
The rights of the Jewish population, whose residence the government sought to limit the so-called "Pale of Settlement," were limited. Their residence in Moscow and the Moscow province was limited. Jews were banned from acquiring property in the countryside. In 1887, Minister of Education I.P. Delyanov reduced the admission of Jews to higher and secondary educational institutions.
Social movement. After the assassination of Alexander II, the liberals sent an address to the new Tsar condemning the terrorists and expressed hope for the completion of the reforms, which, however, did not happen. In the context of the intensified reaction, oppositional sentiments among ordinary Zemstvo employees — doctors, teachers, and statisticians — are growing. More than once Zemstvo leaders tried to act outside their powers, which led to clashes with the administration.
The more moderate part of the liberals preferred to refrain from manifestations of opposition. The influence of liberal populists grew (N.K. Mikhailovsky, N.F. Danielson, V.P. Vorontsov). They called for reforms to improve the lives of the people, and above all for the elimination of landlord tenure. At the same time, the liberal populists did not approve of the revolutionary methods of struggle and preferred cultural and educational work, acting through the press (the magazine Russian Wealth), Zemstvos, and public organizations.
However, in general, government oppression (often quite meaningless) stimulated discontent among the intelligentsia and contributed to its transition to radical positions.
The chief ideologists of the reaction are the chief public prosecutor of the Synod, K. P. Pobedonostsev, the chief editor of the Moscow Gazette and the Russian Bulletin, M. N. Katkov, and the editor of the Citizen magazine, V. P. Meshchersky. They condemned liberal transformations, defended the narrowly understood identity of Russia, and welcomed the counter-reforms of Alexander III. “Stand up, gentlemen,” Katkov gloatedly wrote about the counter-reforms. “The government is coming, the government is returning.” Meshchersky was supported, including financially, by the guy himself.
In the revolutionary movement there is a crisis associated with the defeat of the "People’s Will." True, disparate populist groups continued to operate after that. The circle of P. Ya. Shevyrev - A.I. Ulyanov (V.I. Lenin's brother) even prepared an assassination attempt on Alexander III on March 1, 1887, which ended with the arrest and execution of five conspirators. Many revolutionaries generally abandoned the old methods of struggle, advocating an alliance with the liberals. Other revolutionaries, disillusioned with Narodism with its naive hopes for the peasantry, were more and more imbued with the ideas of Marxism. In September 1883, the former members of the "Black Redistribution" who lived in Switzerland - P. B. Axelrod, G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Zasulich, L. G. Deich - created the Social Democratic group "Emancipation of Labor" , which began to publish Marxist literature in Russian and laid the theoretical foundations of Russian social democracy. Her most prominent figure was G.V. Plekhanov (1856-1918). In his works Socialism and Political Struggle and Our Differences, he criticized the Narodniks and pointed to Russia's unpreparedness for the socialist revolution. Plekhanov considered it necessary to form a Social Democratic Party and to carry out a bourgeois-democratic revolution, which would create economic prerequisites for the victory of socialism.
Since the mid-80s, Marxist circles have also arisen in Russia itself in St. Petersburg, Odessa, Kiev, Kharkov, Kazan, Vilno, Tula, and others. Among them stood out the circles of D. N. Blagoev, N. E. Fedoseev, M. I. Brusnev, P.V. Tochissky. They read and distributed Marxist literature, propaganda among the workers, but their significance was still small.
Working question. The situation of workers in Russia, the number of which increased markedly compared to the pre-reform period, was difficult: there were no labor protection, social insurance, restrictions on working hours, but an almost uncontrolled system of fines, low-paid female and child labor, mass layoffs, and lower prices were common. All this led to labor conflicts and strikes.
In the 80s, the government began to take measures to regulate relations between workers and employers. In 1882, the use of labor by minors was limited, and a factory inspection was created to oversee this. In 1884, the law introduced training for children working in factories.
An important milestone in the development of the strike movement and working legislation was the strike at the Morozov Nikolsky manufactory in Orekhovo-Zuevo in January 1885. It was organized in advance, 8 thousand people took part in it, it was led by P. A. Moiseenko and V. S. Volkov . Workers demanded that the manufacturer streamline the system of fines, the rules for dismissal, and the government - to limit the arbitrariness of employers. More than 600 people were deported to their native villages, 33 were put on trial, but acquitted (Moiseenko and Volkova, however, were deported after the trial by administrative procedure).
However, the government satisfied part of the demands of the workers. Already in June 1885, the exploitation of women and children at night was prohibited, the system of fines was regulated, the proceeds of which were now directed not to the employer, but to the needs of the workers themselves, the procedure for hiring and dismissing workers was regulated. The powers of the factory inspection expanded, provincial presences for factory affairs were created.
A wave of strikes swept through the enterprises of Moscow and Vladimir provinces, Petersburg, and Donbass. These and other strikes forced manufacturers in some cases to raise wages, reduce working hours, and improve the living conditions of workers.
Foreign policy.During the reign of Alexander III, Russia did not wage wars, which earned the tsar the glory of a “peacemaker." This was due both to the ability to play on the contradictions between the European powers and general international stability, and to the emperor’s hostility to wars. The Foreign Minister of Alexander III was executed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs N.K. Gire, who did not play an independent role, like Gorchakov.
Having ascended the throne, Alexander III continued to establish ties with Germany, the most important trading partner and potential ally in the struggle against England. In June 1881 Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary renewed the Union of Three Emperors for 6 years. The parties promised to maintain neutrality in the event of a war between one of them and the fourth power. At the same time, Germany entered into a secret agreement with Austria-Hungary against Russia and France. In May 1882, Italy joined the union of Germany and Austria-Hungary, who was promised assistance in the event of her war with France. So in the center of Europe formed the Triple Alliance.
The “Union of Three Emperors” brought Russia certain benefits in its rivalry with England. In 1884, Russian troops completed the conquest of Turkmenistan and approached the borders of Afghanistan, which was under the protectorate of England; from here it was close at hand to the main British colony - India. In March 1885, a clash took place between the Russian detachment and the Afghan forces, led by British officers. The Russians won. England, seeing this as a threat to its Indian possessions, threatened Russia with war, but could not put together an anti-Russian coalition in Europe. Support for Russia from Germany and Austria-Hungary, who did not want to strengthen England too much, played a role in this. Their position helped Alexander III to get Turkey to close the Black Sea straits for the British fleet, which protected the south of Russia from him. England had to recognize the Russian conquests in Central Asia. Already in 1885, the Russian-Afghan border began to be drawn up by Russian-English commissions.
Under Alexander III, Russia's position in the Balkans weakened. In 1881, a pro-German group came to power in Bulgaria. In 1883, Bulgaria entered into an agreement with Austria-Hungary. In 1885, Alexander III opposed the accession to Bulgaria (in violation of the decisions of the Berlin Congress) of East Rumelia, although he threatened Turkey that he would not tolerate its invasion of Rumelia. In 1886, after the pro-Austrian regime came to power in Bulgaria, Russia tore relations with her In this conflict, Germany and Austria-Hungary did not support Russia, because they themselves wanted to strengthen their position in the Balkans. After 1887, the Union of the Three Emperors did not resume.
In the worsening relations with France, Bismarck signed a “reinsurance contract” with Russia in 1887 for 3 years. The neutrality of Russia was envisaged in the event of the French attack on Germany and the neutrality of Germany in the attack on Russia by Austria-Hungary. Then in 1887, Alexander III managed to keep Germany from attacking France, the defeat of which would unnecessarily strengthen Germany. This led to an aggravation of Russian-German relations and an increase in both countries of import duties on each other's goods. In 1893, a real customs war broke out between the two countries.
In conditions of enmity with England, Germany and Austria-Hungary, Russia needed an ally. They became France, which was constantly threatened by German aggression. As early as 1887, France began to provide Russia with large loans that helped stabilize Russian finances. Significant were French investments in the Russian economy.
In August 1891, Russia and France signed a secret agreement on joint actions in the event of an attack on one of them. In 1892, a draft military convention was developed, providing for the number of troops on both sides in case of war. The Russo-French alliance was finally formed in January 1894. It seriously changed the balance of power in Europe, splitting it into two military-political groups.
Socio-economic development. Under Alexander III, measures were taken to modernize the economy, on the one hand, and economic support for the nobility, on the other. Major successes in the development of the economy were largely associated with the activities of the ministers of finance - N.X. Bunge, I.V. Vyshnegradsky, S. Yu. Witte.
Industry. By the 80s of the XIX century. in Russia, the industrial revolution ended. The government patronized the development of industry with loans and high duties on imported products. True, in 1881 the industrial crisis began, associated with the economic consequences of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878. and reducing the purchasing power of the peasantry. In 1883 the crisis gave way to depression, in 1887 a revival began, and in 1893 - a rapid growth of industry. Engineering, metallurgy, and the coal and oil industries continued to develop successfully. Foreign investors invested more and more in them. In terms of coal and oil production, Russia ranked first in the world. The enterprises actively introduced the latest technology. It should be noted that heavy industry yielded less than 1/4 of the country's production, noticeably inferior to light industry, primarily textile.
Agriculture.The specialization of certain regions increased in this industry, the number of civilian employees increased, which indicated the transition to a bourgeois development path. On the whole, grain farming continued to prevail. Productivity increased slowly due to the low level of agricultural technology. The fall in world grain prices was detrimental. In 1891 - 1892 a terrible famine erupted, which claimed more than 600 thousand lives. man In these conditions, the land shortage of the peasants, whose temporary liabilities were finally stopped by the law of December 28, 1881, which they transferred to redemption in 1883, became an extremely acute problem. Alexander III did not want to hear about the increase in peasant allotments at the expense of the landowners; True, in 1889 a law was passed that encouraged the resettlement of peasants in empty areas - immigrants received tax benefits, exemption from military service for 3 years and a small cash allowance, but permission to resettlement was given only by the Ministry of the Interior. In 1882, the Peasant Bank was created, which issued loans to farmers at low interest rates for the purchase of land by them. The government tried to strengthen the peasant community and at the same time reduce the negative features of communal land use: in 1893, peasants were restricted from leaving the community, but it was difficult to carry out land redistribution, which reduced the interest of the most enterprising peasants in the rational use of their allotments. It was forbidden to mortgage and sell communal land. An attempt to regulate and thereby reduce the number of family divisions undertaken in 1886 failed: the peasants simply ignored the law. To support the landowners' households in 1885, the Noble Bank was created, which, however, did not stop their ruin.
Transport. The intensive construction of railways continued (under Alexander III, more than 30 thousand km of them were built). Particularly actively developed the railway network at the western borders, which had strategic importance. The Krivoy Rog district, rich in iron ore, was connected with the Donbass, the Urals with the central regions, both capitals with Ukraine, the Volga region, Siberia, etc. In 1891, the construction of the strategically important Trans-Siberian Railway that connected Russia with the Far East began. The government began to buy private railways, up to 60% of which by the mid-90s was in the hands of the state. By 1895, the number of ships exceeded 2500, having increased by more than 6 times in comparison with 1860.
Trade. The development of commerce stimulated the growth of the transport network. The number of stores, shops, commodity exchanges has increased. By 1895, domestic trade grew 3.5 times compared with 1873 and reached 8.2 billion rubles.
In foreign trade, exports in the early 90s were 150-200 million rubles higher than imports, largely due to high import duties, especially for iron and coal. In the 80s, a customs war with Germany began, which limited the import of Russian agricultural products. In response, Russia raised duties on German goods. Bread took the first place in Russian exports, followed by timber, wool, and industrial goods j. Machines, raw cotton, metal, coal, tea, and oil were imported. The main trading partners of Russia were Germany, England. Holland. USA.
Finance.In 1882-1886, the heavy capitation tax was canceled, which, thanks to the skillful policy of the Minister of Finance Bunge, was generally compensated by raising indirect taxes and customs duties. In addition, the government refused to guarantee the profitability of private railways from the treasury.
In 1887, Bunge, who was accused of inability to overcome the budget deficit, was replaced by I.V. Vyshnegradsky. He sought to increase cash savings and increase the ruble. For this purpose, successful exchange operations were carried out, indirect taxes and import duties increased again, for which a protectionist customs tariff was adopted in 1891. In 1894, under S. Yu. Witte, a wine monopoly was introduced. As a result of these, other measures, the budget deficit was overcome.
Education. Counterreforms have also affected education. They were aimed at raising a trustworthy, obedient intelligentsia. In 1882, instead of the liberal A.N. Nikolai, the reactionary I.P.Delyanov became Minister of Education. In 1884, parish schools passed into the jurisdiction of the Synod. Their number grew by 1894 almost 10 times; the level of teaching in them was low, the main task was considered education in the spirit of Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, parish schools contributed to the spread of literacy.
The number of gymnasium students continued to grow (in the 90s, more than 150 thousand people). In 1887, Delyanov published a “circular about cook children”, which made it difficult for children to receive laundresses, cooks, footmen, coachmen, etc. Tuition increased.
In August 1884 a new University charter was adopted, a charter that essentially abolished the autonomy of universities, which now fell under the control of the trustee of the school district and the Minister of Education. The rector, deans and professors were now appointed, and not so much taking into account scientific merit, as political trustworthiness. A fee was introduced for students attending lectures and practical classes.
In 1885, a student uniform was reintroduced, in 1886, the term of service in the army of people with higher education increased to 1 year. Since 1887, a certificate of political security was required to enter universities. The government markedly reduced spending on universities, making research more difficult. Some of the freethinking professors were fired, others left in protest themselves. Under Alexander III, only one university was opened in Tomsk (1888). In 1882, higher female medical courses were closed, and in 1886, admission to all higher female courses was stopped, the elimination of which was sought by KP Pobedonostsev. True, Bestuzhev courses in St. Petersburg nevertheless resumed work, although in a limited composition.
Russian culture in the 2nd half of the 19th century The science. This period was marked by new major discoveries in various fields of science. IM Sechenov created the doctrine created the doctrine of the reflexes of the brain, laying the foundations of domestic physiology. Continuing research in this direction, IP Pavlov developed the theory of conditioned reflexes. I.I. Mechnikov made a number of important discoveries in the field of phagocytosis (protective functions of the body), created a school of microbiology and comparative pathology, together with N.F. Gamaleya organized the first bacteriological station in Russia, developed methods for controlling rabies. K. A. Timiryazev did a lot to study photosynthesis and became the founder of domestic plant physiology. VV Dokuchaev with his works “Russian Black Earth” and “Our Steppes Before and Now” gave rise to scientific soil science.
The greatest success was achieved by chemistry.A. M. Butlerov laid the foundations of organic chemistry. DI Mendeleev in 1869 discovered one of the basic laws of natural science - the periodic law of chemical elements. He also owns a number of discoveries not only in chemistry, but also in physics, metrology, hydrodynamics, etc.
The most prominent mathematician and mechanic of his time was P. L. Chebyshev, who was engaged in research in the field of number theory, probability, machines, and mathematical analysis. Seeking to put into practice the results of his research, he also invented a stop-walking machine and an arithmometer. S.V. Kovalevskaya, author of works on mathematical analysis, mechanics and astronomy, became the first female professor and corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. A. M. Lyapunov gained worldwide fame for his research in the field of differential equations.
A noticeable contribution to the development of science was made by Russian physicists. A. G. Stoletov conducted a number of important studies in the field of electricity, magnetism, gas discharge, and discovered the first law of the photoelectric effect. In 1872, A.N. Lodygin invented a carbon incandescent lamp, and P. Ya. Yablochkov in 1876 patented an arc lamp without a regulator (Yablochkov candle), which since 1876 began to be used to illuminate streets.
In 1881, A.F. Mozhaysky designed the world's first aircraft, the tests of which, however, were unsuccessful. In 1888, the self-taught mechanic F.A. Blinov invented the caterpillar tractor. In 1895, A. S. Popov demonstrated the world's first radio receiver, invented by him, and soon achieved a transmission and reception range already at a distance of 150 km. Cosmonautics founder K.E. Tsiolkovsky, who constructed the simplest wind tunnel and developed the principles of the theory of rocket motion, begins his research.
2nd half of the 19th century was marked by new discoveries of Russian travelers - N. M. Przhevalsky, V. I. Roborovsky, N. A. Severtsov, A. P. and O. A. Fedchenko in Central Asia, P. P. Semenova-Tyan-Shang sky in the Tien Shan, Ya. Ya. Miklouho-Maclay in New Guinea. The result of the expeditions of the founder of Russian climatology A. I. Voyeykov in Europe, America and India was the capital work “Climate of the globe”.
Philosophical thought. In the indicated period, philosophical thought reaches its peak. The ideas of positivism (G.N. Vyrubov, M.M. Troitsky), Marxism (G.V. Plekhanov), religious philosophy (V.S. Soloviev, N.F. Fedorov), later Slavophilism (N.Ya. Danilevsky, K.N. Leontiev). NF Fedorov put forward the concept of mastering the forces of nature, overcoming death and resurrection using science. The founder of the “philosophy of all-unity”, V. S. Soloviev, nurtured the idea of \u200b\u200ba merger of Orthodoxy and Catholicism and developed the doctrine of Sophia, the universal divine wisdom that rules the world. N. Ya. Danshkevsky put forward the theory of cultural-historical types developing like biological ones; gaining strength and therefore the most promising, he considered the Slavic type. K. Ya. Leont'ev saw the main danger in Western-style liberalism, leading, in his opinion, to the averaging of individuals, and believed that only the autocracy could prevent this averaging.
Historical science goes to a new level. In 1851-. 1879 29 volumes of "History of Russia from Ancient Times" by the outstanding Russian historian S. M. Soloviev are published, which set out the history of Russia until 1775. Although the author was not yet aware of many sources, and a number of the points put forward by him were not confirmed, his work still retains its scientific significance. Peru Solovyov also owns studies on the divisions of Poland, about Alexander I, inter-princely relations, and others. Solovyov’s disciple was V.O. Klyuchevsky, author of the Boyar Duma of Ancient Russia, The Origin of Serfdom in Russia, The Lives of Old Russian Saints as Historical source ”, etc. His main work was“ The course of Russian history ”. An important contribution to the study of the history of the Russian community, church, zemsky cathedrals was made by A.P. Shchapov. Studies of the era of Peter I and the history of Russian culture brought fame to P. Ya. Milyukov. The history of Western Europe was occupied by such prominent scholars as V.I. Gerier, M.M. Kovalevsky, P.G. Vinogradov, N.I. Kareev. Prominent antiquologists were M. S. Kutorga, F. F. Sokolov, F. G. Mishchenko. Studies on the history of Byzantium were carried out by V. G. Vasilievsky, F. I. Uspensky, Yu. A. Kulakovsky.
Literature. In the 1960s, critical realism became a leading trend in literature, combining a realistic reflection of reality with an interest in an individual. In first place compared to the previous period, prose comes out. Its brilliant examples were the works of I. S. Turgenev “Rudin”, “Fathers and Sons”, “On the Eve”, “The Noble Nest”, etc., in which he showed the life of representatives of the noble society and the nascent heterogeneous intelligentsia. The fine knowledge of life and the Russian national character was distinguished by the works of I. A. Goncharov “Oblomov”, “Cliff”, “Ordinary History”. F. M. Dostoevsky, who joined Petrashevists in the 1940s, later revised his views and saw a solution to the problems facing Russia, not in reforms or revolution, but in the moral improvement of a person (the novels The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment ”,“ Demons ”,“ Idiot ”, etc.). L. Ya. Tolstoy, author of the novels “War and Peace”, “Anna Karenina”, “Resurrection”, etc., uniquely rethought Christian teaching, developed the idea of \u200b\u200bsuperiority of feelings over reason, combining hard (and not always constructive) criticism of Russian society. time with the idea of \u200b\u200bnon-resistance to evil by violence. A. N. Ostrovsky depicted in his plays “Dowry”, “Thunderstorm”, “Forest”, “Guilty Without Guilt” and other life of merchants, officials, artists, showing interest in purely social and eternal human issues. The outstanding satirist M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in The History of a City, Gentlemen Golovlevs, and Tales highlighted the tragic aspects of Russian reality. A.P. Chekhov paid particular attention in his work to the problem of the “little man” suffering from the indifference and cruelty of those around him. The works of V. G. Korolenko - “Blind Musician”, “Children of the Underground”, “Dream of Makar” are imbued with humanistic ideas.
The philosophical tradition in Russian poetry was continued in his works by F. I. Tyutchev. A.A. Fet dedicated his work to the singing of nature. Extremely popular among the democratic intelligentsia was the poetry of N. A. Nekrasov, dedicated to the life of the common people.
Theater. The leading theater of the country was the Maly Theater in Moscow, on the stage of which P. M Sadovsky, S. V. Shumsky, G. N. Fedotova, M. N. Ermolova played. The Alexandria Theater in Petersburg was also an important cultural center, where V.V.Samoilov, M.G. Savina, P.A. Strepetova played, however, while in the capital, he suffered more from interference from the authorities. Theaters appear and develop in Kiev, Odessa, Kazan, Irkutsk, Saratov, etc.
Music.Glinka's national traditions in Russian music were continued by his student A. S. Dargomyzhsky and the composers of The Mighty Handful (named after V. V. Stasov ;, which included M. A. Balakirev, M. P. Musorgsky, A. P Borodin, N. A. Rimsky-Koreakov, C. A. Cui. One of the most prominent composers of this period was P. I. Tchaikovsky, author of the operas Eugene Onegin. Mazepa, Iolanta. Queen of Spades. , the ballet Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty, The Nutcracker. The Conservatory opens in St. Petersburg in 1862, and in Moscow in 1866. In the development of ballet, Ali choreographers Marius Petipa and Lev Ivanov.
Painting. The characteristic of him democratic ideas penetrate into the painting of the post-reform period, as evidenced by the activities of the Wanderers. In 1863, 14 students of the Academy of Arts refused the obligatory competition on the theme of German mythology, which is far from modern life, left the Academy and created the Artels of St. Petersburg artists, "transformed into the" Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions "in 1870. It included the portrait painter I. N. Kramskoy, masters of genre painting V. G. Perov and I. A. Yaroshenko, landscape painters I. I. Shishkin and I. I. Levitan. V. M. Vasnetsov addressed the theme of the Russian fairy tale in his canvases (“Alyonushka”, “Ivan Tsarevich on the Gray Wolf”, “The Knight at the Crossroads”), Russian V.I. Surikov devoted his works to stories (“Morning of the Archery Execution”, “Boyar Morozova”, “Menshikov in Berezovo”). I. Repin wrote both on modern (“Barge Haulers on the Volga”, “Religious procession in Kursk province "," They didn’t wait "), and on historical topics (" Cossacks writing a letter to the Turkish Sultan "," Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan "). The largest battle-fighter of that time was V.V. Vereshchagin (" The Apotheosis of War "," Mortally Wounded ”“ Surrender! ”). The creation of the Tretyakov Gallery, which exhibited a collection of paintings by the merchant-philanthropist P. M. Tretyakov, which he donated to the city of Moscow in 1892, played a large role in popularizing Russian art. In 1898, the Russian Museum opened in St. Petersburg.
Sculpture. Prominent sculptors of that time were A. M. Opekushin (monuments to A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov, K. M. Baer), M. A. Antokolsky (“Ivan the Terrible”, “Peter I”, “Christ before by the people ”), M.O. Mikeshin (monuments to Catherine II, Bohdan Khmelnitsky, leadership of the work on the monument“ Millennium of Russia ”).
Architecture. Formed the so-called Russian style, imitating the decor of ancient Russian architecture. In this manner, the buildings of the City Duma in Moscow (D.N. Chichagov), the History Museum in Moscow (V.O. Sherwood), the Upper Trading Rows (now GUM) (A.N. Pomerantsev) were built. Residential buildings in large cities were erected in the Renaissance-Baroque style with its characteristic richness of form and decoration.
However, to be consistent, we first consider the professional composition of the intelligentsia of the studied period, using the 1st classification, analyzing, accordingly, the class composition of students, engineers, physicians, teachers, scientists and literature and other groups of the intelligentsia.
To begin with, it seems to us necessary to provide statistics on 8 universities of the Russian Empire for 1880 and statistics on special educational institutions of the same year.
According to the census of educational institutions in 1880, only 8193 students were studying at that time, of which 1894 were descendant noblemen, children of private noblemen and officials - 1929, children of the clergy - 1920, children of honorary citizens and merchants - 745, children of philistines and guild - 1014, peasants - 262, other classes - 429 people. As a percentage of hereditary noblemen, respectively, 23.1%, personal noblemen and officials - 23.5%, clergy - 23.4%, honorary citizens and merchants - 9.1%, philistines and guilds - 12.4%, peasants - 3.2%, other classes - 5.2%.
According to the 1880 census of special educational institutions, out of a total of 44,572 students of hereditary nobles there were 15.1%, children of personal noblemen and officials - 11.2%, children of the clergy - 35.2%, children of honorary citizens and merchants - 5, 9%, children of the philistines - 12.8%, peasants - 11%, other classes - 3.6%.
According to these data, we can conclude that a growing number of students are representatives of the unprivileged strata, which testified to the liberalization of education and the replenishment of the intelligentsia not only from the upper, but also from the middle and lower layers of society.
Representatives of the technical intelligentsia - engineers in various fields of industry, were trained in the second half of the 19th century. there are only four institutes: the Mining, St. Petersburg Technological, Moscow Technical School and the Kharkov Technological re-opened in 1885. The oldest technical educational institution was the Institute of Mining Engineers Corps, which was intended for children of engineers and senior officials of the Mining Department, and since 1848 a third of the vacancies were provided to children of insufficient parents from exorbitant classes. Before the new transformation in 1865, the Institute graduated 424 people with the rank of lieutenant engineer and second lieutenant engineer. This institute, which had a high scientific reputation, gave the country many prominent scientists and specialists.
By the end of the 19th century, the class composition of students at the Petersburg Technological Institute had approximately the following distribution: nobles - about 1/5 - 1/4, other privileged classes - about 1/3 - 1/2, philistines and peasants - about 1/3 of the raznochintsy - 1/13 - 1/16. Approximately 60% came from real schools with an extra class and up to 25% from certificates of a classical gymnasium. Over the last third of the 19th century, the Institute of Technology graduated about 3 thousand engineers specializing in mechanics and chemistry, which enabled them to work in a wide variety of industries. According to a survey in 1878 of two hundred and fifty engineers, they worked mainly in sugar beet, distillery, metal, cotton and stationery industries. In total, of those about whom there was information, 39.9% of graduates worked in production by the 90s of the 19th century.
In addition to working in production and transport, a significant part of the process engineers was engaged in pedagogical work; the rest were officials of various departments, city and engineers, Zemstvo technicians, provincial mechanics, directors of various boards and so on.
Students at the Moscow Technical School belonged mainly to the big and small bourgeoisie. In the last third of the 19th century, starting in 1871, the college graduated 1,517 engineers. The accelerated pace of their preparation is clearly visible: from 253 people in 1871-1881, to 425 people in 1881 - 1890. Unfortunately, the available information on the practical use of the graduates of the Moscow Technical School refers only to the beginning of the 90s, however, they were trained as students of this educational institution during the period of study that interests us, and from them we can generally judge the distribution of graduates - Russian technical intelligentsia of the last decade of the 19th century. Information was given by 803 people. Of these, 403 people (50.2%) worked in industry (in the factory administration, craftsmen, mechanics, etc.); on the railways (in the railway administration, by the heads of the repair of the track, traction, depot, sections, assistant chiefs, etc.) - 182 people (22.7%); employees of various departments, including the factory inspection, 82 people (10.2%) - in total over 83%. The remaining 136 people (16.9%) were engaged in pedagogical work. Among them were professors, associate professors, school directors, directors, heads of educational workshops, teachers, tutors, etc.
Specialists in transport graduated from the Institute of Railway Engineers, from 1864 turned into an open higher educational institution. Graduates of the course received the title of civil engineer with the right to the rank of 10th or 12th grade, and later the title of engineer of communications with the right to the same ranks and technique of communication lines. Over the last third of the 19th century, starting in 1865, 2,487 people completed the course of the Institute of Railway Engineers.
As for medicine, it is worth noting the rapid increase in the need for doctors, especially as a result of reforms of the 1860s - 1870s. At medical faculties, pharmacists, pharmacists, dentists, etc., who, having passed the exam, received "practical" service ranks, multiplied as volunteers and "outsiders". Here is some information about the class composition of medical students.
In 1857, at the Medical and Surgical Academy there were 26.5% of noblemen and children of staff officers, 9% of chief officers' children, 25% of children of the clergy, 4% of children of honorary citizens and merchants, 18% of children of philistines and guilds, 6% from raznochintsy, etc. In 1865, the percentage of noblemen and children of headquarters officers decreased to 21%; clergy children - up to 15%; children of the bourgeois and guild - up to 12.2%, but the percentage of chief officers' children increased - up to 15.8%; almost tripled the number of children of honorary citizens and merchants - up to 11.6%, and almost 2.5 times - the number of children of raznochintsy - up to 14.6%, etc.
In 1880, out of 3693 students of medical faculties of six universities of hereditary noblemen, there were 639 people. (17.3%), children of personal noblemen and officials - 816 people. (22%), clergy children - 949 people. (25.6%), children of honorary citizens and merchants - 339 people. (9%), children of the philistines - 581 people. (15.7%), peasants - 132 people. (3.5%), other classes - 237 people. (6%). These data show that the medical profession continued to remain predominantly raznochinsky, non-noble.
Medical and Surgical - The Military Medical Academy graduated from 1857-1866. - 985 doctors and 250 pharmacists and veterinarians, for 1867-1880. - 1931 doctors.
At Moscow University, she completed a course in medicine in 1856-1869. 860 people. In the years 1870-1878. a record was kept of "those who received academic degrees and medical degrees", and the final data did not coincide with the number of "students who left at the end of the course." Therefore, the figure of 2684 people who have received degrees and titles in the medical faculty over the years should be considered overstated.
The total number of doctors trained before the end of the 19th century, starting from the end of the 50s, amounted to 25.5-27 thousand people.
Speaking about teachers, it should be noted that the composition of students of faculties who trained teachers did not have such certainty as lawyers or doctors, but had their own characteristics. So, according to the census of 1880, among philological students of 8 universities, children of noblemen and officials (42.6%) and children of the clergy (34.4%) prevailed. By the end of the 19th century, the number of clergymen in the student body had decreased.
So, according to the class structure of graduates of the St. Petersburg Historical and Philological Institute (which hosted seminarians until 1890), of those who graduated from it in 1871-1893. over 57% accounted for. on children of the clergy and teachers of theological schools. The children of noblemen and staff officers were 7.3%, the children of officials - 14.9%, of the philistines -6.7%, of the peasants -5%, etc., |
Raznochintsy prevailed among the graduates of Odessa University. From 270 graduated from 1868-1890. The Faculty of History and Philology was 59.3% from the clergy, 17.4 from the nobles and staff officers, 7.1 from the children of the officers, 5.9% from the middle class, 3% from the peasants, and so on. Of the 542 graduates of physics and mathematics, 23.3% left the clergy. 28% of noblemen and headquarters officers, 15% of philistines, 13.1% of chief officers ’children, 73% of merchants and honorary citizens, and so on.
To determine the number of secondary school teachers in Russia in the second half of the 19th century, we turn to school statistics. The most valuable material is the census of educational institutions, conducted in March 1880. The total number of posts in male and female secondary schools of all departments was 10133, including 6323 places in the schools of the Ministry of Education. There were almost 1880 less teachers - only 8256 (6236 men and 2020 women). A significant part of the teachers taught two or more subjects or held the position of class teacher. Directors and inspectors of gymnasiums so
but they taught mainly ancient languages.
In special educational institutions (pedagogical, medical, technical, craft, art, etc.), the census recorded 3673 nominal pedagogical positions. The actual number of teachers in them was less than about 800 people. Excluding the training personnel of higher specialized institutions, about 2 thousand teachers accounted for special schools.
In terms of social composition, high school teachers were mainly raznoshchinami. In 1880 7,530 teachers in European Russia were distributed among their parents as follows: 11.7% of hereditary noblemen, 25% of personal noblemen and officials, 32.4% of clergy, 6% of honorary citizens and merchants, and 8.4% of philistines and guilds , peasants - 3.4%, other classes -12%.
Further, it is necessary to trace how the "scientific estate" developed. At the beginning of the XIX century. new universities (Kharkov, Kazan) still had to recruit professors from foreigners. But soon the training of domestic professors abroad began, in Derpt and Petersburg. Founded at the University of Derpt, the Institute of Professors, filled with candidates from various universities, has trained 22 professors in Russian universities over 10 years. In total, about 170 professors from Russian universities and members of the Academy of Sciences graduated from his students who graduated from the Professor's Institute before 1860.
With the introduction of the charter in 1863, a large number of new professorships were opened (the number of full-time staff increased by 67%), the system of leaving scholarship holders at the faculties (as well as without scholarships) came into force to prepare for the professorship. The number left at universities, gradually increasing, reached the end of the century to 200 people.
Speaking about the social composition of the professorship, we cite the data of the 1880 university census, according to which out of 545 students there were 182 noble children (33.3%), personal noblemen and officials - 67 (12.3%), clergy - 78 (14 , 3%), honorary citizens and merchants - 50 (9.2%), bourgeois and guild - 41 (7.5%), peasants - 6 (1.1%), other classes - 59 (10.8%) foreigners - 63 (11.6%).
Let us compare them with the data of the same census for the students cited above, where there were 23.1% hereditary noblemen, 23.5% personal noblemen and officials, 23.4% clergy, 9.1% honorary citizens and merchants , bourgeois and guild - 12.4%, peasants - 3.3%, other classes - 5.2%.
The comparison results are very entertaining. If the composition of the student body was more or less evenly distributed among the classes, then representatives of privileged classes prevailed in the profession. Perhaps this was due to the low level of income from research and teaching, and youth sought to earn more by using knowledge in practice, rather than by deepening theoretical knowledge. We see similar results in special educational institutions.
And of course, speaking of the intelligentsia, one cannot but touch upon literary figures who worked on the pages of magazines and newspapers. There were liberal thinkers, conservatives, and revolutionaries. The first here can be attributed N.S. Skvortsova with his "Russian Gazette", M. M. Stasyulevich with his "Herald of Europe", to the second - M.N. Katkova and his "Moscow Gazette", A.S. Suvorin ("New Time"), to the third - Nekrasov, Eliseev ("Domestic Notes") and others. Here we have indicated only certain representatives of the most influential publications. In total, the writing brethren totaled several thousand people. And here we consider it necessary to provide some statistics on the results of the Moscow, St. Petersburg and the First General Censuses. The St. Petersburg census of 1869 took into account 302 writers, journalists, translators, and publishers. In the Moscow census of 1882, 220 people were registered as writers, correspondents, editors, translators, and others.
Now we consider it necessary to make some generalization of the foregoing. The intelligentsia is one of the most complex and controversial concepts. Disputes about it have not ceased for two centuries on the pages of literary and scientific journals, Russian and international conferences. There are about three hundred options for defining the concept of "intelligentsia", each of which distinguishes a certain set of characteristic features, among which Kormer noted the "estrangement" from the people and the authorities. In our opinion, this property of the intelligentsia precisely reflects the Russian specifics of this phenomenon, because in no country in the world there was a layer of people who would be torn off equally from ordinary people and from those in power, and at the same time tear for fate Fatherland.
The question of the origin of the intelligentsia also remains debatable. A lot of ink has already been spilled to prove the "antiquity" of the Russian intelligentsia, its origin in the time of Peter the Great, or in the 40s of the XIX century. It seems to us that it is nevertheless closer to the truth to determine the origin of its Petrine transformations, when an abyss arose between the few European-educated people and the bearers of the Russian tradition of education. Until the 1840s, the intelligentsia was formed mainly from the noble environment, but then representatives of the tax-paying strata also poured into it.
And in the second half of the 19th century, we already see a rather large share of representatives of the urban population, beginning to play an increasingly significant role in public life.
II. Estimates by the Russian intelligentsia of the situation of Russia under Alexander II
2.1 Attitude to the autocracy
The reign of Alexander II brought with it significant changes in the internal life of Russia: serfdom was abolished, the judicial system was reformed, military and other reforms were carried out. In connection with the mass transformations, the question of the essence of power, these transformations of conducting, i.e. about autocracy. His positions were still strong, but other points of view were expressed on the absolute power of the monarch and its alternatives. Conservatives, liberals and revolutionaries defended their views with the same tenacity, but even within them there was no unity. Here we see three areas of populist thought, the Cavelin and Chicherin understanding of reforms among liberals, Leontiev's "Byzantism" and far-right statements of Katkov in "protective" thought. We’ll start with the conservatives.
Conservatives considered any liberal transformations inappropriate, being firmly convinced of the inviolability of the foundations of autocratic power. In their opinion, absolutism was the only possible development path for Russia. Reliance was placed on the divine nature of the origin of royal power, on the sovereign, responsible for his people before God. They proved the incorrectness of the constitutional path of development on the example of revolutionary events in Europe, where democratic reforms led to the bloody revolutions of 1848-1849. Uvarov’s “theory of official nationality” served as ideological support, and it did not lose its significance under Alexander II. Among the ideologists of the intelligentsia, gravitating toward protective ideals, we can include such prominent writers and publicists as K.N. Leontiev and M.N. Katkov. On their example, one can trace how the "right" intelligentsia related to the Russian autocracy.
Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontiev was initially gravitated to liberal ideology. In the 1850s, he revolved in the literary circles of Moscow, he was patronized by Turgenev, Katkov (who was also a liberal then), Granovsky. Soon he leaves Moscow and travels to Crimea, where the Crimean (Eastern) war was going on at that time. Since the beginning of the 1860s K.N. Leont'ev is published in Domestic Notes, known for their liberal statements. However, by the 1870s, his views were shifting towards conservatism. In 1875, Leont'ev wrote his work, “Byzantism and Slavism,” in which his system of views on autocracy was presented most integrally (although a number of works should be mentioned in the complex characterization of his views).
Here Leontiev compares the history of Russia with the history of Western Europe. It was there, in his opinion, "storms, explosions were louder, grander," but "the special, more peaceful and deep mobility of the whole soil and the entire system in Russia, in Russia, is worth the thunder and explosions."
The Russians, according to Leont'ev, are weaker than many other peoples, they have developed municipal, hereditary-aristocratic and family principles, and only three things are strong and powerful: Byzantine Orthodoxy, dynastic, unlimited autocracy and a rural land community. These three principles were the main historical foundations of Russian life.
Orthodoxy and autocracy (the Tsar and the Church) in their systemic totality and interconnection Leontyev called "Byzantism." This kind of "Byzantism", according to Leontyev, penetrated deep into the bowels of the social organism of Russia. He believed that even after the Europeanization of Russia by Peter I, the foundations of both state and domestic life remained closely connected with him. Byzantism, according to K. Leontyev, organized the Russian people and rallied "semi-wild Russia", a system of Byzantine ideas, coupled with its "patriarchal, simple beginnings", with its initially crude "Slavic material", created the greatness of the Russian Power.
The Nikolaev era in the Leontief panorama of Russian history occupied a very special place. Leontiev believed that under Nicholas I Russia reached the peak of its socio-political development, "that cultural and state peak, after which the living state building ends and on which we must stay for as long as possible without fear of even some stagnation."
Leontiev considered Alexander II and his associates (Rostovtsev, Milyutin), unlike Nicholas I and his entourage, to be moderate liberals. During the reign of Alexander II, he believed, Russia began to fall from the state-cultural heights it achieved, "there was a" peaceful but very quick undermining of all disciplining and restraining principles. " This process was in Great Russian "quiet": "Everything around us is enveloped in some kind of quiet and slow decay! .. One of those quiet" Great Russian "processes that have always preceded a deep historical revolution in our eyes is being accomplished." The era itself, which was not just liberal, but in many respects directly revolutionary, was only a transition "to something else."
K.N. Leontyev was ambiguously evaluated by both contemporaries and later by researchers. He was called both “Cromwell without a sword” and “the most reactionary of all Russian writers of the second half of the 19th century,” but there were also enthusiastic responses, such as those of P. B. Struve, who called him "the sharpest mind born of Russian culture in the 19th century." His very concept of “Byzantism and Slavism” was thoroughly and thoroughly analyzed by Yu.P. Ivask in the work "Konstantin Leontyev (1831-1891). Life and work", S.N. Trubetskoy with his article "Disappointed Slavophile". All about K.N. Leontiev works a little. Partly they are collected in the book "K. Leontiev: Pro et contra", published in 1995.
Another prominent representative of the protective wing of Russian public thought was Mikhail Nikiforovich Katkov, editor-in-chief of Moscow News. The power of his words was extremely great, he was a powerful mouthpiece of a conservative idea. Although, it is worth noting the views of M.N. Katkova throughout the literary and journalistic activities repeatedly changed. The dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron describes him this way: “Unlike other well-known Russian publicists, who have remained faithful to their views on public and state issues (Ivan Aksakov, Cavelin, Chicherin and others), Katkov has changed his mind many times. "he gradually, over the course of more than 30 years of journalistic activity, from a moderate liberal turned into an extreme conservative; but even here he does not observe consistency." And yet, despite his liberal interests in the 1850s and 1860s, we rank him among the conservative lines of social thought that he joined in the 70s. Of course, his line did not always strictly coincide with the government line, however, in general, he went in line with the protective direction.
Katkov's ideas about the nature and origin of the Russian monarchy are based on an analysis of the history of Rome, Byzantium, Kiev, Moscow and Peter's Russia. The conservative-monarchist views of the Russian publicist incorporate Filofey’s theory “Moscow - the Third Rome” and the S. S. triad Uvarova "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality." "The idea of \u200b\u200ban autocratic monarchy was, according to Katkov, in its entirety of the legal basis originally developed in Rome. The entire republican period of Roman history was devoted to individually working out to full perfection all the special organs of state power, which were then united in the hands of the emperor into one harmonious whole.
However, this material whole lacked a life-giving spirit, did not lack Christianity. Only in Byzantium did the Roman autocracy become Orthodox autocracy, it was inspired by close alliance with the Church of Christ. Thus, in Byzantium the autocracy has reached full legal and church perfection. "The union of autocracy with Orthodoxy is the main difference between Russian autocracy and Western absolutism.
The Russian people so deeply grasped the essence of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe Orthodox autocracy that its scientific system, in the beginning inaccessible to its simple mind, later became redundant for it. Roman autocracy, Byzantine Orthodoxy and the Russian nationality united into one harmonious, indissoluble whole, but this did not happen consciously, but in a spontaneous, instinctive way. “The monarchical principle,” says Katkov, “grew simultaneously with the Russian people. It collected land, it collected power, which in its primeval state can be poured everywhere where there is a difference between the weak and the strong; big and less. In taking away power from everyone over all, the extermination of poly-power consisted of all the labor and all the struggle of Russian history.This struggle, which in various forms and under different conditions took place in the history of all great peoples, was a difficult but successful one, thanks to the special character of the Orthodox Church, "she denied earthly power and never entered into competition with the state." "The difficult process was completed, everything obeyed one supreme principle, and the Russian people should not have any power beyond the monarch’s control. In his autocracy, the Russian people see the covenant of their whole lives, put all their aspirations in it," write Moscow News "in number 12 of 1884
It was the Russian people, according to Katkov, who was always strong with their patriarchal spirit, their unanimous devotion to the monarch, the feeling of their unconditional, “absolute” unity with the tsar, which means that the politically most mature people are Russian, since the idea of \u200b\u200bautocracy was originally embedded in his mind . It follows from this that Russia needs to cherish the unlimited autocracy of its kings as the main reason for its greatness and to consider the autocracy as the key to its future prosperity.
According to the life and work of M.N. Katkova there are mainly articles of pre-revolutionary authors, such as S. Nevedensky "Katkov and his time" (1888), N.A. Lyubimov "Katkov and his historical merit. According to documents and personal memoirs" (1889) and a number of other articles characterizing him as a statesman: V.A. Gringmouth "M.N. Katkov as a statesman" ("Russian Bulletin", 1897, No. 8), "Merits of MN Katkov in the Enlightenment of Russia" (ibid.), V.V. Rozanov "Katkov as a state man" (ibid.), S. S. Tatishchev "MN Katkov in Foreign Policy" (ibid.), V.L. Voronov "Financial and economic activity of MN Katkov. All works are collected in the book of V.V. Rozanov" Literary essays "(St. Petersburg, 1902).
In general, K.N. Leontiev and M.N. Katkov is very similar in views on the nature and essence of monarchical power in Russia. They did not have significant differences in views on autocracy, with the exception of the fact that K.N. Leontyev attached great importance to Orthodoxy as a cementing principle.
The liberals believed that the state should be transformed through reforms. At the same time, the opinions of liberal ideologists differed regarding the degree of transformation. As an example, we consider it necessary to cite the opinions of the two most prominent thinkers - K.D. Kavelina and B.N. Chicherin.
Konstantin Dmitrievich Cavelin categorically rejected the violent means of renewing Russia, and at the same time he did not like bureaucratic arbitrariness. Cavelin treated the Russian autocracy with respect, protecting him and placing him higher than European constitutional monarchy. He believed that "the undoubted guarantee of peaceful success in Russia is the firm faith of the people in the tsar." In his works, he points out that the "actual underpinning" of the constitutional order is that "the people and the ruler, uniting all the powers in their hands, do not get along with each other, are two opposite and hostile poles." According to Kavelin, the essence of the constitutional order is that power is taken from the sole rulers and is taken over by the privileged strata, and not the whole people. The constitutional theory, highlighting the balance of power distributed between the sovereign and the people, in reality only raises the principle of the moment of struggle, or the beginning of the transfer of power from the sovereign to the upper classes. "Further we see," writes Cavelin, "that wherever constitutional institutions exist and flourish, the supreme power is only divided by name between the sovereign and the people, but in reality it is concentrated in the hands of either government political classes or sovereigns."
Thus, this is not a “balance", but a "moment of struggle" and the strength of the constitution depends on the degree of power of one or another control subject. Since in Russian society there is no confrontation (according to Cavelin's vision) between the sovereign and the upper strata, then, therefore, a constitution is not needed either. Moreover, in his opinion, the constitution in Russia is even harmful: “In itself, in addition to the conditions that lie in the structure of the people and in the mutual relations of its various layers, the constitution gives nothing and does not provide anything; it is nothing without these conditions, but nothing harmful, because it deceives the appearance of political guarantees, misleads naive people. " What conclusion does Cavelin draw? “All that we need and will last for a long time is some decent administration, respect for the law and these rights by the government, even a shadow of public freedom. Great success will be achieved in Russia from the moment the autocratic power accelerates the court a clique will force it to enter the proper borders, force, willingly or not, to obey the law. " He is convinced that "only a correctly and strongly organized state institution of an administrative rather than a political nature could lead us out of the current chaos and lawlessness and prevent serious dangers for Russia and the authorities ..."
Thus, Cavelin sees the way out not in a change in political order, but in the establishment, rational organization of an already existing state-bureaucratic machine.
About K.D. Unfortunately, there are very few works of Soviet and Russian Cavelin and his work. In pre-revolutionary times, separate articles were published, of which the most complete information about him is given in his work by "KD Cavelin. Essay on Life and Activity" D.A. Korsakov, who previously published separate materials for his biography in the Bulletin of Europe. From modern researchers about K.D. Caveline wrote R.A. Arslanov ("Cavelin: a man and a thinker", M., 2000), Yu.V. Lepeshkin, who in the article "KD Kavelin: the relevance of scientific research" called KD Cavelin "an outstanding personality", "an eyewitness and, in a sense, the creator of great reforms."
Another representative of liberal thought, Boris Nikolayevich Chicherin, just saw as one of the options for the future of Russia the introduction of a constitution while maintaining a monarchical form of government, which he considered the most suitable for Russia at that time: "On the whole of the European continent, autocracy has played a dominant role for centuries; but Nowhere did it have such a significance as ours, it rallied a huge state, raised it to a high degree of power and glory, arranged it inside, planted education in it. domain Russian people became stronger, enlightened and entered into the European family, as an equal member, which has a full-blown word value in the fate of the world. " However, he notes that the possibilities of the autocracy are not unlimited and it cannot raise the people above a certain level: "It can give everything that is done by the action of power; but it cannot give that which is acquired by freedom." He believes that autocracy "leads the people to self-government", and the more it does for the people, the higher it raises its strength, the more Chicherin believes, the more it "causes the need for freedom and thereby paves the way for a representative order." Speaking about the democratization of society, he writes that the introduction of constitutional orders is not an imitation, but a vital necessity, which follows from the very essence of public life, which is always and everywhere based on the same human elements. From the very essence of the matter, according to Chicherin, it follows that for Russia only the constitutional monarchy can be the ideal of a representative structure. "Of the two forms in which political freedom is embodied, a limited monarchy and a republic, the choice for us cannot be doubtful. Monarchical power has played such a role in the history of Russia that for centuries it will remain the highest symbol of its unity, a banner for the people."
According to Chicherin, the introduction of civil liberty in all walks of life and in all public fields, an independent and transparent court, Zemstvo institutions, and finally, new in Russia, albeit meager, freedom of the press, all this is “parts of a new building, the natural completion of which seems "political freedom. It is impossible to preserve the historical peak when there is no trace left of the historical building that supported it, it is impossible to keep the government in its original form where the whole society was recreated on a new basis."
Thus, Chicherin is in a more decisive position compared to Kavelin, while not denying the supremacy of the monarch and proposing a gradual, peaceful way of modernizing the country on a reformist basis.
Sam B.N. Chicherin and his works have long remained underestimated. In Soviet times, we practically do not see any serious studies about him except, of course, the monograph by V.D. Zorkin's “Chicherin” and his article “The Views of B.N. Chicherin on the Constitutional Monarchy”. In them, despite, in general, a critical attitude to the ideologist of Russian liberalism, one can see respect for him as a person and a scientist who has the right to his convictions. Over the past decade and a half, a number of worthwhile works have been published. Among them are the works of V.E. Berezko "B. N. Chicherin's Views on Political Freedom as a Source of Popular Representation", where B.N. Chicherin is characterized as a talented historian and theorist of law, who stood at the origins of the domestic political and legal science, the founder of the state school in Russian historiography, E.S. Kozminykh "Philosophical and Political Views of B.N. Chicherin", O.A. Kudinova "B.N. Chicherin - an outstanding constitutionalist", A.V. Polyakova "Liberal Conservatism of BN Chicherin" and some other works where this great man is appreciated.
The two liberal thinkers considered had different opinions than those of the conservative intelligentsia. Common here was the desire to transform Russia on a liberal basis, but if B.N. Chicherin stood for the imminent introduction of a constitutional monarchy, then K.D. Cavelin was more moderate and suggested starting with debugging the existing system, helping it to earn money normally, without resorting to decisive political transformations.
Now we turn to the left-wing direction of social thought. Its foundations were laid back by A.I. Herzenym and N.G. Chernyshevsky, who stood on the theory of Herzen's "communal socialism." Both of them opposed the autocracy and serfdom, moreover, non-violently, and this is fundamentally different from their radical followers, although Chernyshevsky did not reject the revolutionary path.
Considering, like Herzen, the enlightenment activity of the intelligentsia, which was supposed to prepare the people for social changes, was necessary, Chernyshevsky believed, however, that the carriers of new ideas should not be nobles, but "new people", raznoshintsy. By them were meant children of priests, lower-ranking officials, military, merchants, literate peasants, small-scale and homeless noblemen. To representatives of this social stratum, who filled by the middle of the 19th century. halls of universities, vocational and technical schools, newspaper offices, and later - zemstvo schools and hospitals - belonged to Chernyshevsky himself. In the early 1860s, his enthusiasm for the Russian community was replaced by the idea of \u200b\u200bmore expedient transformations - the organization of urban cooperatives and labor associations in villages and cities.
Chernyshevsky clearly realized how long educational and political work among the people should be in order to solve their basic social problems. His ideas (the liberation of peasants with land without redemption, the elimination of bureaucracy and bribery, the reform of the state apparatus, the judiciary; the organization of local self-government with broad rights; the convening of an all-representative representative institution and the establishment of a constitutional order) could not be realized overnight. However, domestic radicals saw in his writings not calls for a long, scrupulous propaganda work, but the idea of \u200b\u200ba revolutionary transformation of the country. However, with a common idea, the ways of its implementation varied, and quite significantly. “Propaganda” (moderate) was represented by Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov, “conspiratorial” (social-revolutionary) - by Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev, anarchist - Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin.
P.L. Lavrov in his views adhered to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe need for continuous propaganda among the people of socialist ideals, an explanation of the positive aspects of the future system. At the same time, the violent actions themselves during the transition to it should be minimized. The new ideas should be disseminated by the intelligentsia, who are indebted to the masses who liberated it from physical labor for mental improvement. In his work "Historical Letters" P.L. Lavrov writes about the progress prepared by the "enslaved majority" and offers to repay the majority by enlightenment: "The initial progress of this minority was bought by the" enslavement of the majority "(the so-called" price of progress "); the payment by the intelligentsia of their debt to the people is" ... in the feasible distribution of the conveniences of life, mental and moral development to the majority, in the introduction of scientific understanding and justice in social forms. "The progress formula given by PL Lavrov reads:" personal development in the physical, mentally and morally, the embodiment of truth and justice in social forms ... "By the way, it should be noted that among the followers of PL Lavrov, there were those" who brought Lavrov’s teachings to absurdity, requiring the intellectual to study sciences according to O classification . Comte. "
P.N. Tkachev, unlike him, stood for an immediate coup, and refused to consider the Lavra program for the peaceful propaganda of socialism to be revolutionary. In his opinion, the revolution has already been prepared by the course of social development. A true revolutionary is the people themselves, who always want a revolution and are ready for it. Tkachev therefore put forward the slogan of an immediate violent coup. The revolutionaries cannot wait, because procrastination more and more reduces the chances of success. “Use the minutes,” writes PN Tkachev. “Such minutes are not frequent in history. To miss them is to voluntarily delay the possibility of a social revolution for a long time, maybe forever.”
M.A. Bakunin, in his program, relied on the conviction that the necessary preconditions of a social revolution had long ripened in the Russian people, that the masses, brought to an extreme degree of poverty and enslavement, did not expect liberation from either the state, or from privileged classes, or from any political upheavals, but only from a social revolution based on the efforts of the people themselves. In the midst of the people, the ideal of the socialist structure of social life, in which Bakunin saw three main features, has long been formed under the influence of “centuries-old experience and thought”: 1) the conviction that all land belongs to those who cultivate it with their labor; 2) community land use with periodic redistribution; 3) community self-government and the "decidedly hostile" attitude of the community towards the state. However, the popular ideal, from the point of view of Bakunin, is not perfect and cannot be accepted in the form in which it has developed, because in it, along with the positive features, the "negative" sides of the people's life have found expression. These include: "patriarchal", "absorption of the face by the world" and "faith in the king."
Views M.A. Bakunin, was estimated by Soviet historians as generally progressive for that time, but in essence - "petty-bourgeois" and "utopian". N.Yu. Kolpinsky and V.A. Twardowska writes of him like this: "... Bakunin facilitated the transition of a number of petty-bourgeois revolutionaries to the position of socialism. But it was utopian, pre-Marxist socialism, petty-bourgeois in nature." A similar opinion is shared by N.M. Pirumova: "... Bakunin’s anarchist worldview ... expressed the sentiments of the devastated masses of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie, pouring into the working class ..." However, according to these researchers, "Bakunin’s anarchist theory led the labor movement away from the direct road of struggle for the bright future of mankind." A.A. Galaktionov and P.F. Nikandrov write that the role of M.A. Bakunin cannot be defined unambiguously, because, "on the one hand, he was an honest revolutionary who devoted his whole life to the liberation of workers from exploitation," and on the other, rejecting the theory of the proletarian revolution and relying on spontaneous rebellion, "knocked down" the proletarian movement with true path. " Grade M.A. Bakunin as an outstanding figure in the revolutionary movement is given to Yu.A. Borisenok and D.I. Oleinikov.
Left-wing thinkers had, as we see, one common goal - the overthrow of the monarchy. However, it should be noted that the methods and vision of the post-revolutionary future were somewhat different. At P.L. Lavrov is training through propaganda among the people, with P.N. Tkachev - coup group conspirators, M.A. Bakunin is an immediate spontaneous rebellion, and moreover, with the destruction of the very institution of the state, which was not the first two theorists.
2.2 Attitude to the peasant question
Another stumbling block of Russian public thought was the peasant question. Lack of land and the enslavement of the most disenfranchised class worried Russian minds for a long time. The defeat in the Eastern (Crimean) war helped to strengthen discussions on improving the situation of peasants and ultimately led to the abolition of serfdom in 1861, which laid the foundation for a series of reforms to modernize Russia. Nevertheless, the February 19 Manifesto could not completely eliminate all the contradictions that had accumulated over several centuries. Despite the formal liberation of the peasants, they remained in actual dependence both on the landlords and on the state, making annual payments for the allotments received. In addition, the question of preserving the community was not clear, around which serious disputes unfolded, ending with the reform of P.A. Stolypin at the beginning of the twentieth century, which allowed the exit from it and the creation of farms and cuts. But before the Stolypin transformations, years of hard work of many, many statesmen and public figures were still ahead.
And here again we have various options for solving this problem. And again, we begin with public figures in the security sector.
As we wrote above, K.N. Leontiev in his work "Byzantism and Slavism" singled out three fundamental principles and the main historical foundations of Russian life: Byzantine Orthodoxy, unlimited autocracy and the rural land community. We have already talked about the first two, now we turn to the community, as one of the main components of the peasant question.
The community, the rural world, Leontyev did not consider the phenomenon specifically Russian. In this matter, he followed the generally accepted ideas of non-Slavophil circles of Russian sociopolitical thought, in particular, agreeing with V. S. Soloviev, who wrote that the rural community "corresponds to one of the primitive stages of socio-economic development through which the most diverse peoples passed" . However, it, Leontyev believed, is an important feature that distinguishes Russia from Romano-German Europe.
The Russian peasant community, in his opinion, is an almost communist structure and, at the same time, deeply conservative. It represents one of the main conditions and state unity of Russia, and its national-cultural isolation. And, of course, first of all - from Western countries, to which Leontyev attached great importance. The land-based and obligatory form of the community is closely connected with the autocratic form of national statehood. Thus, the communal, non-Byzantine origin of the beginning of Russian historical life, in Leontyev’s view, was mated with “Byzantism”.
K.D. Cavelin was a major theorist on the peasant question. In his literary and journalistic heritage, there are more than a dozen works on this topic. Among them are the famous "Note on the Liberation of the Peasants in Russia" (1855), "A Look at the Russian Rural Community" (1859), "Community Ownership" (1876), and "Land Landed Community in Ancient and New Russia" (1877) g.), "Peasant Question" (1881-1882), two speeches on peasant reform (1881 and 1885), and others.
In his "Note ..." he wrote that serfdom is the main knot in which the evil that has entangled Russia has been woven. But this knot must be untied, not cut. Violent resolution of the issue will not bring reassurance. Russia, Cavelin wrote, needs peaceful success. It is necessary to carry out such a reform in order to ensure "peace for five hundred years in the country."
K.D. Cavelin believed that the landowners' right to the identity of the peasant could and should be neglected, but their right to work and especially to the land should not be forgotten. Therefore, the liberation of the peasants can only be carried out with the remuneration of the landowners. Another decision, Cavelin said, "would be a very dangerous example of a violation of property rights."
But it is impossible, Cavelin emphasized, to lose sight of the interests of the peasants. They must be freed from serfdom, they must be assigned the land that they currently own. The government should take over the development of the redemption operation. If it manages to take into account the interests of the landowners and peasants, then the two estates will first come closer and then merge into one agricultural class. Within it, class differences will disappear and only property differences will remain. "Experience has proven," wrote Cavelin, "that private land ownership and the existence of small and large farms are absolutely necessary conditions for the prosperity of rural industry."
In interpreting the question of the rural community in Russia, Cavelin took a peculiar position, which "combined the ideas of the state school, representing the community as an institution created by the state, and Slavophile beliefs in the great role of the community as a real alternative to the development of capitalism in Russia." The Thinker considered the most correct way to reasonably combine communal land ownership with the personal land ownership of the peasant, which avoids the proletarianization and poverty of the peasant masses: "Personal property, like personal beginning, is the beginning of movement, progress, development; but it becomes the beginning of death and destruction, it corrodes public organism, when, in its extreme consequences, it will not be moderated and balanced by another organizing principle of land tenure. I see such a beginning in our communal ownership, given m to its legal principles and adapted to a more developed, civilly independent person. " Cavelin proceeds from the premise that over time the richest part of the population will leave the community and move to cities, while the poorest, the poor, will remain in the community, which will protect it from vagrancy and poverty, give work: "Existing for the masses, being arranged according to their needs, without presenting any opportunity for speculation, and therefore not at all attractive to people who are wealthy, wealthy, enterprising, not content with a small and modest existence, community ownership will serve as a reliable refuge for people dei poor chance of speculations, from the monopoly on land price increases and decreases in the prices of agricultural labor. " Turning to the history of the community, Cavelin emphasized the gradualness of its emergence, the natural nature of development, as well as internal democracy. He noted the economic importance of the community in the Russian state and emphasized that it is not, in principle, a purely Slavic institution, but represents a well-known stage in the development of all peoples.
Cavelin sets forth his understanding of the term “community” in his work “A Look at the Russian Rural Community” (1859). First of all, he singled out the administrative, coercive functions (administrative community) inherent in the community and the custom of joint ownership of land (land community): "The first, most plentiful source of misunderstanding regarding the Russian rural community is the mixing of the administrative community with the land community." The scientist suggests considering these two social functions separately. "It is the custom of joint ownership of land that Kavelin singled out as the main object of research." Building evidence in favor of the statement about the need to preserve the community, Cavelin identifies the main characteristics of the land community and, carefully analyzing them, comes to the conclusion that none of them contradicts the land laws of European countries.
He defended the community in a later work, “Community ownership” (1876), where Cavelin considered all the pros and cons in relation to communal life. In this work, various myths and misconceptions that exist in society are fairly reasonably exposed, certain issues of the organization of peasant farming are clarified.
Thus, analyzing the beliefs in the “great evil” and “great injustice” of mutual responsibility in the community, he asks the question: “... who is to blame in this case: whether the beginning of mutual obligatory guarantee or disproportion of taxes with the dimension put on — communal tenure or tax system ? " And he answers that "firstly, not herself ( bail - approx. ours) in itself is so burdensome and unfair; the fault is the severity of taxes and payments falling on the peasantry; and, secondly, the abolition of mutual responsibility, and with it community ownership, without eliminating the evil while withholding the current size of taxes, would create for the treasury, society and state even more evil and greater dangers in the present and future than injustice and burdensome mutual responsibility under its current conditions. "That is, he proves that the main source of trouble is high taxes, although he does not reduce the" merits "of mutual responsibility.
Disagree K.D. Cavelin, and with the opinion of those who believe that communal land ownership prevents the peasants from taking root in the notions of ownership and the scope of this right: "This objection is not taken from fact, and is made by people who apparently never spoke to peasants<…> Those who have at least once spoken about the right of personal land ownership and communal land tenure know that they distinguish them distinctly and consciously. "He is convinced that if the latter weakened the notion of personal property right, then serfdom, on the contrary, contributed to the formation of views on the differences between her and community ownership.
Thus, in historical terms, the attachment to the land and the introduction of a poll tax gave, in the opinion of Cavelin, the old Russian communal ownership of its present form and had the consequence of introducing communal ownership even in those communities where the land was previously owned and used by peasants. Cavelin attaches great importance to the community structure of the peasantry, but at the same time he is far from the idealization of the community that was characteristic of the Slavophils and Herzen.
Another liberal thinker is B.N. Chicherin saw a brake on the development of peasant farming mainly in community tenure. In his work “Tasks of the New Reign,” he wrote that “the causes of poverty lie in poor land cultivation, in the predatory economy prevailing among peasants, in their unaccustomed to saving and excessive habit of drunkenness, in reckless family divisions, the main thing is in enslavement of the peasant to the community and mutual responsibility" . In continuation, he rejects such methods of solving the agrarian problem as increasing allotments and relocation to empty lands, which Stolypin later resorted to: "Increasing allotments will not help this evil, because after a while, with an increase in population, allotments will again be small. Relocation will not help either. "which in some cases may be useful, but which, as a broad measure, do not make sense with the meager population that exists in Russia." The present task, according to Chicherin, is not to colonize new lands, but to improve local economy, and for this "the only reasonable measure would be to complete the liberation of the Russian peasantry by freeing it from the community and mutual responsibility, assigning it into the ownership of the land to which he has an inalienable right, for he buys it with his own labor money. Only through this could the peasants develop self-activity without which no economic success is possible: it would be real completion of the provision of February 19th. " However, he fears that the "false liberals" will raise public opinion against such a decision. Nevertheless, he expresses confidence that "the decomposition of the community will be inevitable; it will not stand against freedom. But it is desirable that it be accomplished so that the peasant has a stronger idea of \u200b\u200bproperty, without which there is no free civilian life ..."
Similar documents
The study of the Russian intelligentsia, its origin. 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 January 22, 2008
The intelligentsia as a peculiar phenomenon of Russian culture, representatives. Consideration of the causes of religious schism. Radishchev as the first representative of the Russian intelligentsia from the point of view of Berdyaev. The influence of the revolutionary intelligentsia on the apparatus of power.
term paper, added December 16, 2012
Studying the contribution of the serf intelligentsia to the development of Russian national culture. The appearance of the first professional theaters. Descriptions of famous writers, poets, architects of serfs. Large representatives of Russian musical culture.
abstract, added 07/12/2015
The economic situation and social status of the intelligentsia of Russia 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 work, added 12/17/2014
Formation of centers of Russian emigration abroad, reasons for departure and the main directions of emigrant flows. Cultural centers of the Russian foreign community. Features of the life and work of representatives of the Russian intelligentsia abroad.
test, added 04/29/2010
The biography of Alexander II, awarded a special epithet in Russian pre-revolutionary and Bulgarian historiography, is the Liberator. The activities of Alexander II as the greatest reformer of his time. Peasant reform (the abolition of serfdom in 1861).
abstract, added 05.11.2015
The concept of the intelligentsia. Her special position in the province. Power and society. The intelligentsia is a moral example. The social activities of the moral knights: teachers and doctors. Representatives of literature and art. Technical and military intelligentsia.
term paper, added 05.07.2008
The study of the situation of the Orthodox Church during the reign of I. Grozny, during the 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
The theory of sovereignty, the church as a moral counterweight to the Russian autocracy during the reign of Ivan IV. The importance of the adoption of the patriarchate and its role in the fight against impostors and Polish-Swedish invaders. Reforms of Patriarch Nikon and the beginning of the split.
abstract, added 11/14/2010
The reasons for the abolition of serfdom in 1861 during the reign of Emperor Alexander II. Institutions involved in preparing the reform. Provisions on peasants who came out of serfdom. The significance and results of peasant reform, its contradictions.
It was during the reign of Emperor Alexander III that Russia did not fight a day (except for the conquest of Central Asia that ended with the capture of Kushka in 1885) - for this the tsar was called the “peacemaker”. Everything was settled exclusively by diplomatic methods, moreover, without any regard to "Europe" or anyone else. He believed that there was no need for Russia to look for allies there and intervene in European affairs.
His words are known, which have already become winged: “In the whole world we have only two faithful allies - our army and navy. Everyone else, at the earliest opportunity, will gang up on us. ” He did a lot to strengthen the army and the defense of the country and the inviolability of its borders. “Our fatherland undoubtedly needs a strong and well-equipped army that stands 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.” So he said and so he did.
He did not interfere in the affairs of other countries, but he did not allow his country to push around. I will give one example. A year after his accession to the throne, the Afghans, enticed by English instructors, decided to bite off a piece of territory belonging to Russia. The king’s order was laconic: “Drive out and teach a lesson properly!”, Which was done. The British ambassador in St. Petersburg was ordered to protest and demand an apology. “We will not do this,” the emperor said, and wrote on the dispatch of the English ambassador: “There is nothing to talk to them.” After that, he awarded the chief of the border detachment with the Order of St. George of the 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 the 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 buildings. Alexander III was calm and pretended not to notice the harsh tone of the ambassador. Then he calmly took the fork, bent it with a noose and threw it towards the device of the Austrian diplomat and said very calmly: “This is what I will do with your two or three corps.”
Alexander III had a strong dislike of liberalism and the intelligentsia. His words are known:
“Our ministers ... would not have wondered through pipe dreams and lousy liberalism.”
The death of the Russian Tsar shocked Europe, which is surprising against the background of ordinary European Russophobia. French Foreign Minister Flurance said:
“Alexander III was the true Russian Tsar, which Russia had not seen for a long time before him. Of course, all the Romanovs were devoted to the interests and greatness of their people. But prompted by the desire to give their people a Western European culture, they were looking for ideals outside of Russia ... Emperor Alexander III wished that Russia was Russia, that it was, above all, Russian, and he set the best examples for that. He revealed the ideal type of a truly Russian man. ”
Royal family Even a hostile Russian marquis Salisbury recognized:
“Alexander III saved Europe many times from the horrors of war. According to his deeds, the sovereigns of Europe should learn how to manage their peoples ”
Alexander III was the last ruler of the Russian state, who actually cared about the protection and prosperity of the Russian people.
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 never met that sense of respect for the state ruble, for the state penny that the emperor Alexander III possessed. He cherished every penny of the Russian people, the Russian state, as the best owner could not protect it ... ".
Reference:
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. Smelting of pig iron from I860 to 1895 increased by 4.5 times, coal production - by 30 times, oil - by 754 times. 28 thousand miles of railways were built in the country, connecting Moscow with the main industrial and agricultural areas and seaports (the network of railways in 1881-92 increased by 47%).
In 1891, construction began on the strategically important Trans-Siberian Railway, connecting Russia with the Far East. The government began to buy private railways, up to 60% of which by the mid-90s was in the hands of the state. The number of Russian river steamboats increased from 399 in 1860 to 2539 in 1895, and sea - from 51 to 522.
At this time, an industrial revolution ended in Russia, and the machine industry replaced the old manufactories. New industrial cities (Lodz, Yuzovka, Orekhovo-Zuyevo, Izhevsk) and entire industrial areas (coal and metallurgical in the Donbass, oil in Baku, and textile in Ivanovo) have grown.
The volume of foreign trade, which did not reach 200 million rubles in 1850, exceeded 1.3 billion rubles by 1900. By 1895, domestic trade grew 3.5 times compared with 1873 and reached 8.2 billion rubles.
In contact with
INTELLIGENCE AS IT WAS SAID
Grows in attics and cellars
Russian spiritual greatness.
Here comes out, and hangs on poles
Each other for the slightest difference.
I. Huberman
Some intellectuals use the mind, others worship the mind.
G.K. Chesterton
Raznochintsy
Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the number of nobles was growing — the very nuclei of “Russian Europeans” ... If in the era of Peter there were only about 100 thousand, 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 about 1300 thousand people officially recognized by the nobles live. If in 1700 about 140 noble Russians belonged to 1 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 about 50 people per 1 nobleman.
The state does not want to expand the number of privileged classes; moreover, the nobility itself does not want this. But the state needs the bureaucrats, officers and soldiers too much. The Table of Ranks is pumping an increasing percentage of the population into the nobles.
During the reign of Peter the number of officials increased four times (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 a population growth of two, and from 1796 to 1857 the number of officials increased six times (with a double of the population over the same years). And not all of these new officials fell into the nobles.
Initially, the government wanted not too many to fall from the nobles to the nobles. It wanted production from non-nobles to nobles to remain possible, but not a system, but a rare exception.
This is quite openly stated in the Decree of Peter of January 31, 1724: “It is not out of nobility not to determine the secretaries, so that they could not become assessors, advisers, and higher.”
Catherine II decree of 1790 "On the rules of production in the ranks of the state" increases the ranks giving the right to hereditary nobility - now this right gives only the VIII rank, for the production of which, in addition, the nobles need only serve 4 years, but the nobles must serve 12 years in the IX grade.
Paul I, by a decree of 1787 “On Observation, in the Election of Officials to Positions, Seniority, and Place of Ranks,” confirmed the same rules, for all his dislike of his mother's undertakings.
Nicholas I stated literally the following: “Twenty-five thousand stewards governed my empire,” and introduced the “Charter on the Civil Service,” laws of 1827 and 1834, which determined the rules for entering the service and moving up the ranks of ranks. According to these laws, for noblemen and non-noblemen, the terms for passing the ranks of ranks were different, and the hereditary nobility no longer gave VIII, but V class.
Under Alexander II, since 1856, only a person who reached the fourth grade became a nobleman, and only the tsar personally granted this class. In 1856, even a special class of “honorary citizens” was introduced — officials who had served currencies; people seem to be respected, but no matter how noblemen ... As a result, if there were not so many officers-noblemen in the 19th century, about 40% of all officers, in 1847 there were 61,548 officials with class ranks, and of these nobles - less than 25 thousand people.
But there is still non-statist bureaucracy - lower clerical employees who are not included in the timesheet and do not receive ranks: copyists, messengers, couriers and other smallest, 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 bureaucracy was formed, within the framework of which Thomas slip was reproduced from generation to generation.”
In 1857, 61.3% of the officials were raznoshintsy. For the first time, the indefinite word "raznochinets" was used even under Peter, in 1711. At the end of the eighteenth century, the authorities officially clarified who they were - fellow soldiers: they included retired soldiers, their wives and children, children of priests and ruined merchants, petty officials (in short, those who could not gain a foothold on the hard steps of the feudal hierarchy). They were forbidden to buy land and peasants, 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 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 inviolability - he will not be beaten for any fault. He can get a passport for traveling abroad, send his son to the gymnasium, and in old age he will be given an insignificant, but pension. And of course, with the most frightened Akaky Akakievich, the police will speak in a completely different way than with an unlawful, unclean person.
An official can be very poor, can live in complete insignificance when compared with the rich and important officials; but nevertheless he is some kind of no, but a cog of the managerial mechanism of the vast Russian Empire, and everyone understands that he is still not there.
Service people shave, dress in frock coats, and already by these signs - “Russian Europeans”.
It would seem that this is about the servants, and the members of the community are doctors, teachers, and artists. But the government is trying to extend its “bureaucratic-uniform” privileges to those who, in the very meaning of their activities, should have had an independent status.
Paul I introduced the honorary titles of manufactory-adviser, equated to VIII class. "Professors at the Academy" and "doctors of all faculties" were given IX ranks - a titular adviser. Chin low ... Remember the famous song?
He was a titular adviser,
She is the general’s daughter.
He shyly made love
She drove him away.
The titular adviser went
And drunk with grief all night.
And rushing through the mist of wine
Before him is the general’s daughter.
Scientists are generally not highly valued, even at the end of his life Lomonosov received from Catherine II the rank of V class - the rank of state adviser.
But even they, too, are all shaved, all in frock-coats and in European-style shirts, everyone can clearly pronounce a “notebook” and an “officer”, quite correctly.
So nobles, they are not necessarily nobles, this top of the merchants, or graduated from gymnasiums, universities, institutes ... Every serviceman and every educated traditionally, since the time of Peter, is “European” by definition. The government tried to ensure that everyone in this circle had an understandable and unequivocal rank, to put them, so to speak, in the general system, to make them, as it were, officials of the Russian Empire ... in charge of progress.
The uniforms in the 18th century were even worn by members of the Academy of Arts - so to speak, ministers of muses. And for civilian (!) Officials, there were 7 options for official uniforms: formal, festive, ordinary, everyday, special, road and summer - and there was a detailed schedule that should be worn on which day. The emperors personally did not disdain to delve into the details of these uniforms, their insignia, methods of sewing and wearing.
No less attention to the methods of titling.
Persons I – II classes should be contacted by your Excellency; to persons III – IV - Your Excellency. To officials with grades V – VIII - your high nobility, and to all subsequent ones - your nobility.
By the middle of the 19th century, it was finally determined that mainly hereditary nobles became excellencies and excellencies. Of course, there are exceptions, but for that they are exceptions, to happen very rarely. Raznochintsy creep at best to high nobility, and then not all, only if you're lucky.
People of free professions
No matter how hard the government tries, it fails to create a harmonious feudal hierarchy, where it is always clear who is taller than whom. Life is becoming more complicated and does not fit into this hierarchy. Lawyers, doctors, artists, artists, writers are often called "people of free professions" - they can work both for hire and as private entrepreneurs, selling their services.
In Europe, people in these professions see themselves as a special part of burgherism. 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 Peter Dmitrievich Boborykin lived from 1836 to 1921. During his long, almost 85-year life, he wrote more than fifty novels and short 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 in the 1860s when he published the journal “Library for Reading”.
The word comes from the Latin Intelligentia or Intellegentia - understanding, knowledge, cognitive power. Intelligens is translated from Latin as knowing, understanding, thinking. The word intelligentsia immediately began to designate at least three different entities.
First of all, all educated people. IN AND. Lenin called the intelligentsia "... all educated people, representatives of free professions in general, representatives of mental labor .... 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 Russia - not only the chronicler Nestor, but also the princes Vladimir and Yaroslav. What ?! These princes are already literate, know languages, even write legal texts and teachings to children.
Moreover, the intellectuals then Peter I, all subsequent Russian tsars and most of their close associates. In the XVIII – XIX centuries, all officers and generals, all officials and priests should be attributed to this layer ...
Vladimir Ilyich himself would not agree with such an interpretation, but it turns out that way.
Secondly, all cultural figures, the entire layer creating and storing cultural samples, were among the intellectuals.
Obviously, the creators of culture do not necessarily belong to this social stratum, and verbal freaks such as “noble intelligentsia”, “bourgeois intelligentsia” and even “peasant intelligentsia” have to be created. After all, Pushkin and Leo Tolstoy are the creators of culture, but they have nothing to do with the intelligentsia as a social layer. And since there is no such social layer in any other country, Kipling, Galsworthy, and Balzac, just like Pushkin and Leo Tolstoy, in one sense are intellectuals, and in another they have nothing to do with the intelligentsia.
Pushkin’s letter to the famous professor of Moscow University, historian and publicist Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin is known, and the letter contains the following words: “I regret that you have not yet finished with Moscow University, which must sooner or later expel you from its midst, for there can be nothing alien to you to stay in no body. And scholarship, activity and mind are alien to Moscow University. ”
Pushkin as a persecutor of the intelligentsia ?!
Go figure it out ...
Thirdly, they began to call the intelligentsia “the social layer of people who are professionally engaged in the mental, predominantly. complex, creative work, development and dissemination of culture. ”
This definition is already somewhat more difficult to understand ... Indeed, what kind of work should be considered sufficiently complex and creative? Who should be considered a promoter and distributor of culture?
By this definition, the right to be called intellectuals by Pushkin and Leo Tolstoy can be denied - for them, fees were only one of the sources of income. Professionals - but not really ...
Or you can exclude engineers from intellectuals: decide that they do not develop a culture.
In a word, this definition opens the way to any arbitrariness. It is not for nothing that the mentioned combinations appeared such as “noble intelligentsia”, “feudal intelligentsia”, “technical intelligentsia” or “creative intelligentsia”. In general, clarifications are needed.
There are some other difficulties ...
First: far from everyone whom the intellectuals themselves were ready to consider as intelligentsia, they really wanted to relate to it. For example, in 1910, students of the Electrotechnical Institute had a great fight with university students - they did not want to be called intellectuals. "We are working! - Proudly declared students - future engineers. “We are workers, not any intelligentsia!”
Second: those who didn’t want to get into the intelligentsia constantly tried to get in: for example, rural obstetricians, paramedics, telegraphists, train drivers, station superintendents (in the sense of those who are on the railway). What ?! Their work is one that still needs to be learned, mental work; who dares to say that this work is not creative and not difficult ?! In addition, they live in the very thickness of the people, differ little from it and, probably, carry culture into it.
True, an intelligentsia with a higher education and living in cities is difficult to relate to this intelligentsia ... It is even more complicated than the nobility to the intelligentsia - that is, they strongly doubt both its culture and its differences from the people ... If they recognize this intelligentsia , then with reservations: they say, this is a "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.
Fourth, the intelligentsia was often called a certain layer of "fighters against the autocracy."
Those who devoted themselves to “building a new society”, “destroying the old dark world”, “fighting the oppression”, “fighting for the laboring peasantry” and so on very often called themselves intelligentsia. Now in Russia this category of people is most associated with Marxists and Social Democrats. But in Russia it was full of people of Volunteerism, from whom the Socialist Revolutionaries grew smoothly, and anarchists of different directions, and nationalists from Russian Black Hundreds to Ukrainian supporters of Petlyura or Pilsudsky.
That is, ideologically, this group is incredibly diverse and fluid. All the time, new parties and parties, some groups and groups, “directions” are created and “teachings” are created ... But in the main this category is very similar ... In each “teaching” and “direction” they consider themselves to be right and not only right, but simply the only decent, honest and decent people. Phrases like “Every decent person must!” Or “All self-respecting people ...” (after which an incredible prejudice is expressed) - this is only the outward manifestation of their incredible, indecent aggressiveness.
Each “order of fighters for something there” is extremely aggressive in relation to all other orders, and to all who are not included in any order at all. Each order considers itself an intelligentsia, and only itself ... In an extreme case, other ideologically close ones, but take it to the intelligentsia who does not "fight" at all - this is beyond their strength!
These "orders of fighters" and created a bad reputation for the word "intelligentsia", and for anyone who wants to define themselves with this word. Just those whom the “order of fighters” would willingly take as a kind of living banner, known and famous, the very "cultural layer", are beginning to disown the intelligentsia.
It became widely known that the famous poet Athanasius Fet made a habit: while driving around Moscow, he ordered the coachman to stop near Moscow University and, carefully lowering the glass, spit in the direction of the "citadel of knowledge." It is unlikely that the point here is Fet's special "reactionaryness" or his obscurantism. Rather, it turns out that, from the point of view of Fet, Moscow University was just a hotbed of obscurantism ...
But the most widespread disengagement of Russian intellectuals from the intelligentsia is connected with the Milestones collection, whose origin is this: the publishers ordered articles on the intelligentsia to several of the most famous scientists and publicists of the time. I emphasize once again: all future authors of Vekh are famous, bright people, the word “famous” or “outstanding” is firmly added to the surname of each of them. Statements by the authors of "Milestone": 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 "vanguard of the revolutionary masses" would very much like to consider "their own." But who with a poorly hidden disgust "at home" did not want to be. I will not quote “Milestones”, referring those who are interested to the original source. I highly recommend reading “Milestones” - an impressive book, and the desire to be called an “intellectual” immediately becomes less.
Fifthly, the very social stratum of Russian Europeans that emerged in the 18th century began to be called the intelligentsia: lower than the nobility, but incomparably higher than the people.
The very “layer” really liked this definition.
Can the labor of a copyist or even a college assessor, rank of VIII class, be called very creative? how much the dentist or gynecologist developed and spread the culture in the city of Przemysl or in Bryansk - judge for yourself. But how does it sound!
In the future, we will talk about the intelligentsia in only one sense of the word: as a social layer.
So: the intelligentsia from the very beginning very clearly recognized and stipulated in many texts that it was not the nobility! This was extremely important for the intelligentsia!
But in the same way, the intelligentsia knew that it was by no means a people. She was a fan of the people, she wanted his enlightenment, liberation and familiarization with cultural values \u200b\u200b...
But the intelligentsia itself is not a people, it knows it very precisely. Earlier, back in the XVIII century, there was a formula that was even included in official documents: "the nobility and the people." Now there is still "the intelligentsia and the people."
The growth of the intelligentsia
According to the census of 1897, the intelligentsia in the Russian Empire totaled 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 apparatus for managing industry and landowners.
However, far from 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, 10 thousand inhabitants of doctors accounted for 4 times less than in European Russia. The density of the intelligentsia was gathering towards the cities, but Petersburg and Moscow no longer played the absolute role that they had at the beginning or the middle of the 19th century.
Among rural teachers, the number of immigrants from peasants and philistines by six years increased by six times compared with 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: it is Poland. There even such famous people as pan Adam Michnik or pan Jerzy Pomyanovsky call themselves intellectuals.
That is, some liked to be intellectuals: those "progressive" and "advanced" who call for a "cleansing storm" and for "building a bright future." Frenchman Jean-Paul Sartre and American Jew Howard Fast called themselves intellectuals.
Others, like Herbert Wells or Thomas Veblen, spoke of the special role of the intelligentsia in the world. Allegedly, it is replacing the class of capitalists, and in the future, wise men, scientific intellectuals will push the bourgeoisie from power, become the government of the world. For them, the word "intelligentsia" was also convenient.
During a conversation with Herbert Wells, Comrade Stalin explained that "capitalism will not be destroyed by the" organizers "of production, not by the technical intelligentsia, but by the working class, for this layer does not play an independent role."
Why did Stalin take it that the working class plays exactly that independent role - a special question, and it is not for me to ask.
But with all the intellectuals, explanatory work could not be carried out. Her descendant, immigrants from Russia, the American physicist Isaac (Isaac) Azimov, escaped. In his science fiction books, he created the world of the future, where all events and perspectives are counted, taken into account and controlled from the position of the mind by incredibly intelligent scientists.
But, of course, the vast majority of European intellectuals will become intellectuals and will not think. Perplexity prevails with regard to this word: they understand that their intellectuals and Russian intellectuals are not exactly the same thing. It’s more difficult to express the difference. The British Encyclopedia defines the intelligentsia as follows: “A special type of Russian intellectuals, 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 catching up with modernization. So they write: "the intelligentsia of the people for," or "the intelligentsia of Malaysia." There really is an intelligentsia very similar to the Russian! Just as the Russian intelligentsia was not bourgeois, but patriarchal, so this patriarchal.
But the most important thing, like the Russian intelligentsia of the 19th century, the intelligentsia in Malaysia, Nigeria, India and Indonesia, is a handful of people who have entered European culture. They are local Europeans surrounded by a sea of \u200b\u200bnatives. There are still few of them; society is in dire need of qualification and competence - therefore, each is valuable; these people occupy an important, prominent position in society. But in general, the situation is ambivalent. Every country of “catching up with modernization” is in a sort of unstable, suspended state: no longer patriarchal, not yet industrial.
Even more fragmented are those who have become an enclave of modernization in such a rapidly changing country. After all, the split passes through their hearts. They are both Europeans and natives - at the same time. Europeans are civilizational; natives - at the place of their birth, by belonging to their people.
Like the Russian, all the local intelligentsia is raging, giving a bunch of ideas, politicking, trying to "point the right way." After all, the country's path has not yet been determined, is unclear, and there is room to chart the course.
In the middle - the end of the XX century, in many countries the same thing happens that happened in Russia a century earlier.
The intelligentsia and the nobility
At the beginning of the XIX century there was only one layer of Russian Europeans. In the middle of the XIX century there are two of them, and they do not particularly like each other. The nobles consider the intelligentsia ... well, we will express ourselves streamlinedly - they consider it insufficiently cultural.
By a rather witty definition, Chamberlain D.N. Lyubimova, 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, in the range from the relatively innocent:
He stood in the corner, puffing and lonely
Some college registrar there.
And up to "... it gives me pleasure to publicly express my way of thinking and infuriate the bastard."
As they say, short and clear.
The intelligentsia did not remain in debt, calling the nobles "satraps", "exploiters", "reactionaries" and "holding mords", and not only in private conversations, but also in completely official writings. That "Pushkin is no higher than boots" citizen Pisarev stated what is called "in all seriousness." After all, Pushkin was a nobleman and did not reflect the aspirations of the working people.
During the funeral of A. Nekrasov, he was compared with Pushkin ... Like, he was in some respects no lower. And then - a many-voiced cry: “Higher! He was much taller! ”Back in the 1950s and 1960s, one could meet old people from the people's intelligentsia, who didn’t put Pushkin penniless, but adored Nekrasov and constantly sang songs to his poems.
New split mind
And with all this, the same duality of consciousness immediately falls upon the intellectual - the Russian European, as the nobleman. He also gets used to scolding the country from which he was born and which he loves, to serve what he treats with irony.
But the intellectual has yet another “split”: he is a European, but he is a recent descendant of the natives. Almost all the privileges of the nobility apply to an intellectual - but he has not very distant ancestors to whom these privileges did not extend at all.
The intellectual quite sincerely feels his spiritual homeland in the estates of the old nobility, admires the genius of great writers with historical names Tolstoy, Pushkin and Turgenev. We are Russian Europeans, and the history of all Russian Europeans is our history. We are invisibly present at the disputes between Lomonosov and Bayer, and at the meeting of the first graduates of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum ...
Sooner or later we all very rigidly realize this but: part of the history of Russian Europeans proceeded without us and our ancestors. Lomonosov was arguing with Bayer, lyceum students shouted “Vivat” and drank champagne - and our ancestors at that time were natives. Maybe they took what was happening to them as the norm, as something natural. But we cannot consider something natural either a parade-avenue of grooms and brides, which are built according to their height, or a greyhound puppy near the female breast.
Try to imagine your great-great-great-grandmother feeding this puppy or that everyone will smash her at the same legendary lordly stable. Personally, I do it badly: my head starts spinning.
I well remember the moment when I drove my girlfriend across Trigorsky - the estate of friends A.S. Pushkin. There is now a historical and landscape reserve, and an expedition was working in it: the settlement of Voronich was excavated, which Pushkin loved to visit. A friend arrived later, I tastefully showed her a park, a manor house, Soroti bends, excavations of the famous ancient settlement ...
“And you know, I somehow somehow look with my eyes - where was the stables here ...” a friend quietly dropped by the end of the day.
It was exactly my feeling. And I remember the story of my family from the era of Alexander I. They were not serfs in that era. A friend is a third-generation peasant woman, and her ancestors never lived in Trigorsky. So this memory is not family, not blood. This is the memory of his estate. That part of the people to which the intelligentsia belongs or the descendants of intellectuals.
We are Russian Europeans, there are no words ... but we are different than the nobles. And a lot of us share with the nobles. Even in the XXI century, some kind of stone in the bosom still remains.
The intelligentsia and the people
But in one, at least in one, the nobility and the intelligentsia were deeply united - in their relation to the people. The debate was only about who will lead this very people: the nobility or the intelligentsia? Or one of the “orders for the struggle for something there”?
The nobility led the people to the bright heights of progress, thrashing for admonition: survivors will then appreciate, the beaten will learn.
The intelligentsia can say anything, but it does the same thing. The same claims to leadership, to possession of the highest cultural values, to knowledge, "as it should." The same despotic demand for the "people" to be redone in an intellectual fashion. The same attitude to the main part of the people as to natives subject to re-education.
From the book The Great Civil War 1939-1945 the authorCivil war, as was said According to the underground Oryol Regional Committee of the CPSU (B.), In July 1942, 60 partisan detachments with a total of 25,240 people were active in the Oryol Region. According to German data, directly against Lokotskaya
the author Burovsky Andrei MikhailovichEMPIRE, AS IT WAS SAID, Peter I called his state an empire. Rather, he gave out wishful thinking. Under Elizabeth, the Russian Empire won the Seven Years War and proved to be a mighty European power. They began to reckon with her. They began to fear her. Imperial
From the book The Truth About Catherine's Golden Age the author Burovsky Andrei MikhailovichNatives, AS IT WAS SAID, But complete and depressing lawlessness is only one of the troubles that fell on the bulk of the people ... and maybe not even the most terrible evil. Judging by everything, it was even worse in their position to belong to the category of natives, beyond
From the book The Most Terrible Russian Tragedy. The truth about the Civil War the author Burovsky Andrei MikhailovichChapter 5 THE APPARATUS AS IT WAS SAID Those who were in good winter from 1917/18, at least one million people out of three million of the former population fled from Petrograd. Tens of thousands of people died of hunger and cold in their unheated apartments. The city did not have sewage and
From the book Russia, washed with blood. The worst Russian tragedy the author Burovsky Andrei MikhailovichChapter 5 The apparatus, as was said, Those who were in a good winter 1917/18 from Petrograd fled at least a million people out of three million of the previous population. Tens of thousands of people died of hunger and cold in their unheated apartments. The city did not have sewage and
From the book Russia under the old regime the author Pipes Richard Edgar From the book "Jewish dominance" - fiction or reality? The most forbidden topic! the author Burovsky Andrei MikhailovichThe lords of the world, as was said in Russia, still have a great secret a kind of “sealed steamer”, on which Leon Trotsky and his company traveled to Russia in 1917. About the "sealed wagon" already and the lazy did not write, but what about the ship?
the author Burovsky Andrei MikhailovichNatives, as was said By the middle - the end of the XVIII century, the Russian people are clearly divided into two ... well, if not two people in the true sense, then at least two, as scientists say, subethnos. Each of them has everything that is supposed to be real.
From the book Non-Russian Russia. Millennial Igo the author Burovsky Andrei MikhailovichStability, as was said From the time of Catherine, any new monarch will have to deal with this stratum: with a multitude of organized, armed people who can gather, choose leaders. With knowledgeable owners of almost all land and
From the book Project Russia. Path selection the author author unknownChapter 9 Intelligentsia 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 all
From the book Russian Revolution. The agony of the old regime. 1905-1917 the author Pipes Richard Edgar From the book Forbidden Rurik. The truth about the "calling of the Vikings" the author Burovsky Andrei MikhailovichVaryazhsky Rurik, as it was said Specifically, “our” Rurik is sometimes identified with the king Rerik from 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 the author Burovsky Andrei MikhailovichChapter 3 INTELLIGENCE, AS IT WAS SAID. Grows in the attics and cellars of Russian spiritual greatness. Here comes out, and hangs on each other's pillars for the slightest difference. I. Huberman Some intellectuals use reason, others worship the mind. G.K.
From the book The Mystery of Roswell author Shurinov BorisChapter 21. From “there was - was not” to the search for the place of the disaster And if we assume that the seller of the film document does not confuse anything, calling Socorro-Magdalene that we are trying to deceive ourselves and attach the film to an event that is now relatively well known to us? For
From the book Routes: Russian schoolchildren about migrations, evacuations and deportations of the twentieth century the author Shcherbakova Irina Viktorovna“All this was, was, was ...” The fate of the family of special settlers from the Lower Volga region, Anna Molchanova, Anna Noskova P. Pervomaisky, Sysolsky district of the Komi Republic, supervisor T.A. Popkova About the purpose of the work and the authors of the memoirs For several years in a row, we two
From the book Impatience of Thought, or Historical Portrait of Radical Russian Intelligentsia the author Romanovsky Sergey Ivanovich