He became heir to the throne only at the age of 20, after the sudden death of his elder brother. Began hasty preparation of Alexander Alexandrovich for this role. But, having received an army upbringing in childhood, the heir had a great inclination towards military sciences and was engaged in them with much greater enthusiasm than any other. The exception was Russian history, which he was taught by the famous scientist S. M. Solovyov. Alexander III led Historical Society, he had an excellent historical library.
In the autumn of 1866, he married the Danish princess Dagmar, who was named Maria Feodorovna at her marriage. Alexander III loved his wife very much, adored children. The emperor was fond of fishing, hunting, was distinguished by huge growth, a dense physique, possessed a remarkable physical strength, wore a beard and a simple Russian dress.
Beginning of a new reign
The death of his father shocked Alexander Alexandrovich. When he looked at the bloody "tsar-liberator", who was dying in terrible agony, he vowed to strangle the revolutionary movement in Russia. Reign program Alexander III contained two main ideas - the most severe suppression of any opponents of power and the cleansing of the state from "alien" Western influences, the return to the Russian foundations - autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality.
March 2, 1881, receiving members State Council and the courtiers who took the oath, the new king declared that, entering the throne at a difficult moment, he hoped to follow the precepts of his father in everything. On March 4, in dispatches to Russian ambassadors, the emperor emphasized that he wanted to maintain peace with all powers and focus all attention on internal affairs.
Alexander III knew that his father had approved Loris-Melikov's project. The heir only had to formally approve it at a special meeting of senior officials and resolve the issue of publishing this draft in the press. M. T. Loris-Melikov was calm, believing that the will of the late sovereign was law for his heir. Among the government officials who gathered on March 8 for a meeting, the supporters of the project were in the majority. However, the unexpected happened. Alexander III supported the minority of opponents of the project, through whom K. P. Pobedonostsev spoke.
Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev (1827-1907) Born in the family of a professor of literature at Moscow University. He graduated from the School of Law and in 1859 was invited to the department civil law Moscow University. Soon Pobedonostsev began to teach law to the sons of Alexander II. He developed a warm and trusting relationship with Alexander Alexandrovich.
Emperor Alexander II highly valued the professional and business qualities of Pobedonostsev and sought to use them on a state scale as well. Pobedonostsev held a number of responsible government positions, was a member of commissions for the development reforms in education and justice. And in April 1880 he was appointed chief prosecutor of the Synod and was soon introduced to the Committee of Ministers.
At first, Pobedonostsev was known as a moderate liberal, but then moved to a conservative position. Pobedonostsev disliked those "innovations" that were "written off" from Western European models. He believed that the foundations of European political life were unacceptable in general, and in Russia in particular.
In the very first hours after the assassination of Alexander II, Pobedonostsev made tremendous efforts to impose on the new emperor his own approaches to resolving the problems that had arisen. He wrote to the tsar: “You get a confused, shattered, bewildered Russia, eager to be led with a firm hand, so that the ruling power sees clearly and knows firmly what it wants and what it will not allow in any way.”
Encouraged by the support of the emperor, Pobedonostsev, in secret from the rest of the ministers, compiled the text of the manifesto, with which on April 29, 1881, Alexander III addressed the people "to calm the minds." It followed from it that main task of his reign, the tsar considers the preservation of autocratic power "for the good of the people, from any encroachments on it." The hopes of liberal officials to introduce even some semblance of a constitution collapsed. Minister of Internal Affairs M.T. Loris-Melikov resigned. Together with him, the Minister of Finance A. A. Abaza and the Minister of War D. A. Milyutin left their posts.
Nevertheless, the manifesto of Alexander III was imbued with a spirit of respect for the reforms of the past reign.
Moreover, a desire was expressed to follow the reformist path further. This desire was even more clearly emphasized in the circular of the new Minister of Internal Affairs, N. P. Ignatiev, dated May 6, 1881. It stated that the government would work in close contact with representatives of social forces.
In June 1881, the first so-called "session of knowledgeable people" was convened, who were invited to take part in the development of a law to reduce redemption payments. And although "knowledgeable people" were not elected by the zemstvos, but were appointed by the government, among them were prominent liberal figures. The second "sessions of knowledgeable people", convened in September 1881, the question of resettlement policy was proposed.
Attempts to solve the peasant question
After the demonstrative resignation of the leading ministers, the new posts were by no means opposed to any reforms. Minister of the Interior N. P. Ignatiev, the former envoy of Russia in Constantinople, was a supporter of Slavophile ideas. Together with the prominent Slavophile I. S. Aksakov, he developed a project for convening a deliberative Zemsky Sobor. N. X. Bunge became Minister of Finance. He was reputed to be a very moderate, but liberal-minded politician, striving to alleviate the lot of the masses. The new ministers energetically took up the implementation of the bills developed under Loris-Melikov.
On December 28, 1881, a law on compulsory redemption was adopted, which had passed a preliminary discussion at a "session of knowledgeable people" peasants put on. Thus, the temporarily obligated state of the peasants was terminated. The same law included a provision on the widespread reduction of redemption payments by 1 ruble. Later, 5 million rubles were allocated for their additional reduction in some provinces. A preliminary discussion of the question of the distribution of this money between the provinces was left to the zemstvos.
The next reform gradually abolished the poll tax. During its preparation, Bunge experienced conflicting feelings. On the one hand, as Minister of Finance, he understood that with the abolition of the poll tax, the treasury would lose 40 million rubles annually. However, on the other hand, as a citizen, he could not help but see the whole injustice of the poll tax, its grave consequences - mutual responsibility, leading to restriction of the freedom of movement of peasants and the right to choose their occupations.
Bunge significantly streamlined the collection of taxes, which until then was carried out by the police often using the most unceremonious methods. The positions of tax inspectors were introduced, who were responsible not only for collecting money, but also for collecting information about the solvency of the population in order to further regulate taxation.
In 1882, measures were taken to alleviate the shortage of land among the peasants. Firstly, the Peasant Bank was established, which provided soft loans for the purchase of land by peasants; secondly, the lease of state lands was facilitated.
On the agenda was the issue of settling the resettlement policy. But its decision was delayed, as significant differences emerged in the approaches of the government and the specially convened "session of knowledgeable people". The law on resettlement appeared only in 1889 and actually included measures proposed by "knowledgeable people": only the Ministry of the Interior gave permission for resettlement; migrants were provided with significant benefits - they were exempted for 3 years from taxes and military service, and in the next 3 years they paid taxes in half; they were given small amounts of money.
At the same time, the government of Alexander III sought to preserve and strengthen the peasant community, believing that it prevents the ruin of the peasants and maintains stability in society. In 1893, a law was passed that limited the possibility of peasants leaving the community. Another law narrowed the rights of the community to redistribute the land and assigned allotments to the peasants. According to the new law, at least 2/3 of the peasant assembly had to vote for the redistribution, and the period between redistributions could not be less than 12 years. A law was passed prohibiting the sale of communal lands.
Start of labor legislation
On June 1, 1882, a law was passed prohibiting the labor of children under 12 years of age. The same document limited the working day of children from 12 to 15 years old to 8 hours. A special factory inspectorate was introduced to supervise the implementation of the law. In 1885, the prohibition of night work for women and minors followed.
In 1886, under the direct influence of workers' uprisings, a law was passed on the relationship between employers and workers. He limited the amount of fines. All penalties imposed on the workers now went to a special fund used to pay benefits to the workers themselves. By law, it was forbidden to pay for work goods through factory shops. Special paybooks were introduced, in which the conditions for hiring a worker were entered. At the same time, the law provided for the severe responsibility of workers for participating in strikes.
Russia became the first country in the world to exercise control over the working conditions of workers.
The end of the "Ignatiev regime"
The new ministers continued the undertakings of Loris-Melikov on the issue of the reform of local self-government, including the peasant one. To summarize the material received from the zemstvos, N. P. Ignatiev created a special commission chaired by Secretary of State M. S. Kakhanov, who was Loris-Melikov's deputy. The commission included senators and representatives of zemstvos.
However, their work was soon stopped, as important changes took place in the Ministry of the Interior. They testified to changes in domestic politics. In May 1882, N.P. Ignatiev was dismissed from his post. He paid the price for trying to convince Alexander III to convene the Zemsky Sobor.
Count D. A. Tolstoy, who was dismissed in 1880 from the post of Minister of Public Education on the initiative of Loris-Melikov, was appointed to replace Ignatiev. From that moment on, new features began to appear more definitely in domestic politics, giving the reign of Alexander III a reactionary coloring.
Measures to combat "sedition"
The outlines of the new course were visible in the “Regulations on measures for the protection of public order and public peace." This document gave the right to the Minister of the Interior and the governors-general to declare any region of the country in an "exceptional position." Local authorities They could expel undesirable persons without a court decision, close commercial and industrial enterprises, refer court cases to a military court instead of a civil one, suspend the publication of newspapers and magazines, and close educational institutions.
In the future, the political system of the Russian Empire began to acquire all the new features of a police state. In the 80s. there were Departments for the maintenance of order and public security - "Okhranka". Their task was to spy on the opponents of the authorities. The amount allocated to the police to pay secret agents increased. All these measures destroyed the foundations of legality, proclaimed during the reforms of the 60-70s.
Education and press policy
Having become the Minister of the Interior, D. A. Tolstoy decided to complete what he did not have time in the previous reign - to “put things in order” in the Ministry of Public Education. In 1884 new minister Education I. I. Delyanov introduced a university charter, according to which the universities were deprived of autonomy, and the ministry got the opportunity to control the content of education in them. Tuition fees have almost doubled. It was decided to take students into "hedgehogs" by banning any student organizations. Those who showed open discontent were given to the soldiers.
Being engaged in secondary school, Delyanov "became famous" by the order of June 5, 1887, which received from the liberals the name of the law on "cook's children." Its meaning was to make it difficult for children from the lower strata of society to enter the gymnasium in every possible way. It was proposed to accept in the gymnasium "only such children who are in the care of persons who provide sufficient guarantee of proper home supervision over them and in providing them with the amenities necessary for their studies." This was done in order to “free themselves from the admission of the children of coachmen, footmen, cooks, laundresses, small shopkeepers and similar people into them, whose children, with the exception of perhaps gifted with extraordinary abilities, should not at all be taken out of the environment to which they belong. ". For the same reason, tuition fees have increased. In gymnasiums, the number of lessons devoted to the study of religious subjects and ancient languages was increased.
Pobedonostsev also made his contribution to the school business. He spoke out against zemstvo schools, believing that the children of peasants did not need the knowledge they received there, which was cut off from real life. Pobedonostsev contributed to the spread of parochial schools, obliging each parish to have them. The only teacher in such a school was the parish priest. However, the poorly educated, financially unsecured local clergy were not particularly happy about this additional burden. Teaching in most parochial schools was at an extremely low level. In 1886, at the insistence of Pobedonostsev, the Higher Women's Courses were closed.
Prohibitive measures were also taken in relation to the press. In 1882, the Conference of the Four Ministers was formed, endowed with the right to prohibit the publication of any printed organ. Only in 1883-1885. by decision of the Meeting, where Pobedonostsev played the first violin, 9 publications were closed. Among them were the popular magazines "Voice" by A. A. Kraevsky and "Notes of the Fatherland" by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin.
The year 1884 brought another “novelty”: for the first time in Russia, a “cleansing” of libraries was carried out. 133 titles of individual books, collected works and journals previously allowed by the censorship were considered "inadmissible for circulation" in public libraries and public reading rooms.
Strengthening the position of the nobility. Attack on local self-government
The appointment of D. A. Tolstoy as Minister of the Interior was approved by the conservative-minded nobles, who now hoped to restore their former position in society. In 1885, the opening of the Noble Bank took place. Its task was to provide soft loans to support the landowners' farms. In the manifesto on this occasion, the wish was expressed that henceforth "the Russian nobles retain their leading place in military leadership, in matters of local government and the court, in spreading by example the rules of faith and fidelity and the sound principles of public education."
On July 12, 1889, a law on zemstvo district chiefs was issued. He abolished positions and local institutions based on non-estate and elected principles: peace mediators, county presences for peasant affairs and the world court. In 40 provinces of Russia, 2,200 zemstvo sections were created. They were headed by zemstvo chiefs, who had broad powers, which were previously exercised by the institutions listed above. The zemstvo chief controlled the communal self-government of the peasants, instead of a magistrate, he considered minor court cases, approved the sentences of the volost peasant court, resolved land disputes, etc. Only nobles could occupy the positions of zemstvo chiefs.
This law solved several important tasks for the authorities at once. Subordinating peasant self-government to zemstvo chiefs, he strengthened the position of the local government and provided the nobles with the opportunity for prestigious service. The power of zemstvo chiefs became a kind of similarity to the pre-reform power of the landowners. The peasants, in fact, were placed in personal dependence on the zemstvo chiefs, who received the right to subject them to punishment without trial, including corporal punishment.
On June 12, 1890, the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” were published. Zemstvo self-government was considered as part of government controlled, a grassroots cell of power. When zemstvos were elected, the estate principles were strengthened: the landowning curia became purely noble, the number of vowels from it increased, and the property qualification decreased. rose sharply electoral qualification for the city curia, and the peasant curia practically lost its independent representation, since at the volost meetings the peasants were now allowed to elect only candidates, who were then approved by the governor.
On June 11, 1892, a new city regulation was issued. It significantly increased the electoral qualification, formalized the practice of government interference in the affairs of city government. Mayors and members of councils were declared to be in the civil service.
National and religious policy of Alexander III
One of the main tasks of the national and religious policy of Alexander III was the desire to preserve the unity of the state. The way to this was seen primarily in the Russification of the national outskirts.
Not without the influence of Pobedonostseva Russian Orthodox Church was placed in an exceptional position. Those religions that he recognized as "dangerous" for Orthodoxy were persecuted. The chief prosecutor of the Synod showed particular severity towards sectarians. Often, children were even taken away from sectarian parents.
Buddhists (Kalmyks and Buryats) were also persecuted. They were forbidden to build temples, to conduct divine services. Particularly intolerant was the attitude towards those who were officially listed as converted to Orthodoxy, but in fact continued to profess the former religion.
The government of Alexander III showed a harsh attitude towards adherents of Judaism. According to the Provisional Rules of 1882, Jews were deprived of the right to settle outside cities and towns, even within the Pale of Settlement; they were forbidden to acquire real estate in the countryside. In 1887, the Pale of Settlement itself was reduced. In 1891, a decree was issued on the eviction of Jews who illegally lived in Moscow and Moscow province. In 1887, it was determined what percentage of the total number of students in educational institutions could be Jews (percentage rate). There were restrictions on certain activities. professional activity such as in the legal profession. All these oppressions did not extend to Jews who converted to the Orthodox faith.
Catholic Poles were also subjected to persecution - they were denied access to government positions in the Kingdom of Poland and in the Western Territory.
At the same time, in the lands annexed to the Russian Empire Central Asia the Muslim religion and Muslim courts were left intact. The local population was granted the right of internal self-government, which turned out to be in the hands of the local elite. But the Russian authorities managed to win over the working strata of the population, by lowering taxes and limiting the arbitrariness of the nobility.
Alexander III refused to continue the liberal reforms begun by his father. He took a firm course in preserving the foundations of autocracy. Reformatory activity was continued only in the field of economics.
The reign of Alexander III and the counter-reforms of 1880 - 1890s
As you already know, from this topic, that after the murder of his father, his son Alexander III came to the throne. The death of Alexander II shocked his son so much that at the beginning of his reign he began to fear various revolutionary trends, and therefore it was difficult for him to decide on a political course. But in the end, Alexander III succumbed to the influence of such reactionary ideologists as K.P. Pobedonostsev and P.A. Tolstoy decided to preserve autocracy and dislike for liberal reforms in the empire.
And since after the brutal assassination of Alexander II, the public lost faith in the Narodnaya Volya with their terror and police repression, the society changed its views towards conservative forces and counter-reforms.
Literally a month after the assassination of the emperor, Alexander III publishes the Manifesto "On the inviolability of autocracy." In the published Manifesto, Alexander III declares that he decided to preserve the foundations of autocracy in the state. With this Manifesto, he practically revived the order of Nicholas I, thereby strengthening the regime of the police state.
First of all, the Emperor dismisses M. Loris-Melikov, who was the main reformer during the reign of his father, and also replaces all liberal rulers with more cruel supporters of the chosen course.
K.N. became the main ideologist in the development of counter-reforms. Pobedonostsev, who believed that the liberal reforms of Alexander II did not lead to anything good, but, on the contrary, only caused upheavals in society. In this regard, he called for a return to the more traditional canons of national life.
To further strengthen the autocracy, changes were made to the system of zemstvo self-government. After that, the zemstvo chiefs received unlimited power over the peasants.
By issuing the “Regulations on Conservation Measures state security and public peace", Alexander III expanded the powers of the governors and there he himself allowed them to declare a state of emergency, expel them without trial or investigation, bring them to a military court, close educational institutions and fight in the liberal or revolutionary movement. Severe censorship was also introduced and all major liberal publications were closed.
All city self-government bodies and state institutions were under strict control.
The emperor also made his changes to the peasant communities, thereby forbidding the sale and pledge of peasant lands, which nullified the successes of his father's rule.
To educate the intelligentsia obedient to the authorities, the university counter-reform was also adopted. Strict discipline was introduced in all universities. For admission to the university, it was necessary to provide recommendations on the political reliability of students. In addition, people pleasing to the government were appointed to all significant university positions.
A Decree was also issued under the title "On Cook's Children". According to this Decree, it was forbidden to accept children, lackeys, laundresses, coachmen and other people who belonged to the lower class in the gymnasium.
Factory legislation was amended to prohibit workers from asserting their rights.
In addition, the policy towards the peasants was also tightened. They were canceled any benefits related to the redemption of land, and peasant allotments were limited in size.
During the reign of Alexander III, they tried in every possible way to stop admiration for the West, the ideas of a special Russian path and the identity of Russia were planted. In addition, the term tsar was returned and the cult of the monarch and the monarchy was spread everywhere.
The fashion of those times dictated the wearing of caftans, bast shoes and a beard.
And if we sum up the results of the counter-reforms carried out by the policy of Alexander III, then it can be considered rather contradictory. On the one hand, under his rule, the country experienced an industrial boom and a peaceful existence without wars from outside. But on the other hand, discontent among the population grew, tension appeared in society and social unrest intensified.
Questions and tasks
1. What circumstances had a decisive impact on the domestic policy of Alexander III?
2. Highlight the main directions of the domestic policy of Alexander III.
3. Compare the domestic policy of Alexander II and Alexander III. Where do you see the fundamental differences? Can you find commonalities?
4. What innovations of the previous reign were subjected to revision by Alexander III and why?
5. Give an assessment of the social policy of Alexander III. What do you see as its advantages and disadvantages?
6. Give an assessment of the national policy of Alexander III.
7. Do you agree with the statement that the period of the reign of Alexander III was a period of counter-reforms, that is, a period of liquidation of the reforms of the previous reign?
The documents
From the note of Count N.P. Ignatiev to M.T. Loris-Melikov. March 1881
No matter how criminal the actions of fanatics may be, the fight against any even fanatical opinion is possible and successful only when it is not limited to one impact of material force, but when the right thought is opposed to error, to this destructive idea - the idea of a correct state order. The most stubborn, most persistent, most energetic pursuit of sedition by all the police and administrative means at the disposal of the government is undoubtedly the urgent need of the moment. But such persecution, being a cure inside disease, is unlikely to be a completely effective means of struggle. Achievement ultimate goal and the eradication of evil is conceivable only under the indispensable condition - simultaneously with such a persecution - of the steady and correct direction of the state on the path of peaceful development by continuing the reforms and undertakings of the past reign ... Now ... is the most convenient moment to call for assistance to the government of the zemstvo people and offer them for preliminary discussion of all those reform projects that the whole of Russia is looking forward to with such impatience.
What is the Constitution? Western Europe gives us the answer to this. The constitutions that exist there are the instrument of any untruth, the instrument of all intrigues... And this falsehood according to the Western model, unsuitable for us, they want, to our misfortune, to our destruction, to introduce in our country. Russia was strong thanks to the autocracy, thanks to unlimited trust and close ties between the people and their tsar ... But instead of that they propose to set up a talking shop for us ... We already suffer from talking ...
In such a terrible time ... one must think not about the establishment of a new one, in which new corrupting speeches would be made, but about deeds. We need to act.
Document questions:
1. What was the essence of the programs of Ignatiev and Pobedonostsev?
2. Which of them was adopted by Alexander III? Why?
Expanding vocabulary
Inspector- an official who checks the correctness of someone's actions.
Sedition- conspiracy, rebellion, something forbidden.
Resettlement policy- the movement of the population for permanent residence in the sparsely populated outlying regions of Russia - in Siberia, the southern Urals, the North Caucasus, Novorossia, the Lower Volga region, and free lands.
police state- characteristic political system, in which the suppression of internal opponents is practiced by methods of political violence, surveillance and investigation by law enforcement forces. In such a state, there is control over the location, movement, behavior of citizens, information is being collected about obvious and probable opponents of the authorities.
Reaction- the policy of active resistance to progressive changes in society.
sectarians- members of religious groups that do not recognize the teachings of the main church.
Circular- order of the authority to subordinate institutions.
Pale of Settlement- the territory on which it was allowed in 1791-1917. permanent residence of Jews in Russia. Covered 15 provinces.
Danilov A. A. History of Russia, XIX century. Grade 8: textbook. for general education institutions / A. A. Danilov, L. G. Kosulina. - 10th ed. - M.: Enlightenment, 2009. - 287 p., L. ill., maps.
In the internal policy of the III Branch of the royal office, several areas of activity were distinguished.
The fight against sedition
Basic task III Branch was fighting sedition.
In the epoch of Nicholas, this struggle was not very difficult, and the III Section, with all its imperfections in organization, relatively coped with the work. At that time, the gendarmes did not have major political failures, and even in the year 1848, terrible for the whole of Europe, Dubelt, in a letter to V. A. Zhukovsky, who was abroad, could state with satisfaction: “Everything is quiet, safe, and we must thank the Lord God that he handed us over to such a beneficent sovereign right hand" 8 .
This social stagnation had social causes quite clear to us. Describing above the social policy of the Nikolaev government and Nicholas himself, since he was an important link in state policy, she noted the duality inherent in this time. This duality arose not from any personal qualities of the emperor, but from the duality, the inconsistency of the main lines of development of Nicholas Russia.
The combination of conservatism and demagoguery was determined by the transitional nature of the era: "Industrial capitalism was already there and was fighting for power with commercial capitalism, but the latter was so strong so far that it did not make a single obvious concession, trying to buy its rival with secret concessions" 9 .
This struggle between industrial and commercial capital and their mutual adaptation to each other determine the alignment of the class forces of the epoch.
The nobility in its entirety remained faithful to the throne, which guarded the foundations of serfdom. No opposition to the government, even passive, the nobility does not show, especially since it is from him and in direct material dependence.
When in 1839 the French traveler Marquis de Custine, observing the morals of the Russian nobility, was surprised at the general servility to the tsar and his policies, he was explained that most of the noble estates were mortgaged in a state bank and Nikolai was not only the first nobleman of his state, but also the first creditor his nobility. This is not a random explanation invented for a curious foreigner, but the official point of view. III Branch seriously believed that the impetus that prompted the Decembrists to terrorize the royal family was the desire to free themselves from their creditor.
The Russian bourgeoisie, which had not been particularly revolutionary in the previous era, was nevertheless inclined to oppose the government during its period of rapid growth. The capitalists would not object to certain bourgeois reforms, but they were not at all inclined to defend them with arms in hand and were satisfied with the compromises that the government offered them. The oppressed classes remained: peasants and workers. And the III Branch paid close attention to them.
"Exploring all sides folk life The Department paid special attention to those issues that were of predominant importance ... Between these issues, for many years, the position of the serfs occupied the leading place. III Department studied his living conditions in detail, closely followed all the abnormal manifestations of serf relations and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to abolish serfdom" 10 .
10) Quoted. by: Trotsky.I. III branch under Nicholas I, L., 1990, p.24
I believe that we should not be surprised at this seemingly strange situation: it is not freethinkers, not Decembrists or Petrashevists who act as defenders of peasant liberation, but Nikolaev gendarmes, and the enemies of serfdom are not demoted to the rank and file, they are not exiled to Siberia, but are rewarded with ranks, orders and power. Isn't it a mistake?
Did the gendarmes retroactively ascribe to themselves (the commemorative review quoted above refers to 1876) participation in the reform, for the mere thought of which at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas they were exiled and driven through the ranks?
No, that's right. The gendarmes did come to the conclusion about the need for reform, but they came in their own way. In their writings, the III Division did not forget to mention that the mass of the dissatisfied includes "the entire serf class, which considers itself oppressed and longs for a change in its position." And in the "moral-political report" for 1839, the Department recalled that the whole spirit of the people is directed towards one goal - to liberation, that serfdom is a powder magazine under the state.
The picture becomes clear. The conclusion about the need for release was led by the interests of the police security of the state, which played a significant role in the ongoing reform of 1861. The gendarmes too often faced peasant uprisings in the role of suppressors, so as not to understand the full danger of the new Pugachevism. In its practical activities, the III Section was engaged in the suppression of peasant uprisings - in this matter, the gendarmerie teams played an invariable role. True, in exceptional cases, landowners also got the cruelty of the landowners. In the report of the III Department, with significant exaggeration, it is said that "all cases of disobedience and riot of peasants, the murder of landowners and administrators or attempted murder, as well as cruel treatment by landlords, were immediately
presented to the sovereign." 11 In fact, not only did most of the landowners abuse their slaves with impunity, but a significant proportion of the unrest was liquidated by local means, without reaching the attention of the III Division.
The Department also paid considerable attention to the labor question, which was first appearing on the stage of Russian history at that time. In this regard, the gendarmes turned out to be quite sensitive and were able to signal the danger when it was just emerging, especially since workers' unrest, in general similar to peasant riots, sometimes acquired a peculiar organizational character ... Thus, according to the III Department, in 1837 "on In the mining factories of the Lazarevs in the Perm province, some artisans of the factory ... constituted a secret society, which had the goal of destroying the power of the landowners and establishing liberty among the serfs. But, pursuing the workers' rebellions and carefully recording all cases of workers' unrest, the gendarmes did not forget the need for some "social prevention ". So in 1835 the first factory law was issued. Analyzing its activities over a period of 50 years, the III Branch noted with particular satisfaction the attention it showed to the needs of the working class.
“In 1841,” we read in the anniversary report, “a special commission was established under the chairmanship of Major General of the Gendarme Corps, Count Buxhoevden, to study the life of working people and artisans in St. Petersburg. The information presented by it was reported to the relevant ministers and caused some administrative measures that contributed to the improvement of the situation of the capital's working population. By the way, on the basis of the assumptions of the commission, on the initiative of the III Department, a permanent hospital for laborers was set up in St. Petersburg,
which served as a model for a similar institution in Moscow" 12 .
But neither the workers nor the peasant movement could take any prominent place in the work of the gendarme apparatus. The first was only just beginning, and the second, by its very nature, could not justify the existence of the Third Division. The spontaneous peasant revolts could not be prevented by any police supervision, by any secret agents. In the fight against the mass movement, the gendarmes acted either as suppressors or with wise suggestions of precautions. Their central task was to fight the sedition of the "educated classes" as they said then. But, as we have seen above, neither the nobility nor the bourgeoisie as a whole shone with revolutionary spirit.
Examining the moods of individual groups, the gendarmes were aware of this circumstance.
Already in the "review of public opinion" for 1827 we find a picture of the attitude towards the government of various social groups.
In the first place, the review puts the "court", that is, the circle of people who make up the court society. Here, the gendarmerie supervision marks two groups: body and soul devoted to the emperor and the party of the "dowager" empress. However, the mood of the courtiers, according to the just opinion of the III Division, is insignificant: "The opinion of the court is of no importance to the government, since it (that is, opinion) does not play any role in society" 13.
In second place is "high society", that is, the metropolitan aristocracy and the bureaucratic elite. Here the survey establishes a rather rough division into two groups: "satisfied" and "dissatisfied". The dissatisfied are either disgraced nobles of the former reign, or supporters of an aristocratic constitution in the English manner, members of the "English club".
The latter seem more dangerous, but neither of them pose any significant threat in terms of transition to any action.
Next comes middle class: landowners living in the capitals and other cities, non-employed nobles, merchants of the first guild, educated people and writers. This numerous class, the heterogeneous elements of which are soldered into one whole, constitutes the soul of the empire. Everything is going well here: "The improvement in the mood and public opinion of this class is progressing with astonishing rapidity" 14 . True, the group named their petty complaints. The next social group singled out by the "review" is the bureaucracy. The latter does not inspire any serious fears, but is morally the most corrupt and requires care from this side. "Theft, forgery, misinterpretation of laws - that's their trade" 15 .
In its struggle against bureaucracy, the Third Division went quite far in words. In the picture of public opinion for 1829, an analysis of all ministries and ministers is given. In their criticism of the gendarmes, "regardless of faces" were rather harsh. Thus, it is said about Finance Minister Kankrin that he is "a knowledgeable, enlightened, active and industrious person, but stubborn: he does not listen to anyone except a few favorites who deceive him" 16 . Minister of the Interior Zakrevsky "is active and an enemy of theft, but he is completely ignorant" 17 . The Minister of Public Education is an obscurantist. War Minister Count Chernyshev "enjoys a sad reputation: it is an object of hatred of the public, of all classes without exception."
The Naval Minister is directly accused of theft, etc. Along with the characterization of the highest bureaucrats, the entire state system is also subjected to severe criticism.
But, as noted above, the struggle of the III Branch with the bureaucracy
14),15),16),17),18)Cit. by: Trotsky.I. III branch under Nicholas I, L., 1990, pp. 29-30
was historically doomed to failure.
Several "showcase" trials and punishments could not stop the ever-increasing bureaucracy of the apparatus. And, realizing its impotence, in practice, the III Department fought very little against the bureaucracy, especially the middle and lower ones, who did not come into personal conflicts with the central gendarmerie office.
Returning to the survey of public opinion, we find in it three more separate groups: the army, the serfs and the clergy. Everything is relatively good in the army: one cannot, perhaps, definitely say that the army as a whole is satisfied, but it must be admitted that it is "quite calm and in excellent spirits." The situation is unfavorable with the peasantry, yearning for liberation, and with the mass of the clergy. The latter lives in almost identical conditions with the peasantry and is infected by its sentiments.
This whole picture paints a relatively calm state of society, and indeed it was so. And the only black spot in the cloudless gendarmerie sky is intelligent noble youth. I consider it necessary to note that the center of the operational activities of the III Section was the surveillance of young people, which seemed to be the most favorable ground for the emergence of "secret societies". However, “observation soon convinced that criminal plans (meaning the Decembrists) left almost no trace in society. In the above description of “public opinion”, in addition to the social section, the national section was not forgotten. The review mentions the Baltic provinces, Finland and Poland The situation was worse with the latter, but it was precisely in Poland that the III Branch had no force. There, although to a large extent only on paper, its own constitution operated, and the viceroy, Grand Duke Konstantin, was rather skeptical of the gendarmes. After the suppression of the uprising, the Polish constitution was destroyed, and the III Section spread to Poland. Here it developed an energetic activity that crossed the border and led to the creation of foreign agents. Anything that went a little beyond what was permitted turned into a terrible crime, but not only because " the eyes of fear are large", but also because there were no other crimes at all, and to do without "states nye criminals" III Department was indecent. True, the Decembrists and, later, the Poles, scattered around various prisons, delivered a fair amount of work. A special case was opened for each, each was considered as a carrier of social unrest. But all this surveillance, although it required time and effort, could no longer bring any significant results. And the gendarmes seize on every message, every rumor about secret society or conspiracy, and clever adventurers-provocateurs use both the zeal of the gendarmerie and the emperor's fear of the revolution. Nikolay did not ignore a single political denunciation, especially related to the Decembrists or the Poles, no matter how ridiculous such a denunciation was.
Taking advantage of the emperor's suspiciousness, the Third Division set in motion such deeds and provocations, the falsity of which the most intelligent gendarmes, like Fock or Dubelt, should have understood. No wonder they said about Dubelt that he "invents conspiracies in order to constantly frighten the government and thereby prove his necessity" 19 . If Dubelt himself did not invent conspiracies, then he prevented others from plotting them. The files of the 3rd Division are full of denunciations about "state secrets" and "malice against the emperor", which, after investigation, ended in vain. These denunciations finally tired the gendarmes themselves, and they began to punish the unfortunate scammers.
At the beginning of the reign, the Corps of Gendarmes was established; which was supposed to concentrate all the moral forces of the empire, the best people of the state, combining high moral qualities with boundless devotion to the king and fatherland. This is precisely the root of evil, that unreliable people penetrated into the III Section, and the leadership in it was seized by
Dubelt, who seduced Benckendorff; this man, who was always against the government, in almost all societies, from the III Division made the place to which they gave the name - the factor office. It is necessary to write volumes in order to count all the petty cases sorted out by the III Division, and we can safely say: many of the Highest Commands came out without the will of the Sovereign. Its only place of manifestation was literature; and the gendarmes knew how to fight with her at first. But when a new revolutionary wave arose in the 1950s, the wave of the democratic revolution, the gendarmes proved powerless against it, and it was a long time before they learned to recognize its distinctive features.
IN All the reforms of the 1960s and 1970s were in fact concessions dictated by the needs of economic development and wrested from tsarism by a wave of democratic upsurge, which included a revolutionary, liberal and mass /234/ movement. The strength of this wave predetermined the size of the concessions: the stronger it was, the greater the concessions turned out to be, and vice versa. Having avoided a revolution, escaping in a revolutionary situation with reforms, tsarism retained its former social base in the person of nobles and landowners. Relying on this base, he tried to give the reforms (if it was impossible to do without them) a pure moderation. Actually, the feudal lords in the government and at the court believed that the initiated reforms should "only correct some imperfections of the current laws," nothing more, - this is how the Minister of Justice V.N. Panin. Liberal ministers and dignitaries like D.A. Milyutin, on the contrary, considered it necessary to change the very foundations of feudal legislation. In this struggle of opinions, Alexander II, who avoided extremes and, in the words of P.A. Valuev, holding on to the "system of impossible diagonals", chose the middle path semi-reforms, with the help of which it would be possible to "pay off the constitution."
The semi-reforms averted the threat of a revolutionary explosion, but they did not satisfy the “lower classes” and did not bring proper reassurance to the “tops”. The position of tsarism remained unstable. The tsar's sister Maria Nikolaevna in October 1861 spoke to P.A. Valuev: "In a year we will all be kicked out of here." A year and a half later, Valuev himself wrote in his diary: "The government is in some way in a state of siege," and on October 29, 1865, he expressed himself even more energetically: "Half of the state is in a state of exception. Punitive measures prevail."
Indeed, the reactionary course of the government was expressed not only in the fact that the progressive content of the ongoing reforms was deliberately limited. In an effort to consolidate its position, but also unwilling to deepen and radicalize reforms, tsarism was increasingly inclined to the old method - punitive terror. He not only dealt with the peasant and worker "riots", with the rebels of Poland, Belarus, Lithuania and with the leaders of the revolutionary democracy, putting P.G. Zaichnevsky, V.A. Obruchev, M.I. Mikhailov, and in 1862 - N.G. Chernyshevsky, D.I. Pisareva, N.A. Serno-Solovyevich, but also engaged in the widespread "establishment of order and discipline." Thus, on May 30, 1861, the "May Rules" for Russian students were issued, which banned all types of student associations and "gatherings" and established daily, even "hourly" police supervision over students.
However, government repressions of 1861-1865. still alternated with concessions. After solitary(both literally and figuratively) shot by D.V. Karakozov in Alexander II on April 4, 1866, all indulgences were canceled - only repressions remained. From now on, tsarism - in revenge for the shot of a lone revolutionary to the whole people - forced reaction furiously and tirelessly. /235/
“The era of reforms,” A.A. Kornilov rightly reasoned, “was over before some of the planned transformations were carried out, executed much later, like the city regulation of 1870 or the military service reform of 1874. From April 1866, a stubborn and long-term reaction that lasted, with short interruptions, almost until 1905.
Specifically, the repressions of tsarism in response to the Karakozov assassination attempt will be discussed in the next chapter. Here we will see how tsarism in the 60-70s built its punitive policy, what measures it took to legalize repressions, tighten systems punitive institutions and governing composition punishers.
A kind of profession de foi reaction for a long time was the rescript of Alexander II to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers P.P. Gagarin of May 13, 1866, who directed the government to "protect the Russian people from the germs of harmful false teachings", i.e. nip in the bud, oppositional, democratic ideas. To solve this problem, tsarism intended to rely more heavily on the governors than before. On July 22, 1866, the Committee of Ministers adopted a special "Regulation" on strengthening the power of governors. They were given the right to close without explanation any meetings (societies, artels, clubs) if they seemed "harmful", not to approve any official in office if he turned out to be not "trustworthy" enough. Even judges, independent of the administration under the 1864 law, were now subordinate to the governors. In a word, the idea of the rescript of May 13, 1866, boiled down, according to Herzen, to "steer harder, tighten the reins shorter, push harder, push harder."
In order to "govern more abruptly," tsarism in two years, from April 1866 to April 1868, replaced 29 out of 53 governors with more capable "pressure" and "crush", and most importantly, carried out a deliberate rearrangement of figures in the government "tops". Already on April 10, 1866, the new chief of the gendarmes, and therefore the chief inquisitor of the empire, instead of the sluggish Prince V.A. Dolgorukov was appointed energetic Count Pyotr Andreevich Shuvalov, who headed the alliance of extreme reactionaries, feudal lords at court. A friend of Alexander II and the "supreme earpiece" under him, Shuvalov became the de facto head of government. He subjugated the tsar himself to his will, exploiting his fear of "sedition" after the shots of Karakozov and the Polish emigrant Anton Berezovsky (June 6, 1867 in Paris) [ 1 ]. The tsarist ministers directly testified that Shuvalov "intimidated the sovereign with his daily reports about the terrible dangers that / 236 / would be exposed to both the state and the sovereign himself personally. Shuvalov's entire strength relies on this scarecrow." Taking advantage of this, Shuvalov took over almost all domestic politics, and made the persecution of "sedition" and, in general, any dissent at its core. Already in 1867 F.I. Tyutchev wrote about him:
Over prostrate Russia, Peter, nicknamed the Fourth, stood up in a sudden thunderstorm, while Arakcheev was the second [ 2 ].
Since 1866, all the ministers responsible for the fight against "sedition" were selected to match Shuvalov (and, as a rule, according to his instructions): and the resourceful Minister of the Interior Alexander Yegorovich Timashev, who cleverly combined an executioner, a serf and a sybarite, an expert on various arts - from amorous to detective; and in Shuvalov's "terrible" Minister of Justice, Count Konstantin Ivanovich Palen, so stupid that, according to Senator A.A. Polovtsov, "daily assumed amazing proportions", poor in knowledge both in Russian laws, and even in the Russian language - about him "it was only known that he had never served in the Ministry of Justice" [ 3 ], however, since 1867 he nestled in the ministerial chair for 11 years; and endowed with a natural mind, education, strength of character, but pathologically evil Minister of Education and Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Count Dmitry Andreevich Tolstoy, who kept losing his sense of reality in punitive zeal; and, finally, the court weather vane Pyotr Alexandrovich Valuev ("Vilyaev", as his enemies called him), who knew how to be equally useful for tsarism in high positions (Minister of the Interior, Minister of State Property, Chairman of the Special Conferences under the Tsar, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers) up to Shuvalov, under Shuvalov and after Shuvalov. All of them (excluding Valuev) were "not able to rise above the point of view of the police chief or even the policeman" [ 4 ], but for the executioner's way of managing a different point of view was not required. Shuvalov was content with it, the tsar believed him, and the ministers (including even Valuev) followed Shuvalov like an orchestra behind a conductor.
Rising "above prostrate Russia," Shuvalov took care of strengthening the punitive apparatus of the capital. Petersburg Chief of Police I.V. Annenkov ("sluggish and simple-hearted", as they said about him) was replaced by the former police chief of the Kingdom / 237 / Polsky F.F. Trepov, who, according to B.N. Chicherin, "in his arbitrariness he was not embarrassed by anything"; and the civil governor of St. Petersburg instead of L.N. Perovsky (father of Sofya Perovskaya), the former Oryol governor was appointed, who was also not shy about anything, General N.V. Levashov.
Shuvalov's proteges occupied key positions even in economic management: A.S. Greig became a friend of the Minister of Finance (the faceless M.Kh. Reitern), V.A. Bobrinsky - Minister of Railways. Everywhere in the government, people of the type that P.A. Valuev is defined as follows: "State Tatars", "a mixture of Tokhtamysh with the Dukes of Alba". “It becomes scary,” D.A. Milyutin lamented in his diary, “when you think in whose hands now the power and strength over the fate of the whole of Russia.”
Shuvalov and Co. pushed Alexander II to counter-reforms (first of all, to the judicial and zemstvo). "Peter IV" directly offered the tsar to restore the privileges of the nobility, curtailed by the reforms, and "to put this class back on the level that is appropriate for the balance in the state." The tsar did not decide on direct counter-reforms, but authorized further restrictions on both the Zemstvo and judicial reforms. So, in 1867, new rules on zemstvo institutions came out. “They obey the provincial chiefs and leaders,” A.V. Nikitenko wrote with concern about the Zemstvos on July 8, 1867 in connection with these rules. “Is this not the first attempt to destroy them? The reaction is taking rapid steps.”
Judicial reform was adjusted even more rigidly. Let me remind the reader that, according to the Charters of 1864, the Governing Senate became a purely cassation body, and all cases of state crimes were transferred to the jurisdiction of the judicial chambers. However, the very first political trial in the St. Petersburg Court of Justice in the summer of 1871 in the case of the Nechaevites showed the authorities that the new procedure for investigating political cases was too democratic. Therefore, already on June 7, 1872, a special court was established in the Senate for all serious political cases (the criterion for the seriousness of a case was seen in the fact that the punishment provided for it by law was associated with the deprivation or restriction of civil rights). The court was called the Special Presence of the Governing Senate (OPPS). It consisted of the first present and five senators, who were appointed by the king himself at his own discretion from among the most "gifted" with punitive abilities. The largest political processes eras - "50s" (1877) and "193s" (1877-1878). Here, in 1881, Andrei Zhelyabov, Sofya Perovskaya, Nikolai Kibalchich were sentenced to death, in 1887 - Alexander Ulyanov, in 1905 - Ivan Kalyaev. /238/
Such state institutions as the Holy Synod and His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery were hardly affected by bourgeois transformations and acted, as of old, in a feudal spirit and feudal methods. But their reactionary purpose was even strengthened. The III branch of the Imperial Chancellery, as a center of political investigation and reprisals against dissidents, gained unprecedented strength under Shuvalov. The staff of its officials was small: in 1871 - 38 people, in 1878 - 52, in 1880 - 72. April 1866 consisted of 7076 people[ 5 ]. Tsarism did not skimp on spending for its beloved department. According to I.V. Orzhehovsky, in 1866, the III department was allocated 250 thousand rubles, in 1867 - 320 thousand, and from 1869 to 1876 these appropriations were kept at a level between 400 and 500 thousand rubles. As for the corps of gendarmes, it annually absorbed 1.5 million rubles.
After Alexander II, by decree of May 19, 1871, returned to the III department the investigation of all state crimes (temporarily taken away from him under the Judicial Charters of 1864), Shuvalov's "cattle" began to repair unbridled arbitrariness in the country, invading private life, into the personal files of citizens at the first denunciation or absurd suspicion - impudently, cynically, rudely. To help him, extraordinary commissions of inquiry were created (on cases of revolutionary appeals in 1862, Karakozovsky in 1866, on propaganda in the empire in 1874), and in 1878 it was established under the chairmanship of P.A. Valuev and with the participation of the chief of gendarmes N.V. Mezentsov, Minister of War D.A. Milyutin, ministers of internal affairs (LS Makov) and justice (DN Nabokov) A special meeting on the development of common measures to combat "sedition".
As for the Synod, after 1861 it was still used, but with a greater political bias, in order to educate not so much a godly, as law-abiding and royal-loving, i.e. loyal faithful flock. YES. Tolstoy and his worthy successor as Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K.P. The Pobedonostsev made the Holy Synod an ideological handyman for the reaction. Count Tolstoy, who concurrently also held the post of Minister of Education, terrorized the students, seeing in them a hotbed of "sedition." On May 25, 1867, he put into effect new (again "May"!) "Rules" that obligated the university authorities, first of all, to supervise, together with the police authorities, the "political reliability" of students. /239/
The general offensive of the reaction in the domestic policy of the government of the 60s, the most liberal of the ministers of Alexander II, D.A. Milyutin summed up in a diary entry dated December 31, 1873, as follows: “What a striking and regrettable comparison with the situation in which I entered the top government 13 years ago! Then everything was striving forward - now everything is pulling back. Then the sovereign sympathized with progress , he himself moved forward; now he has lost confidence in everything that he himself created, in everything that surrounds him, even in himself.
Historiographic reference. The economic development of Russia after the reforms of the 1960s has been thoroughly studied. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, liberal populist economists (especially N.F. Danielson in "Essays on our post-reform social economy") examined the emerging Russian capitalism, considering it as an evil that supposedly should not take root in Russia because of chronic narrowness of the domestic market and therefore has no future. In polemics with them, bourgeois authorities (mainly P.B. Struve and M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky [ 6 ]), on the contrary, they argued that capitalism had already won in Russia, and urged people to go to it "for training", since it marks not only national, but also worldwide progress. Those and others were sharply criticized from the standpoint of Marxism by V.I. Lenin in the largest of his works, The Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899). The colossal body of data on the economy, processed here by Lenin, is subject to a somewhat biased political idea - to prove that capitalism in Russia naturally wins, but also prepares itself as a system, economically and socially unjust, a gravedigger in the person of the proletariat.
Soviet scientists in general works on the history of the Russian economy (P.I. Lyashchenko, P.A. Khromov) and in special studies on the all-Russian market (I.D. Kovalchenko, L.V. Milov), on agriculture (AM Anfimov), industry (V. K. Yatsunsky), on the formation of the working class (A.G. Rashin) and the bourgeoisie (V.Ya. Laverychev), on the economic policy of tsarism (I.F. Gindin) methodologically relied on Lenin’s conclusions and therefore avoided any discrepancies with Lenin, although in private observations, calculations, judgments they reported a lot of new things, thus supplementing the Leninist picture of the development of capitalism in Russia and even (indirectly) clarifying it. /240/
In 1978, P.G. Ryndzyunsky tried (rather successfully) to survey the process of establishing Russian capitalism, taking into account the experience gained earlier in Soviet historiography[ 7 ]. The most original and profound study of post-reform agriculture in Russia is the monograph by N.M. Druzhinin "Russian village at the turning point. 1861-1880." (M., 1978), and from works on the history of Russian industry, "History of ferrous metallurgy in the USSR" (M., 1954) can be preferably recommended by acad. S.G. Strumilin and the latest work by A.M. Solovieva "Industrial revolution in Russia in the XIX century." (M., 1990).
Guided by the Marxist-Leninist methodology, Soviet historians have naturally always shown a special interest in the position of the masses in post-reform Russia and in their struggle against the predatory consequences of the reforms. The explosion of peasant protest in response to the reform of 1861 became the subject of a meaningful monograph by M.E. Naydenova[ 8 ].
As for the government reaction of the 60-70s, it has not yet been the subject of a special generalizing study, although its individual aspects are considered in the cited work of I.V. Orzhehovsky, in two books by V.G. Chernukha[ 9 ] and in my monograph "Madness of the Brave: Russian Revolutionaries and the Punitive Policy of Tsarism 1866-1882." (M., 1978).
In foreign literature on this topic, the tome of the Czech historian Ya.I. Pursha "Industrial revolution. Development of the concept and concept"[ 10 ], which conceptually coincides with the most serious studies of scientists from the USSR and the CIS, and the monograph by D. Westwood (England) "History railways in Russia"[ 11 ].
1 . A.I. Berezovsky, who shot at Alexander II when he was riding in the same carriage with Napoleon III, was so afraid of hitting Napoleon that he missed Alexander as well.
2 . As a person, Shuvalov was "terrible", but not cruel, even loving: he loved power and fame, women and horses, he loved his gendarmes, although he knew their price (he spoke with pride about them: "my cattle").
3 . Three centuries. M., 1913. T. 6. S. 223.
4 . Milyutin D.A. A diary. M., 1950. T. 3. S. 139.
5 . Cm.: Orzhehovsky I.V. Autocracy against revolutionary Russia. M., 1982. S. 150.
6 . Cm.: Struve P.B. Critical notes on the issue of Russia's economic development. SPb., 1894; Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Russian factory in the past and present. SPb., 1898. T. 1.
7 . Cm.: Ryndzyunsky P.G. The establishment of capitalism in Russia (1850-1880s). M., 1978.
8 . Cm.: Naydenov M.E. Class struggle in the post-reform village (1861-1863). M., 1955.
9 . Cm.: Chernukha V.G. The internal policy of tsarism from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s. 19th century L., 1978; her own. Government policy towards the press (60-70s of the 19th century). L., 1989.
10 . Cm.: Purs,]. Prumyslova revoluce: Vyvoj pojmu a koncepce. Prague, 1973.
11 . Cm.: Westwood J.H. A History of Russian Railways. L., 1966.
Today I will introduce you to the book "Sedition", which was published by the Moscow publishing house "Materik". It included declassified documents from the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor's Office of the USSR, illustrating, as the subtitle says, "dissent in the USSR under Khrushchev and Brezhnev." This subtitle, however, is somewhat confusing, because the book tells very little about what we used to consider dissent - that is, about the human rights movement, about dissidents, samizdat, and so on. It shows mainly the "popular" opposition, so to speak: spontaneous protests of individuals and small groups, the production of leaflets and anonymous letters, the creation of underground organizations, and so on. From 1956 to 1987 for anti-Soviet agitation and for, as the article of the criminal code stated, “the spread of deliberately false fabrications discrediting the Soviet state and social order”, more than eight thousand people were convicted in the USSR. This is a lot, considering that not everyone was judged. In the second half of the seventies and early eighties extrajudicial persecution was very popular with the KGB (from dismissal from work to imprisonment in psychiatric hospitals) and the so-called "prevention" - that is, warning and intimidating conversations.
The book "Sedition" is not just a collection of documents. Its editors and compilers prefaced each "chapter" with a short and precise analysis of the described "deeds". Here, for example, is a section called "Sacrileges and Defilers", which talks about the "abuses" of the images of leaders. Just one snippet from the author's comment:
“The cult of the leaders created a special relationship both to themselves (or rather, their public image), and to the images that replaced them ...
The belief that there is a deep connection between the image and the depicted goes back to ancient magical beliefs ... Accordingly, the attempt on the images of leaders (or mockery of them), which was one of the types of anti-Soviet acts, was not just hooliganism, but a kind of ritual defilement, often done ostentatiously.
Most often, the objects of “attacks” were images of the leader or Lenin acting at that time.”
By the way, the peak of "attacks" on the images of Ilyich was recorded in 1969-70, on the occasion of preparations for the magnificent celebration of the centenary of his birth. According to the KGB, 155 "politically harmful, hooligan actions related to the anniversary" were recorded. What exactly did they express? Chekists reported to the Central Committee:
"Hooligan elements destroyed or damaged several monuments, busts and bas-reliefs of the leader, a significant number of panels, stands and banners, as well as portraits, slogans, posters, reproductions, wall newspapers and other festive decorations."
Of course, the Mausoleum was a very special, sacred place. Someone Trekhalin in March 1962, while visiting the mausoleum, tried to shoot at the sarcophagus with a rocket launcher. In March 1966, a sledgehammer was thrown into the sarcophagus, and six months later, a hammer. Throwing a hammer said during interrogation: I wanted Lenin to get up and come to life.
But, of course, openly, demonstratively, not many dared to protest. There were much more secretly produced leaflets and unsigned "abusive" letters that came to various authorities.
Here, for example, is an anonymous letter sent to the Central Election Commission for elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in March 1958:
“Dear comrades!
I am writing these words not on my own behalf, but on behalf of the entire people of Pskov, for this is what all our people are talking about.
1. When will someone from the government visit us? Here they would come
even Khrushchev or Bulganin would know how we live, well or
bad, and maybe they wouldn't rant that we are very
do we live well in Russia? Why don't we ever have any of them?
2. Why did Nikita Khrushchev become our master, since when?! around him
everyone is laughing, all sorts of anecdotes, fables are put together, doesn’t it really reach Moscow? After all, he is a corn-grower, a comedian and a swindler ...
3. Why is it only heard on the radio - the first secretary, the first secretary? Yes, everyone is tired of it. Why does he talk so much, doesn't let anyone tell?
4. Tell the government: we need to change our anthem. That is, his music, because our hymn resembles some kind of storm, a disaster for mankind, because just listen for yourself, you just involuntarily want to cry: it portends some kind of misfortune.
Dear comrades!!!
Remember: this is all true truth, elections are all formalism that we hold. It has taken such a form that everyone's voice or no voice does not play a role in this: come, throw this simple piece of paper without looking, and that's it - that's what it came to.
The same amount - three years - was received by V. G. Petryanov, head of the supply department of a small factory in the Gorky region. In April 1957, he sent an anonymous letter to the editor of the Pravda newspaper. It contained these words:
“Propaganda tirelessly repeats that the party is constantly showing concern for the people, it does not even have other interests than caring for the people. And when you compare propaganda with the practical life of the people, it turns out the opposite...
Created a cumbersome bureaucracy. You bake ministries like pancakes. Surround yourself with people close to you. How embarrassing."
Generally speaking, as the authors of the book "Sedition" write, the distribution of anonymous letters and anti-Soviet leaflets was one of the most massive types of conscious anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda. Of the four and a half thousand supervisory proceedings in cases of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda, instituted from the time of Stalin's death to the perestroika of the eighties, information about which historians have found, more than a thousand relate specifically to the distribution of anonymous documents. Moreover, the overwhelming majority - more than two thirds - are not letters, but leaflets. Let us, however, be careful with the conclusions here: leaflets were simply persecuted more severely than anonymous letters. In addition, the Chekists did not catch everyone, and not all of the “revealed” were judged. From the memorandums of the KGB to the Central Committee of the CPSU, it is clear that the number of discovered authors of leaflets and anonymous anti-Soviet letters significantly exceeded the number of those prosecuted. In the chapter called "Leaflets and anonymous letters" there is another interesting statistic. It turns out that most of the authors of anti-Soviet documents were workers. True, the number of students and schoolchildren grew over the years, but still they were far from the “hegemon”. Average age"distributors" - 44 years old, residents of Moscow, Leningrad, and other large cities predominate.
It is also very interesting how leaflets were produced and distributed. After all, it was technically difficult. Someone wrote by hand, sometimes in block letters, carbon paper or each copy separately. Others reproduced documents on typewriters, used rubber clichés, printed like ordinary photographs, and occasionally used homemade hectographs. There are even cases of the creation of small underground printing houses.
Today, this will seem strange to many representatives of the younger generation of Russians or, say, residents of Ukraine: why didn’t they make photocopies? After all, it's the easiest thing to do. The authors of the book "Sedition" remind:
“Access to any copying equipment in the USSR was extremely difficult - and precisely because of the fear that it would serve anti-Soviet goals. For example, photocopiers that were available only in state institutions were installed at the request of the KGB in separate rooms with combination locks, only one employee responsible for working on the machine had the right to enter there. He communicated with customers of copies through a window that opened in the door. For the production of copies, it was necessary to place an order with an exact indication of the number of sheets to be copied and sign it with the head of the institution. Orders were registered in a special journal, which was regularly checked by KGB officers, comparing it with the indicators of the sheet counter on the machine.
The case of Efim Shatov, who was arrested in December 195, is shown in great detail in the book "Sedition". He sent out five leaflets by mail, addressing one of them to Voroshilov, who was then chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. 60-year-old Shatov worked as an artist in a publishing house of educational and pedagogical literature. The most interesting thing about his rather typical case is that his leaflets also included poetic calls to fight against the "pseudo-Leninists", as he put it:
“Get up, get up, Soviet people,
We are not afraid of the fight for freedom.
We will throw off the nobles and their whole vile family!
The trouble lies with our rulers."
Having written these lines in his decision, the investigator of the KGB Department decided - just in case - to skip the names of the specific "rulers" whom Shatov branded. And the investigator got it like this:
“The rulers removed the people from the accounts:
Their skin is dearer to them than anything.
And the nobleman rules the country ... (the accused named here the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU),
And every ... (he called the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU).
And the original was like this:
And the nobleman Khrushchev rules the country,
And every Furtseva, too.
Leaflets were not always the lot of singles. Often they were made by various underground groups, as, for example, in November 1957 in the city of Stalino. Here, the creators of the illegal "Realist Workers' Circle of Democrats" distributed about two thousand leaflets "Do not trust the Chekists." And in the leaflets of the "Socialist Union of Struggle for Freedom", which appeared at the same time in Kyiv, it was said:
"The pressure of events recent years forced the Kremlin rulers to abandon the methods most hated by the people ... But the essence of the regime remained the same. The people are completely removed from the government of the country. There are no elementary democratic freedoms, human rights have been reduced to nothing ... "
The authorities considered such leaflets much more dangerous: after all, it was about organized opposition to the regime. And this organized opposition had a considerable scope. From the 67th to the 71st years, for example, the state security agencies "revealed" more than three thousand underground groups and organizations. True, almost all of them were small - an average of 3-5 people, and it would be more correct to call them circles, but this did not mean that they were dealt with less cruelly. More than half of the participants in these groups were teenagers and students, driven by revolutionary romance, gleaned from Soviet books and films. In Khrushchev's times, they appealed, as a rule, to the "true", in their opinion, Marxism-Leninism. In their revolutionary idealism, the naive followers of the "Young Guard" and "Gadfly" believed that the followers and performers, who "distorted" Marxist-Leninist theory in practice, were to blame for all the troubles. The names of these illegal organizations speak for themselves: "Party of Struggle for the Reality of Lenin's Ideas", "Socialist Party of the Soviet Union", "Union of Honest Workers" and so on...
There was no indulgence for these "honest workers" and "true Leninists". They were convicted under the same articles and sentenced to the same draconian terms as members of underground fascist organizations (there were also such). Take, for example, the case of the "Workers' and Peasants' Underground Party", created by the explosives of the Artyom-Dva Deep mine in the Rostov region. The KGB report on this organization, which consisted of five people, says that one of the "immediate" reasons for its creation was to increase the output standards for workers. This organization existed for two months, managed to adopt a program and draw up an appeal. For this, the author of the program received ten years, two more people - eight each, the rest - four and three years in prison. The same terms were given, for example, to underground workers from Minsk, who were going to organize a terrorist act in 1962. The KGB certificate says this:
“In 1962, 4th-year students of the Belarusian Polytechnic Institute Khanzhenkov and Khrapovitsky and the ambulance driver Seryogin united in illegal organization with the aim of using terrorist methods to achieve the establishment of a bourgeois-democratic republic in the USSR ...
The first terrorist act of the organization was the explosion of the mast of the 3rd Minsk radio station - the jammer of the transmissions of foreign radio stations, as well as the distribution of leaflets explaining the reasons terrorist act. On October 7, 1963, the Supreme Court of the Byelorussian SSR sentenced Khanzhenkov and Seregin to 10 years in prison, Khrapovitsky to 8 years in a strict regime colony.
Of course, such "terrorists" were an absolute exception. Since the end of the sixties, pro-communist, pro-Marxist organizations have also become an absolute exception. The point is not only that in the Brezhnev era the ideological base of the opposition expanded significantly, but also that there were much fewer underground members in general. The human rights movement was based on completely different organizational principles: not underground, but, on the contrary, openness, publicity, publicity. Of course, relying on publicity, on legal and semi-legal forms of struggle, facilitated the work of political investigation. Nevertheless, it was a conscious choice: to strive for a wide propaganda impact, publicity of acts of protest, and appeal to world public opinion. The influence of "samizdat", for example, was much more effective than the distribution of leaflets. The latter, however, also continued to appear and continued to pursue them. Perestroika was already beginning, and the indefatigable Chekists kept starting and starting criminal cases. We quote.
The initial period of the reign of Alexander III. After the death of Alexander II, his second son Alexander III (1881-1894) came to 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 key question- providing the peasants with land, which could significantly strengthen the social support of the autocracy). At the same time, Alexander III was not devoid of natural common sense and, unlike his father, had a stronger will.
Shortly after the assassination of Alexander II, which sowed panic in the highest circles, the leaders " People's Will' were arrested. April 3, 1881 involved in the assassination attempt on the late Emperor SL. Perovskaya, A. I. Zhelyabov, N. I. Kibalchich, N. I. Rysakov and T. M. Mikhailov were hanged, and G. M. Gelfman soon died in prison.
On March 8 and 21, meetings of the Council of Ministers were held, at which the Loris-Melikov project was discussed. Chief Procurator 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 watchmen of the project were in the majority, Alexander III postponed its consideration, after which they did not return to it.
April 29, 1881 published the royal manifesto, written by Pobedonostsev. It spoke about the protection of the autocracy from any "encroachments", that is, from constitutional changes. Seeing in the manifesto allusions to the rejection of reforms in general, liberal ministers - D.A. Milyutin, M.T. Loris-Melikov, A.A. Abaza (Minister of Finance) resigned. Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich was removed from the leadership of the fleet.
V. K. Plehve became the director of the Police Department, which replaced the III Section, and in 1884 - I. P. Durnovo. .Degaev, almost completely defeated the "People's Will". True, in December 1883 he himself was killed by Degaev. who considered his cooperation with the police unprofitable, but this, of course, could not save the revolutionary movement.
In parallel with the police in March, the Holy Squad, which arose in March 1881, fought against the revolutionaries, which included more than 700 officials, generals, bankers, including P. A. Shuvalov, S. Yu. Witte, B. V. Stürmer S With the help of its own agents, this voluntary organization tried to undermine the revolutionary movement. But already at the end of 1881, Alexander III ordered the dissolution of the "Holy Squad", the existence of which indirectly spoke of the inability of the authorities to cope with the "sedition" on their own.
In August 1881, according to the "Regulations on Measures for the Preservation of State 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 enterprises, ban the publication of newspapers, etc. . Any locality could be declared in de facto state of emergency. Introduced for 3 years, the “Regulations” were extended more than once and were valid until 1917.
But the authorities did not limit themselves to repressions, trying to carry out certain positive changes. The first government of Alexander III included several liberal ministers, primarily the Minister of the Interior N. P. Ignatiev and Finance N. Kh. Bunge. Their activities are associated with such measures as the abolition in 1881 of the temporarily obligated position of the peasants, the reduction of redemption payments, the gradual abolition of the heavy poll tax. In November 1881, a commission headed by Loris-Melikov's former deputy M.S. Kakhanov began work on a project for the reform of local government. However, in 1885 the commission was dissolved, and its activities had no real results.
In April 1882, Ignatiev proposed to Alexander III that in May 1883 the Zemsky Sobor should be convened, which was supposed to confirm the inviolability of the autocracy. This caused sharp criticism of Pobedonostsev, and the tsar, who did not want any elected representation, was also dissatisfied. In addition, the autocracy, in his opinion, needed no confirmation. As a result, in May 1882, N. P. Ignatiev was replaced as Minister of the Interior by the conservative D. A. Tolstoy.
The period of counter-reforms. The resignation of Ignatiev 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” that were allowed under Alexander II, which, according to the tsar and his entourage, were “alien” in the Russian environment. The corresponding 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 "gratuitous additions" to the peasants' allotments. This meant that the government intended to continue to rely on the "noble" estate, which had no historical perspective, and did not want to solve the country's most important problem - land.
The first serious counter-reform was the university charter of 1884, which sharply limited the autonomy of universities and raised 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 position of zemstvo chiefs was introduced, designed to replace mediators and justices of the peace. They were appointed by the Minister of the Interior from among hereditary nobles and could approve and dismiss representatives of peasant self-government, impose punishments, including corporal punishment, resolve land disputes, etc. All this created great opportunities for arbitrariness, strengthened the power of the nobles over the peasants and in no way did not improve the work of zemstvo bodies.
In June 1890, the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” were adopted. It introduced the estate principle of elections to zemstvos. The first curia was noble, the second - urban, the third - peasant. For the nobles, the property qualification was lowered, for the representatives of the cities it was increased. As for the representatives from the peasants, they were appointed by the governor from among the candidates elected by the peasants. However, once again encountering the opposition of the majority of the State Council, Alexander III refrained from completely abolishing the electivity and all-estate zemstvo bodies.
In 1892, a new city regulation was adopted, according to which the electoral qualification was raised, and the mayor and members of the city council became civil servants subordinate to the governors.
For several years, counter-reforms in the field of the court were stretched. In 1887, the ministers of internal affairs and justice received the right to declare court sessions closed, and the property and educational qualifications for jurors increased. In 1889, cases of crimes against the order of administration, malfeasance, etc. were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the jury. .V.Muravyov on a complete revision of the judicial charters in 1864 was prevented by the death of Alexander III.
Tightened censorship policy. According to the "Provisional Rules on the Press", adopted in August 1882, the Ministries of the Interior, Education and the Synod could close "seditious" newspapers and magazines. Publications that received a warning from the authorities underwent preliminary censorship. Special circulars forbade the coverage in the press of such topics as the labor issue, the redistribution of land, the problems of educational institutions, the 25th anniversary of the abolition of serfdom, and the actions of the authorities. Under Alexander III, the liberal newspapers Strana, Golos, Moscow Telegraph, and the Otechestvennye Zapiski magazine, edited by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, were closed, 15 editions in total. The non-periodical press was also subjected to persecution, 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. “Seditious” literature was withdrawn from the libraries: works by L.N. over 1,300 plays were banned.
The policy of Russification of the outskirts of the empire and the infringement of local autonomy was actively pursued. In Finland, instead of the previous financial autonomy, compulsory admission Russian coin, curtailed the rights of the Finnish Senate. In Poland, which was now called not the Kingdom of Poland, but the Vistula Region, compulsory teaching in Russian was introduced, and the Polish Bank was closed. The Russification policy was actively pursued in Ukraine and Belarus, where virtually no literature was published in Russian. national languages, the Uniate Church was persecuted. In the Baltics, local judicial and administrative bodies were actively replaced by general imperial ones, the population converted to Orthodoxy, and the German language of the local elite was forced out. The Russification policy was carried out in Transcaucasia as well; the Armenian church was persecuted. Orthodoxy was forcibly introduced among Muslims and pagans of the Volga region and Siberia. In 1892-1896. the Multan case, fabricated by the authorities, was investigated on charges of Udmurt peasants of sacrificing human sacrifices to pagan gods (in the end, the defendants were acquitted).
The rights of the Jewish population were limited, the residence of which the government sought to limit the so-called "Pale of Settlement". Their residence in Moscow and the Moscow province was limited. Jews were forbidden to acquire property in the countryside. In 1887, the 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 condemning the terrorists to the new tsar and expressed their hope for the completion of the reforms, which, however, did not happen. Under conditions of intensified reaction, oppositional sentiments are growing among the rank-and-file employees of the zemstvos - doctors, teachers, statisticians. More than once, zemstvo officials tried to act beyond their powers, which led to clashes with the administration.
A more moderate part of the liberals preferred to refrain from manifestations of opposition. The influence of liberal populists (N. K. Mikhailovsky, N. F. Danielson, V. P. Vorontsov) grew. They called for reforms to improve the life of the people, and above all for the abolition of landlordism. 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 journal Russkoye Bogatstvo), zemstvos, and public organizations.
However, in general, government oppression (often rather senseless) stimulated discontent among the intelligentsia and contributed to its transition to radical positions.
The chief procurator of the Synod K. P. Pobedonostsev became the main ideologists of the reaction, Chief Editor"Moskovskie Vedomosti" and "Russian Bulletin" M. N. Katkov and editor of the magazine "Citizen" V. P. Meshchersky. They denounced liberal reforms, defended the narrowly understood identity of Russia, and welcomed the counter-reforms of Alexander III. “Get up, gentlemen,” Katkov wrote gloatingly about the counter-reforms. "The government is coming, the government is coming back." Meshchersky was supported, including financially, by the guy himself.
There is a crisis in the revolutionary movement connected with the defeat of the "Narodnaya Volya". True, scattered Narodnik groups continued to operate even after that. The circle of P. Ya. Shevyrev - AI Ulyanov (brother of V.I. Lenin) even prepared an attempt on Alexander III on March 1, 1887, which ended with the arrest and execution of five conspirators. Many revolutionaries abandoned their previous methods of struggle altogether, advocating an alliance with the liberals. Other revolutionaries, disillusioned with populism with its naive hopes for the peasantry, became more and more imbued with the ideas of Marxism. In September 1883 former members"Black redistribution", who lived in Switzerland - P. B. Axelrod, G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Zasulich, L. G. Deutsch - created the social democratic group "Emancipation of Labor", which began to publish Marxist literature on Russian language and laid the theoretical foundations of Russian social democracy. Its most prominent figure was G. V. Plekhanov (1856-1918). In his works "Socialism and the Political Struggle" and "Our Differences" he criticized the Narodniks and pointed to Russia's unpreparedness for a socialist revolution. Plekhanov considered it necessary to form a social democratic party and carry out a bourgeois-democratic revolution, which would create the economic prerequisites for the victory of socialism.
From the mid-1980s, Marxist circles also appeared in Russia itself in St. Petersburg, Odessa, Kyiv, Kharkov, Kazan, Vilna, Tula, and others. Among them, the circles of D. N. Blagoev, N. E. Fedoseev, M. I. Brusnev, P.V. Tochissky. They read and distributed Marxist literature, carried on propaganda among the workers, but their significance was still small.
Working question. The situation of workers in Russia, whose number increased markedly in comparison with the pre-reform period, was difficult: there were no labor protection, social insurance, restrictions on the length of the working day, but an almost uncontrolled system of fines, low-paid female and child labor, mass layoffs, and reductions in prices were widespread. All this led to labor conflicts and strikes.
In the 1980s, the government began to take measures to regulate relations between workers and employers. In 1882, the use of child labor was limited, and a factory inspectorate was created to oversee this. In 1884, education was introduced by law for children who worked in factories.
An important milestone in the development of the strike movement and labor legislation was the strike at Morozov's Nikolskaya manufactory in Orekhovo-Zuevo in January 1885. It was organized in advance, 8 thousand people participated in it, it was led by P. A. Moiseenko and V. S. Volkov . The workers demanded from the manufacturer to streamline the system of fines, the rules for dismissal, and from the government - to limit the arbitrariness of employers. More than 600 people were deported to their native villages, 33 were tried but acquitted (Moiseenko and Volkov, however, were deported after an administrative trial).
At the same time, the government satisfied part of the demands of the workers. As early as June 1885, the exploitation of women and children at night was banned, the system of fines was streamlined, the income from which was no longer directed to the employer, but to the needs of the workers themselves, and the procedure for hiring and firing workers was regulated. The powers of the factory inspectorate were expanded, provincial presences for factory affairs were created.
A wave of strikes swept through the enterprises of the Moscow and Vladimir provinces, St. Petersburg, Donbass. These and other strikes compelled the factory owners in a number of cases to raise wages, shorten the working day, and improve the living conditions of the workers.
Foreign policy. During the reign of Alexander III Russia did not wage wars, which earned the king the fame of a "peacemaker". This was due both to the ability to play on the contradictions between European powers and general international stability, and to the emperor's dislike for wars. The executor of the foreign policy plans of Alexander III was 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 fight against England. In June 1881 Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary renewed the "Union of Three Emperors" for 6 years. The parties promised to remain neutral in the event of a war between one of them and a fourth power. At the same time, Germany concluded a secret agreement with Austria-Hungary against Russia and France. In May 1882, Italy joined the alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary, which was promised help in the event of a war with France. Thus, the Triple Alliance was formed in the center of Europe.
The "Union of the 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 a stone's throw to the main British colony - India. In March 1885 there was a clash between a Russian detachment and Afghan troops led by British officers. The Russians have 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. A role in this was played by the support of Russia from Germany and Austria-Hungary, who did not want an excessive strengthening of England. Their position helped Alexander III to achieve from Turkey the closure of the Black Sea straits for the British fleet, which secured 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 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 concluded an agreement with Austria-Hungary. In 1885, Alexander III opposed the annexation of Eastern Rumelia to Bulgaria (in violation of the decisions of the Berlin Congress), although at the same time he threatened Turkey that he would not tolerate its invasion of Rumelia. In 1886, after the pro-Austrian regime came to power in Bulgaria, Russia tore relations with her In this conflict, Germany and Austria-Hungary did not support Russia, because they themselves wanted to strengthen their positions in the Balkans. After 1887, the "Union of the Three Emperors" was not renewed.
In the context of aggravated relations with France, Bismarck signed with Russia in 1887 a "reinsurance contract" for 3 years. The neutrality of Russia was envisaged in the event of an attack by France on Germany and the neutrality of Germany in the event of an attack on Russia by Austria-Hungary. Then in 1887, Alexander III managed to keep Germany from attacking France, the defeat of which would unnecessarily strengthen Germany. This led to an aggravation of Russian-German relations and an increase in import duties on each other's goods by both countries. In 1893, a real customs war began between the two countries.
In the 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 contributed to the stabilization of Russian finances. French investments in the Russian economy were also significant.
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 drawn up, providing for the number of troops on both sides in the event of war. The Russian-French alliance was finally formalized in January 1894. It seriously changed the balance of power in Europe, splitting it into two military-political groups.
Socio-economic development. Under Alexander III, measures were taken to modernize the economy, on the one hand, and to provide economic support to 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. Kh. Bunge, IV Vyshnegradsky, S. Yu. Witte.
Industry. By the 80s of the XIX century. The Industrial Revolution ended in Russia. The government patronized the development of industry with loans and high duties on imported products. True, in 1881 an industrial crisis began, associated with the economic consequences of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. and reducing the purchasing power of the peasantry. In 1883 the crisis gave way to a depression, in 1887 a revival began, and in 1893 a rapid growth of industry. Mechanical engineering, metallurgy, coal and oil industries continued to develop successfully. More and more foreign investors invested their money in them. In terms of coal and oil production, Russia ranked first in the world. Enterprises actively implemented the latest technology. It should be noted that heavy industry produced less than 1/4 of the country's output, noticeably yielding to light industry, primarily textiles.
Agriculture. In this industry, the specialization of individual regions increased, the number of civilian workers increased, which indicated a transition to the bourgeois path of development. In general, grain farming continued to predominate. Productivity increased slowly due to the low level of agricultural technology. The drop in world grain prices had a detrimental effect. In 1891 - 1892. A terrible famine broke out, claiming the lives of more than 600 thousand people. people In these conditions, the land shortage of peasants became an extremely acute problem, whose temporarily obligated state was finally terminated by the law of December 28, 1881, by which they were transferred for redemption from 1883. 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 issued that encouraged the resettlement of peasants in empty areas - the settlers received tax benefits, exemption from military service for 3 years and a small cash allowance, but permission for resettlement was given only by the Ministry of the Interior. In 1882, the Peasants' Bank was established, which issued low-interest loans to peasants to buy land. The government tried to strengthen the peasant community and at the same time reduce negative traits communal land use: in 1893, the exit of peasants from the community was limited, but at the same time it was difficult to redistribute the land, which reduced the interest of the most enterprising peasants in the prudent use of their allotments. It was forbidden to mortgage and sell communal lands. An attempt to regulate and thus reduce the number family sections, undertaken in 1886, failed: the peasants simply ignored the law. To support the landowners' households, the Noble Bank was created in 1885, which, however, did not stop their ruin.
Transport. Intensive construction of railways continued (under Alexander III, more than 30 thousand km of them were built). The railway network near the western borders, which was of strategic importance, developed especially actively. The region of Krivoy Rog, 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 began, connecting Russia with the Far East. The government began to buy out private railways, up to 60% of which were in the hands of the state by the mid-1990s. The number of steamships by 1895 exceeded 2500, more than 6 times more than in 1860.
Trade. The development of commerce stimulated the growth of the transport network. The number of shops, shops, commodity exchanges has increased. By 1895, domestic trade had grown 3.5 times compared to 1873 and reached 8.2 billion rubles.
In foreign trade exports in the early 1990s exceeded imports by 150-200 million rubles, largely due to high import duties, especially on 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. The first place in Russian exports was occupied by bread, followed by timber, wool, manufactured goods. Machinery, raw cotton, metal, coal, tea, and oil were imported. Russia's main trading partners were Germany and England. Holland. USA.
Finance. In 1882-1886, the heavy poll tax was abolished, which, thanks to the skillful policy of the Minister of Finance, Bunge, was generally compensated by increasing indirect taxes and customs duties In addition, the government refused to guarantee the profitability of private railways at the expense of the treasury.
In 1887, Bunge, who was accused of being unable to overcome the budget deficit, was replaced by IV Vyshnegradsky. He sought to increase cash savings and the appreciation of the ruble. To this end, successful exchange operations were carried out, indirect taxes and import duties increased again, for which in 1891 a protectionist customs tariff. In 1894, under S. Yu. Witte, a wine monopoly was introduced. As a result of these and other measures, the budget deficit was overcome.
Education. The counter-reforms also affected the education sector. They were aimed at educating a trustworthy, obedient intelligentsia. In 1882, instead of the liberal A.N. Nikolai, the reactionary I.P. Delyanov became the Minister of Education. In 1884 the parochial schools came under the jurisdiction of the Synod. By 1894 their number had grown by almost 10 times; the level of teaching in them was low, the main task was considered to be education in the spirit of Orthodoxy. Still, parochial schools contributed to the spread of literacy.
The number of gymnasium students continued to grow (in the 1990s, more than 150,000 people). In 1887, Delyanov published a "circular about cook's children," which made it difficult to admit children of laundresses, cooks, lackeys, coachmen, etc. to the gymnasium. Tuition fees have increased.
In August 1884 A new university statute was adopted, essentially abolishing the autonomy of universities, which now fell under the control of the trustee of the educational district and the Minister of Education. From now on, the rector, deans and professors were appointed, and not so much with regard to scientific merit as political reliability. A fee was introduced for attending lectures and practical classes by students.
In 1885, the form for students was reintroduced, in 1886 the term of service in the army of persons with higher education, Since 1887, a certificate of political loyalty was required for admission to universities. The government markedly reduced spending on universities, which made scientific research more difficult. Some of the free-thinking professors were fired, others left in protest themselves. Under Alexander III, only one university was opened - in Tomsk (1888). In 1882, the higher medical courses for women were closed, and in 1886, admission to all higher women's courses, the liquidation of which K.P. Pobedonostsev sought, was stopped. True, the Bestuzhev courses in St. Petersburg nevertheless resumed work, albeit in a limited number.
Culture of Russia in the 2nd half of the 19th century. The science. This period was marked by new important discoveries in various industries science. I. M. Sechenov created the doctrine created the doctrine of the reflexes of the brain, laying the foundations of Russian physiology. Continuing research in this direction, I. P. Pavlov developed a theory about 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, and developed methods for combating rabies. K. A. Timiryazev did a lot for the study of photosynthesis and became the founder of Russian plant physiology. V. V. Dokuchaev, with his works “Russian Chernozem” and “Our Steppes Before and Now”, gave rise to scientific soil science.
Chemistry has made great strides. A. M. Butlerov laid the foundations of organic chemistry. D. I. Mendeleev in 1869 discovered one of the basic laws of natural science _ periodic law 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. In an effort to put the results of his research into practice, he also invented a plant-walking machine and an adding machine. S. V. Kovalevskaya, the author of works on mathematical analysis, mechanics and astronomy, became the first female professor and corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. AM Lyapunov gained worldwide fame for his research in the field of differential equations.
A significant 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, 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's candle), which since 1876 has been used for street lighting.
In 1881, A.F. Mozhaisky designed the world's first aircraft, the tests of which, however, were unsuccessful. In 1888, self-taught mechanic F.A. Blinov invented a caterpillar tractor. In 1895, A. S. Popov demonstrated the world's first radio receiver, which he invented, and soon achieved a transmission and reception range already at a distance of 150 km. The founder of cosmonautics K. E. Tsiolkovsky, who designed the simplest wind tunnel and developed the principles of the theory of rocket propulsion, began 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. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky in the Tien Shan, Ya. Ya. Miklukho-Maclay in New Guinea. The result of the expeditions of the founder of Russian climatology A. I. Voeikov in Europe, America and India was the capital work "Climates of the Globe".
Philosophical thought, In the indicated period, reaches its peak philosophical thought. The ideas of positivism (G.N. Vyrubov, M.M. Troitsky), Marxism (G.V. Plekhanov), religious philosophy (V.S. Solovyov, N.F. Fedorov), later Slavophilism (N.Ya. Danilevsky, K.N. Leontiev). N.F. Fedorov put forward the concept of mastering the forces of nature, overcoming death and resurrection with the help of science. The founder of the "philosophy of unity" V. S. Solovyov nurtured the idea of merging Orthodoxy and Catholicism and developed the doctrine of Sophia - the all-encompassing divine wisdom that governs the world. N. Ya. Danshkevsky put forward the theory of cultural-historical types that develop like biological ones; he considered the Slavic type to be gaining strength and therefore the most promising. K. Ya. Leontiev saw the main danger in Western liberalism, which, in his opinion, leads to the averaging of individuals, and believed that only autocracy could prevent this averaging.
On the new level coming out historical science. In 1851-. 1879 29 volumes of "The History of Russia from Ancient Times" by the outstanding Russian historian S. M. Solovyov are published, which set out the history of Russia until 1775. Although the author did not yet know many sources, and a number of the provisions put forward by him were not confirmed, his work still retains its scientific value. Solovyov’s Peru also owns research on the divisions of Poland, about Alexander I, inter-princely relations, etc. Solovyov’s student was V. O. Klyuchevsky, the author of the works “ Boyar Duma Ancient Russia", "The Origin of Serfdom in Russia", "Lives of Old Russian Saints as historical source", etc. His main work was the "Course of Russian History". A. P. Shchapov made an important contribution to the study of the history of the Russian community, church, and Zemsky Sobors. Research on the era of Peter I and the history of Russian culture brought fame to P. Ya. Milyukov. The history of Western Europe was studied by such prominent scientists as V. I. Guerrier, M. M. Kovalevsky, P. G. Vinogradov, N. I. Kareev. Prominent scholars of antiquity were M. S. Kutorga, F. F. Sokolov, F. G. Mishchenko. Research on the history of Byzantium was carried out by V. G. Vasilevsky, F. I. Uspensky, and Yu. A. Kulakovsky.
Literature. In the 1960s, critical realism became the leading trend in literature, combining a realistic depiction of reality with an interest in the individual. In comparison with the previous period, prose takes the first place. Its brilliant examples were the works of I.S. Turgenev “Rudin”, “Fathers and Sons”, “On the Eve”, “Noble Nest” and others, in which he showed the life of representatives of the noble society and the emerging raznochintsy intelligentsia. Subtle knowledge of life and Russian national character the works of I. A. Goncharov "Oblomov", "Cliff", "Ordinary History" were distinguished. F. M. Dostoevsky, who joined the Petrashevists in the 1940s, later revised his views and saw the solution to the problems facing Russia not in reforms or revolution, but in the moral improvement of man (the novels The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment ”, “Demons”, “Idiot”, etc.). L. Ya. Tolstoy, the author of the novels “War and Peace”, “Anna Karenina”, “Resurrection”, etc., rethought Christian teaching in a peculiar way, developed the idea of the superiority of feelings over reason, combining harsh (and not always constructive) criticism of the Russian society of that time with the idea of non-resistance to evil by violence. A. N. Ostrovsky portrayed in his plays “Dowry”, “Thunderstorm”, “Forest”, “Guilty Without Guilt”, and others. The life of merchants, officials, artists, showing interest in both purely social and eternal human issues. The outstanding satirist M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in "The History of a City", "Gentlemen of the Golovlevs", "Tales" highlighted the tragic aspects of Russian reality. A. P. Chekhov Special attention in his work devoted to the problem of " little man”, suffering from the indifference and cruelty of others. The works of V. G. Korolenko - "The Blind Musician", "Children of the Underground", "The Dream of Makar" are imbued with humanistic ideas.
The philosophical tradition in Russian poetry was continued by F. I. Tyutchev in his writings. A. A. Fet devoted his work to the chanting of nature. Extremely popular among the democratic intelligentsia was the poetry of N. A. Nekrasov, dedicated to the life of the common people.
Theatre. 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. An important center of culture was the Alexandrinsky Theater in St. Petersburg, where V. V. Samoilov, M. G. Savina, P. A. Strepetova played, however, being in the capital, he suffered more from interference from the authorities. Theaters arise and develop in Kyiv, Odessa, Kazan, Irkutsk, Saratov, etc.
Music. The national traditions in Russian music laid down by Glinka were continued by his student A. S. Dargomyzhsky and the composers of the Mighty Handful (named so by V. V. Stasov; Borodin, N. A. Rimsky-Koreakov, Ts. A. Cui One of the most outstanding composers of this period was P. I. Tchaikovsky, author of the operas Eugene Onegin, Mazeppa, Iolanthe. Queen of Spades”, ballets “Swan Lake”, “Sleeping Beauty”, “The Nutcracker”. In 1862 a conservatory was opened in St. Petersburg, in 1866 in Moscow. Ballet masters M. Petipa and L. I. Ivanov played a huge role in the development of ballet.
Painting. In the painting of the post-reform period, characteristic democratic ideas penetrate, 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, far from modern life, left the Academy and created the Artel of St. Petersburg Artists, "in 1870 transformed into the Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions" It included portrait painter I. N. Kramskoy, masters of genre painting V. G. Perov and Ya. A. Yaroshenko, landscape painters I. I. Shishkin and I. I. Levitan, V. M. Vasnetsov (Alyonushka, "Ivan Tsarevich on gray wolf”, “The Knight at the Crossroads”), V. I. Surikov dedicated his work to Russian history (“Morning of the Streltsy Execution”, “Boyar Morozova”, “Menshikov in Berezov”). I. E. Repin wrote as modern (“Barge Haulers on the Volga”, “Religious Procession in Kursk province”, “They didn’t wait”), and on historical topics (“Cossacks composing a letter to the Turkish Sultan”, “Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan”). VV Vereshchagin ("The Apotheosis of War", "Mortally Wounded" "Surrender!") was the largest battle-player of that time. To popularize Russian art big role played the creation of the Tretyakov Gallery, which exhibited a collection of paintings by the merchant-philanthropist P. M. Tretyakov, donated by him in 1892 as a gift to the city of Moscow. In 1898, the Russian Museum was opened in St. Petersburg.
Sculpture. Prominent sculptors of that time were A. M. Opekushin (monuments to A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov, K. M. Baer), M. A. Antokolsky (“Ivan the Terrible”, “Peter I”, “Christ before people"), M. O. Mikeshin (monuments to Catherine II, Bogdan Khmelnitsky, management of work on the monument "Millennium of Russia").
Architecture. The so-called Russian style is being formed, imitating the decor of ancient Russian architecture. The buildings of the City Duma in Moscow (D.N. Chichagov), the Historical Museum in Moscow (V.O. Sherwood), the Upper Trading Rows (now GUM) (A.N. Pomerantsev) were built in this manner. Residential buildings in large cities were built in the Renaissance-Baroque style with its characteristic richness of forms and finishes.
