30s of the 19th century. Ideological struggle and social movement in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. e years - one of the most interesting periods of collecting Russian literature of the 19th century

The 40s are one of the most interesting periods of collecting Russian literature of the 19th century,...

The 40s are one of the most interesting periods of collecting Russian literature of the 19th century, that amazing phenomenon that at one time amazed the European world. Here, along with minor names, there are great artists who have taken a step forward in development fiction peace. This complex process takes at least a century (19th century). It was during the 40s that the spiritual beauty of man especially sharply collided with the “leaden abominations” of that time in literature, which gave rise to a painful search for ways to develop Russia.

The time of the 40s was a time of ideological quest. My thoughts struggled with what Russia is, what its meaning is. Slavophiles and Westerners, circles of Herzen and Ogarev, Petrashevsky, Stankevich... But life could not be limited to circles, because they did not fill the gap in knowledge of reality. And the task of understanding reality attacks young people of that time with extraordinary energy and requires immediate comprehension and response. And here we can present knowledge of the material in the form of three directions. This is a knowledge of reality associated with the general world movement of ideas characteristic of that time. This is the knowledge of what is connected with everyday life, I would say, artistic and literary life. And this knowledge of political, factual and moral life society of that time. These three areas of knowledge will haunt us all the time, because they contain the Russian reality of that time.

The example of B.C. is very characteristic and instructive. Pecherin. A man of great talent, focused on classicism, the study of Greece and antiquity, recognized by experts as an outstanding phenomenon in medieval studies, he could not remain indifferent to the events of the revolution of 1830 in France, and all his thoughts and searches from that moment relate primarily to the existing experience moment, lie not in the area of ​​antiquity, but in the area of ​​“screaming contradictions” - contradictions between the gospel truth and the serfdom, slavery, despotic, essentially speaking, life structure of Russia at that time. But completely overcome the craving for knowledge spiritual world and Pecherin could not live with the topic of the day. Hence his departure from active life in society to Catholicism, the desire to isolate himself from real events. One of Russia's brilliant minds becomes the chaplain of a prison church. Sometimes the “gloomy” Russia still awakens in his mind - hence his literary correspondence, correspondence with Herzen.

Pecherin did not find a place for himself in old Russia. His figure stands on the threshold of socialist Russia. His individual drama reflected many features of the historical collision of the old and new worlds.

Alexander Herzen of this period, like Pecherin, feels the acuteness of the contradictions between the gospel truth and slave reality, the despotic essence of Russia. Herzen’s attitude to the truth of the Gospel, to the reading of the Gospel carried throughout his life is characteristic: “I read the Gospel a lot and with love.

…> without any guidance, I didn’t understand everything, but I felt sincere and deep respect for what I was reading. In my bitter youth I was often carried away by Voltairianism, I loved irony and mockery, but I don’t remember ever picking up the Gospel with a cold feeling; this carried me through my whole life. At all ages I returned to reading the Gospel, and each time its content brought peace and meekness to my soul.”

The severity of the contradictions engulfed Herzen, Ogarev, and many “boys”, about whom Saltykov-Shchedrin would later aptly say: “Boys are the most powerful class in Russia.” Herzen, as an energetic, expansive nature, could not remain alone with his thoughts and completely lost himself in fiction. Later he will say that the story is not his element; his element is articles and journalism. But now the story is his element. The world in which we live is a “house of the damaged,” that is, the crazy, from the point of view of Dr. Krupov. The wonderful sociological story “Notes of Doctor Krupov,” written by Herzen, depicts a healthy nature (Levka) and a sick society. Herzen, of course, succeeded in the image of the dull-witted Levka, he perfectly, as an artist, revealed the inner world of the boy, his various manifestations: when Levka met Krupov, returning from the seminary and kissed him, how delighted he was, embarrassed by this manifestation of tenderness, hiding it from strangers . The author admires the sleeping Levka, his good, calm face, without signs of illness, slightly illuminated by a ray of sun and as if experiencing all the charm of existence from the feeling of sleep: “...Levka slept under a large tree... how quietly, how meekly he slept...<…>No one ever took the trouble to look at his face: it was not at all devoid of its beauty. Especially now that he was asleep; his cheeks were a little flushed, his slanting eyes were not visible, his facial features expressed such peace of mind, such calmness that one became envious.” Herzen managed to depict the range of psychological experiences of a person who is no different from healthy people, only he has his own attitude towards the earth: he understands it, feels it, feels its beauty. Here Herzen the artist turned out to be some new side, but, unfortunately, this did not have further development in his artistic work.

In the novel "Who's to Blame?" This dialectic of the heroes’ souls no longer exists. Here only the scheme is left: the environment and the hero - and the fact that the environment is to blame for everything: the tragedy of Krutsifersky and Lyubochka, whose peace is disturbed by Beltov (“an extra person”) with his romantic quests. Many readers did not like Herzen's rhetoric, which obscures the inner world of the heroes. This novel is directly related to the educational literature of the 40s (“natural school”). Features such as a primitive plot scheme, the absence of the inner world of the characters, and rhetoric make it look like a textbook, which was typical for the literature of the 40s.

Herzen's work of this period is nothing more than a program of Christian socialism. The French Revolution of 1789 is considered the moment of the birth of new socialism. Part of Russian society undoubtedly reacted sympathetically to the historical catastrophe of France and considered 1789 the beginning of a new era of the human race. However, Herzen found only the name of the phenomenon, its name, but not the essence itself, not the movement. Consideration of the essence of Christian socialism is missing here.

Herzen and Ogarev. They are very different in their psychological makeup, in relation to the world, in their understanding of man. Ogarev took a lot from Lermontov. Ogarev's lyrics have very strong echoes of Lermontov's poetry and romanticism in general. Ogarev did not part with romanticism (“Romanticism cannot be eradicated from us”, “The world is waiting for something...”). His personal collapse - he lost his dream (his wife leaving for Herzen, etc.). And how poorly they lived! They did not have a way of life, a family, or a patriarchal calendar. They parted with the patriarchal way of life. They did not have a family in the sense that Christianity provides. They were at a different stage of development leading to socialism. As for the old world, it is a decline. As for the new world, this is development. Old things, way of life, patriarchal life save a person from the anxieties that progress brings with it. As soon as this connection is broken, there is always a tragedy. Progress destroys what exists, established forms of life. This is the tragedy of human development - that there cannot be immutability.

As writers, Herzen and Ogarev are very different. One is a portrait painter, pamphleteer, essayist. He succeeds in sharp pictures of morals, he has a sharp pen. He knows how to create a face, a portrait. The other, Ogarev, is a romantic, a dreamer, a mystic. Ogarev's strength lies in his lyrical sound, in the confession of his soul, in his subjectivity. Both of them are autobiographical.

Worldwide movement. The world movement of ideas of that time. What is Russia's place in the global movement? Russia and Europe - what are the points of contact and interpenetration here? What is our historical destiny? Are we Asian? Are we Europeans? Isn’t this what most of the works of Stankevich, Herzen, Ogarev, Iv. are devoted to? Kireyevsky? This is very important, because from now on we can talk about the commonality of movement between Russia and Europe as phenomena of one whole. Let us say in advance that this phenomenon is important, necessary, and has not yet been revealed by historians of literature and culture.

In the awareness of the factual political life they are occupied by the current of philosophical thought: Khomyakov, Pecherin, the Aksakov brothers, Herzen - Slavophiles and Westerners. And, as always, where we lack historical material for knowledge, we make up for it with artistic images, works of art. Having gone through the stage of apprenticeship, we were unable to enter the stage of independent, independent judgment about the development of history and Russia’s place in it.

To this we can add the fact that all the facts we have described now occur after the events of December 14, 1825, i.e., when Russia could or wanted to survive the revolution, but did not understand that revolution is not carried out only by a military coup - this is evidence of the inconsistency of historical thought Russia at that time. We lack strict logical structure, historical and ideological thinking. But we succeed in thinking in images, in artistic comprehension of the material. Therefore, the main thing seems to be the movement or state of fiction of the 40s (until the mid-50s) - fiction, as it was called then - the “natural school”, but this concept contains much more than we are used to seeing.

These years we have seen a lot of interest in biographies. We replace historical and typological phenomena with facts of our time, without bringing them to the point of generalization. Biographical material provides quite detailed descriptions time and character of this period. This is an entire artistic encyclopedia of works that at the same time serve as artistic documents of the era. Biographies of contemporaries are excellent documentary material revealing the events of that time. This is, in essence, a very large section, which largely explains why we have so many memoirs from the 20s and 30s of the 19th century. We replace our philosophical, historical judgments with memories - this characteristic Russian memoir.

What is important for us here is S. Aksakov’s memoir “The Childhood Years of Bagrov’s Grandson,” where the memoir ceases to be him in the literal sense of the word. Memory is only a reason for reasoning of a philosophical, economic, ethical nature. Without understanding Aksakov’s memoir “The Childhood Years of Bagrov’s Grandson,” the meaning of this genre in general and in particular the JI trilogy is unclear. Tolstoy “Childhood. Adolescence. Youth".

The revolutionary situation was prepared in the memoirs. This led to highest form realism - to the Russian realistic novel: “War and Peace” JI. Tolstoy, “Demons”, “The Brothers Karamazov” by F. Dostoevsky, “Oblomov” by I. Goncharov.

From the real world to the ideal world - a process that is barely perceptible to us, but unusually clear and distinct. This is where the edges of art and reality merge into each other. Yesterday's ideal appears to us as reality, as matter that can be felt, where the boundaries between art and life are lost, or rather, art has surpassed life. We believed in it as a reality, as an everyday phenomenon. This conclusion is given in his novel “Oblomov” by I.A. Goncharov. This novel was written in the late 50s, the time depicted in it is the 40s-50s.

The novel characterizes the “natural direction” extremely well through Oblomov’s eyes. In the first chapter, he argues with Penkin: “Where is humanity here?<…>What kind of art is there, what poetic colors have you found? Denounce debauchery, dirt, only<…>without pretensions to poetry." “Don’t mix art with the dirt of life. Let the dirt of life remain. You won’t change anything anyway.” Truth requires not beauty, not poetry, but reality.

The novel is merciless in its depiction of human feelings - and this was I.A.’s great discovery. Goncharova. He has no mercy to modern man: There are still many ideal imaginations here. Goncharov does something very cruel in “Oblomov”: the collapse of Stolz, the collapse of Oblomov. A person is equally given both happiness and suffering. By crossing these boundaries - happiness and unhappiness - a person loses the ability to act, to manage himself. The person in Goncharov’s image cannot accommodate the norm of happiness and the norm of tragedy, because there are no such norms. And this was Goncharov’s discovery, it amazed Leo Tolstoy (who, by the way, did not reach such depth in the depiction of a person): “Oblomov is the most important thing, which has not happened for a long, long time.<…>...I’m delighted with Oblomov... Oblomov’s success is not accidental, not miserably, but healthy, thorough and non-temporary...”

1 Tolstoy JI.H. Poly. collection cit.: In 90 volumes. M.: GIHL, 1949. T. 60. P. 290.

Goncharov managed to deceive his hero (Oblomov), showing that Pshenitsyna’s “elbows” are no less beautiful than “snow” and “lilac” (that is, everything beautiful in life). But enjoying life does not mean understanding it. Oblomov, fortunately, only touched Olga, and could not stand it. But with Pshenitsyna I survived. Ap. Grigoriev wrote that Oblomov needed simple woman, “without fancy and invention”, such as Olga Ilyinskaya had. Ap. Grigoriev was quite happy with the idea of ​​a bourgeois, philistine life, which Pshenitsyna provided to Oblomov. Simplicity is beyond any lyrical feelings. Simplicity replaces everything. Why did Sheremetev marry Parasha? Not only because she was a wonderful actress, but because there was simplicity there. This “simplicity”, it turns out, is the most important thing! Pshenitsyn is simpler than Olga Ilyinskaya. Pshenitsyna has a heart and love, where it is not sensuality that prevails, but affection: it will warm you up and say a kind word. Although the meaning in this word is small (Pshenitsyna didn’t think about anything at all), the intonation is rich. But Olga did not know her heart. Ap. Grigoriev believed that Olga ruined Oblomov’s life. We must live by heart, not by education. You can teach and educate a person, but you cannot put your heart into it.

One cannot but agree with the opinion of Ap. Grigoriev, which, in essence, reflects the whole direction of Russian life of that time. One cannot think that literary criticism was all imbued with progressive ideas. Next to this there was a criticism of everyday life, denying all ideas. One idea was proclaimed - simplicity as the most important thing in human life and in art.

Ap. Grigoriev is a denier of socialist theories. All modern literature for him is literature in favor of the poor and in favor of women. Ap. Grigoriev believed that Russian people cannot drown out the voices of mental and spiritual interests within themselves. Socialism turns a person into a “pig with its snout down,” and for the Russian soul there is nothing more disgusting than Fourier’s utopia.

East and West are different paths, opposing each other, like theory and life. The West limits man to his own limits, the main thing here is the rehabilitation of the flesh, and not the search for the spirit. The East internally carries within itself a living thought, “believes in the living soul.” Socialists are people with narrow theories: the “negative rightness” of Herzen and subsequently N.G. Chernyshevsky. In Russian ideological life, the type of seminarian has prevailed, for whom the starting point is negation, brought up on the schemes and doctrinaires of priestly socialism. “They were broken in the bursa, they were bent in the academy - why shouldn’t their lives be ruined?” (Ap. Grigoriev).

Ap. Grigoriev is an idealist and romantic in his views. “The Knight of the Pure Image,” as he called himself. Grigoriev longed for “colored” truth, that is, not black and white, but the ambiguous fullness of life, which will not fit into any theory. Socialism for Grigoriev is colorless, calculating - this is not the soul of the Russian person. He felt like a wanderer, a knight at a crossroads:

He who is capable of shedding tears for the great, whose heart is full of thirst for truth, in whom fanaticism is capable of humility, bears the stamp of election and service.

There is, although not without pose, a lot of sincerity, freedom and spiritual beauty in this.

While there was all this talk about socialism, Fourierism, phalanxes, the government did not attach much importance to this. And socialism itself looked like a utopia in their eyes. But when Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letters” appeared in the Telescope for 1836, the government could not bear it. It was offended and indignant. The “Letters” argued that Russia has not contributed anything new to historical progress, that our existence is like a bivouac life, where there is nothing stable, solid, or indestructible. “We belong neither to the East nor to the West... we have no traditions... we stand, as it were, outside of time, we have not been touched by the universal education of the human race...” “Hermits in the world, we have given nothing to the world and learned nothing from it. We have not contributed a single idea to the mass of ideas of humanity. We have added nothing to the progressive development of the human mind, and what we have used, we have disfigured.”

Chaadaev was declared crazy, his reasoning was nonsense, and he himself was taken into medical custody in order to avoid any troubles. A signature was received from Chaadaev that he would not write anything else. He was visited by a doctor and a police chief to evaluate his mental illness. The imperial rescript caused indignation on the part of progressive people of that time and fear among the philistine community. Chaadaev wrote at this time “Apology for a Madman,” which he could not publish anywhere. Pyotr Yakovlevich remained calm and imperturbable, still attended society, the noble meeting and was, as it were, a reproach for the stupidity and ignorance of the Nicholas government.

How could it be that Russia is declared insolvent when Russia expelled the French and proclaimed in Austria after the congresses at which Alexander I spoke that “the Russian Tsar has become the Tsar of Tsars”? Complete victory of Russian policy in Europe. There are 20 years between the expulsion of the French and the Philosophical Letters. But this is not the time for history. That is why the government of Nicholas I was so dumbfounded.

Chaadaev understood that the existing policy was leading Russia to collapse. This is exactly what happened when war unexpectedly broke out on the Black Sea. There is no fleet, no equipment, and the Europeans (England, France) acted cunningly: they threw all the native troops forward (there were also various colonial troops there), Russia began to be reconquered with its colonial troops (Caucasian, Asian), and there were enormous losses for it . According to the agreement, Russia was supposed to destroy the entire Black Sea Fleet. So here Chaadaev, like a prophet, saw the future. Nicholas I realized his mistake, and a hypothesis arose that he poisoned himself, unable to bear this shame.

Khomyakov. What was tragic for both Khomyakov and Chaadaev was that they thought of the worldview they created as a universal material that provides an explanation for historical processes. In this case, when talking about history, they thought about Russia. But ideology cannot grow from scratch, according to an order, according to a constructed scheme. Ideology, or a system of views, philosophy of various directions, is the result of a long, constant, painful work not only of human thought, but first of all of the historical beginning. It is important how historical facts develop, what order they take, what is main, what is secondary, where the author is only a medium, and where he despotically distributes the material at his own discretion.

If at one time Chaadaev managed to clearly and consistently present his system, and no one, in essence, could refute it, except for the comic premises of “meeting on Saturdays,” which everyone laughed at - including Chaadaev himself, realizing that the smartest a person in Russia is “crazy” - then Khomyakov’s position is completely different. He did not invent any system. Yes, this could not have happened. The researcher only follows facts and events, dressing them in the skin of words. That is why Khomyakov’s thought is so weak until she is dressed in religious clothing. But when she is “dressed”, she loses her socio-historical meaning and is only an appendix to the story. Therefore, it is most interesting to write about Khomyakov as an owner, organizer, organizer, practitioner, and not as a person philosophical system. He was blessed with a practical mind, but this practice can never be interesting as a historical fact, but only as a consistent story. This was the tragedy of the author of Semiramis. This shows that we did not have philosophy in Russia. We are not fit to be philosophers. We wander in Christian mysticism and find nothing we need, although everything lies on the surface. This national trait was best expressed by F. Dostoevsky: “Humble yourself, proud man! Build, create, but don’t get involved in abstraction. The Church denies philosophizing and recognizes only inspiration, inner enlightenment. Philosophizing is not necessary for a believer. Does it really matter which God you pray to, as long as you pray?

Khomyakov has only one form of knowledge - conciliar, collective. There cannot be individual knowledge, because it is only a part of the whole. Khomyakov's epistemology rests on the very fact of existence, and not on the doctrine of existence. N. Berdyaev writes that Khomyakov “could not connect the idea of ​​conciliarity with the doctrine of the world soul” (and here much more could be expected from Berdyaev himself), but he, Khomyakov, did not set such a task for himself.

Dreams of creating a society without class-class contradictions are openly expressed by Kheraskov in his works. Khomyakov’s works retain almost their original shape. The ideas of a classless peasant world occupied a large place among thinkers of the forties.

How could subjective sympathy develop into a social doctrine? Just like a dream. (Perhaps, only Novikov managed to turn his dream into real help: Kheraskov provided Novikov with a printing house, and he printed everything he wanted there. He printed least of all religious literature, and most of all propaganda literature, explaining who a man is, who a peasant is. ) Khomyakov’s poems about Russia caused terrible discontent with Nicholas I. The soul of Russia must repent of the crimes that are being committed now. This is not a program - it is a call to repentance:

With a kneeling soul, With a head lying in the dust.

The Emperor was poisoned. They openly said that he could not bear the complete defeat of the fleet on the Black Sea.

Gogol is a powerful figure. In essence, he is an ignorant person, without education (except for a gymnasium in Ukraine), but what a strong desire to penetrate into the essence of phenomena and what a strong insight into the essence of people, things, ideas! In “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends”: “They want to hug all of humanity like a brother, but they themselves will not hug their brother.”

The power of words is a great thing! And it was given to Gogol. He could embody this great power of words in different genres, in different colors and with the enormous power of exposing the world!

The 40s are the period when literature is collected. And Gogol “collects” it. "Bedovik", street musicians - all this has lost its meaning.

Like an explosion, a whole collection of stories appeared that amazed everyone - “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka.” When Gogol wrote “Evenings...”, it overshadowed everything - and I no longer wanted to write about wipers. His stories were so new, interesting and different from the previous one that everyone stopped, mouths open, and laughed - from critics to typesetters. One story is more interesting and exciting than the other! “This little Russian will rewrite us,” were the voices of that time.

But as an artist of words, Gogol understood that this was not enough. And he rushed into everyday life, into the everyday that surrounds us. “The story of how Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich.” The quarrel arose over a trifle - how to air a gun. Ivan Ivanovich liked the gun. He asked to sell it, but Ivan Nikiforovich refused. If you can’t sell it, then you can exchange it - and he suggested a brown pig. Ivan Nikiforovich was offended: “Kiss your own pig. But a gun is a thing.”

The offensive word “gander” hung between the two friends like a fatal one. And from then on the litigation began. The court has not yet started the case, but the quarrel continues. Everyday life with gossip, intrigue, slander is a plot that is important for a person of that time.

"Ivan Fedorovich Shponka and his aunt." The bride looked at Shponka, and Shponka at the bride. She made circular movements on the chair. Auntie realized that everything was decided, and the engagement took place. Gogol offers the reader hilarious scenes, but not only that. A wonderful lyrical story, on a par with the most sensitive novels, is “Old World Landowners.”

Fruit trees, fences, rickety houses... and the inhabitants themselves. A secret wedding, as in the best adventure novels, and life went remarkably smoothly, beautifully, lyrically. Their special occupation was to eat. Conversations between Pulcheria and Afanasy Ivanovich. "What would you like? “And it’s still possible.” Afanasy Ivanovich ate his fill, and everything went to everyone’s satisfaction. But then a strange thing happened. The white cat, whom Pulcheria loved very much, decided to take a walk and got lost in the thick of the trees, apparently having met a gentleman there who captivated her. When the cat did not return the next day, Pulcheria said that this was not a good sign. Afanasy Ivanovich consoled her. But this did not convince Pulcheria. Finally the cat came running, stood opposite her and meowed. “It is my death that has come,” said Pulcheria. They remained in this mood. And after some time, Pulcheria really fell ill and died. Afanasy Ivanovich cried like a child. His suffering was indescribable. They were afraid that his mind would change. He accompanied his life partner to the grave, bitterly; he sobbed and did not pay attention to any persuasion. A lot of time passed when the author looked into this lovely tract again. Afanasy Ivanovich was extremely pleased with my arrival. We sat down at the table. When the girl thrust a napkin into him with sharp movements, he didn’t even pay attention to it. When I remembered Pulcheria, Afanasy Ivanovich burst into bitter tears. His sadness was so great, so genuine and so terrible that the author saw what human passion could be, not subject to age. The nest in which they spent so many wonderful days has disappeared. There was so much love there! But everything passes.

“The Little Russian who will rewrite us” really rewrote everyone - and created the heroic epic “Taras Bulba”, where both Cossack characters and Lyash characters (Poles - Poles) unfold to their fullest extent. This artist knew how to show the revelry of the Cossacks, their violent morals, intolerable character, and refined Lyash upbringing. Among these two worlds, he places his hero - Andria. Lyrical hero who fell in love with the beauty of a Polish woman. The worst thing for a Cossack is an alliance with a Polish woman. And then - a tragic scene: “I gave birth to you, I will kill you.” And Ostap fell into the clutches of the Poles. People gathered on Cathedral Square to publicly execute him. But before that, he still needs to be tested, tormented, and inflicted as much pain as possible. Ostap said: “Dad, where are you? Can you hear? And a voice came from the crowd: “I hear you, son!” And the voices of this could not be drowned out.

In a variety of genres, Gogol depicts material, spiritual, daily life that time.

But he wants to represent all of Russia - and writes the poem “Dead Souls”.

The 30s are the era of Pushkin. And all our ideas are connected with Pushkin’s ideas, both aesthetically and ideologically. Now the centers have shifted. The ideas themselves began to have a completely different character. Life, fenced off from everyday life, was muffled, and another life came to the fore - with all its little things. Everyday life, the little things of everyday life, which are no longer perceived as small things, but are perceived as something significant. This applies to absolutely everything. Pushkin will not focus on the hero’s vest, cufflinks and shirtfront. This is unimportant for him, as a matter of course. And Gogol’s hero is made entirely of this. This is very important in the course of the story, because his actions, his ideas, his interests - they are also petty. His passions, including profit, are also petty. Although the appearance is very large, but in essence, this “millionaire” has nothing behind his soul. But these features are characteristic not only of Gogol, but of the entire period. Gogol in this sense is a “banner”. This feature of pettiness and lack of ideas covers all the writers of that period, but Gogol captured these features extremely well.<…>

Notes:

Abstract on the history of Russia

After the suppression of the Decembrist uprising, the reaction intensified in the country. In the fight against new ideas, the government used not only repression, but also weapons of an ideological nature. This was S.S. Uvarov’s theory of “official nationality”, the goal of which was: “To erase the confrontation between the so-called European education and our needs; to heal the newest generation from a blind, thoughtless addiction to the superficial and foreign, spreading in their souls reasonable respect for the domestic ..." Its main slogans were: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.

However, the Uvarov triad did not receive widespread support in Russian society. Despite official opposition, the social movement developed, and in the 40s there was a clear demarcation in it. The feudal-serf system survived the last decade. Sober-minded people wondered what would replace it, what path Russia’s development would take.

In the 40s, the main directions of social thought were formed, coming from the need for reforms in Russia: Slavophiles, Westerners and revolutionaries.

Westerners- This is the first bourgeois-liberal movement in Russia. Its prominent representatives were Kavelin, Granovsky, Botkin, Panaev, Annenkov, Katkov and others. They believed that Russia and the West were following the same path - the bourgeois one, and the only salvation for Russia from revolutionary upheavals was seen in borrowing through gradual reforms of bourgeois democracy. Westerners believed in the indivisibility of human civilization and argued that the West leads this civilization, showing examples of the implementation of the principles of freedom and progress, which attracts the attention of the rest of humanity. Therefore, the task of semi-barbaric Russia, which only came into contact with universal human culture with the time of Peter the Great, is to join the European West as soon as possible and thus enter a single universal civilization. As liberals, the ideas of revolution and socialism were alien to them. Until the mid-40s, Belinsky and Herzen spoke together with the Westerners, constituting the left wing of this movement.

The opponents of the Westerners became Slavophiles, who were hostile to the West and idealized pre-Petrine Rus', who trusted in the originality of the Russian people, who believed in a special path of its development. Prominent Slavophiles were Khomyakov, Samarin, the Aksakov brothers, the Kireevsky brothers, Koshelev and others.

Slavophiles argued that there is no and cannot be a single human civilization. Each nation lives its own “identity”, the basis of which is the ideological principle that permeates all sides folk life. For Russia, such a beginning was the Orthodox faith, and its embodiment was the community, as a union of mutual help and support. In the Russian village one can do without class struggle; this will save Russia from revolution and bourgeois “deviations.” Being staunch monarchists, they nevertheless advocated freedom of opinion and revival Zemsky Sobors. They are also characterized by rejection of revolution and socialism. Neither the principles nor the organizational forms of life of the West were acceptable to Russia. The Moscow kingdom corresponded more to the spirit and character of the Russian people than the monarchy built by Peter I according to European models. Thus, the Slavophil teaching reflected the Russian soil to the core and denied everything or almost everything brought into the life of Russians from the outside, and especially from Europe. Slavophiles put forward the reactionary idea of ​​​​unifying the Slavic peoples under the auspices of the Russian Tsar (Pan-Slavism).

Their teaching contradictorily intertwined the features of bourgeois-liberal and conservative-noble ideologies.

Ideological differences between Westerners and Slavophiles, however, did not prevent their rapprochement in practical issues of Russian life: both movements denied serfdom; both opposed the existing government controlled; both demanded freedom of speech and press.

In the 40s, having broken away from the Westerners, the third current of social thought took shape - revolutionary democratic. It was represented by Belinsky, Herzen, the Petrashevites, and the then young Chernyshevsky and Shevchenko.

Belinsky and Herzen did not agree with the Westerners regarding revolution and socialism. The revolutionary democrats were greatly influenced by the works of Saint-Simon and Fourier. But, unlike Western socialists, they not only did not exclude the revolutionary path to socialism, but also relied on it. The revolutionaries also believed that Russia would follow the Western path, but unlike the Slavophiles and Westerners, they believed that revolutionary upheavals were inevitable.

The utopian nature of their views is obvious - they believed that Russia could come to socialism, bypassing capitalism, and considered this possible thanks to the Russian community, which they understood as the “embryo of socialism.” They did not notice the private property instincts in the Russian countryside and did not foresee the class struggle in it. Given the embryonic state in which the Russian proletariat was, they did not understand its revolutionary future and hoped for a peasant revolution.

The term “Slavophiles” is essentially accidental. This name was given to them by their ideological opponents - Westerners in the heat of controversy. The Slavophiles themselves initially disowned this name, considering themselves not Slavophiles, but “Russian lovers” or “Russophiles,” emphasizing that they were primarily interested in the fate of Russia, the Russian people, and not the Slavs in general. A.I. Koshelev pointed out that they most likely should be called “natives” or, more precisely, “originalists,” because their main goal was to protect the originality of the historical destiny of the Russian people not only in comparison with the West, but also with the East. Early Slavophilism (before the reform of 1861) was also not characterized by pan-Slavism, which was already inherent in late (post-reform) Slavophilism. Slavophilism as an ideological and political movement of Russian social thought disappeared from the scene around the mid-70s of the 19th century.

The main thesis of the Slavophiles is proof of the original path of development of Russia, or more precisely, the demand to “follow this path”, the idealization of “original” institutions, primarily the peasant community and Orthodox Church.

The government was wary of Slavophiles: they were prohibited from demonstratively wearing a beard and Russian dress; some of the Slavophiles were imprisoned for several months in the Peter and Paul Fortress for harsh statements. All attempts to publish Slavophile newspapers and magazines were immediately stopped. Slavophiles were persecuted under conditions of increasing reactionary political course under the influence of the Western European revolutions of 1848–1849. This forced them to temporarily curtail their activities. In the late 50s - early 60s A.I. Koshelev, Yu.F. Samarin, V.A. Cherkassky are active participants in the preparation and implementation of peasant reform.

Westernism , like Slavophilism, it arose at the turn of the 30s and 40s of the 19th century. The Moscow circle of Westerners took shape in 1841–1842. Contemporaries interpreted Westernism very broadly, including among the Westerners in general all those who opposed the Slavophiles in their ideological disputes. Westerners, along with such moderate liberals as P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, N.Kh. Ketcher, W.F. Korsh, enrolled V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev. However, Belinsky and Herzen themselves called themselves “Westerners” in their disputes with the Slavophiles.

By their social origin and position, most Westerners, like the Slavophiles, belonged to the noble intelligentsia. The Westerners included famous professors of Moscow University - historians T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Soloviev, legal experts M.N. Katkov, K.D. Kavelin, philologist F.I. Buslaev, as well as prominent writers I.I. Panaev, I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov, later N.A. Nekrasov.

Westerners opposed themselves to Slavophiles in disputes about the paths of development of Russia. They argued that Russia, although “late,” was following the same path of historical development as all Western European countries, and advocated its Europeanization.

Westerners exalted Peter I, who, as they said, “saved Russia.” They considered Peter's activities as the first phase of the country's renewal, the second should begin with reforms from above - they would be an alternative to the path of revolutionary upheavals. Professors of history and law (for example, S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin) great importance gave importance to the role of state power in the history of Russia and became the founders of the so-called state school in Russian historiography. Here they were based on Hegel’s scheme, who considered the state to be the creator of the development of human society.

Westerners propagated their ideas from university departments, in articles published in “Moscow Observer”, “Moskovskie Vedomosti”, “Otechestvennye Zapiski”, and later in “Russky Vestnik”, “Athenea”. Read by T.N. had a great public resonance. Granovsky in 1843 - 1851. cycles of public lectures on Western European history, in which he proved the common patterns of the historical process in Russia and Western European countries, according to Herzen, “made propaganda into history.” Westerners also made extensive use of Moscow salons, where they “fought” the Slavophiles and where the enlightened elite of Moscow society gathered to see “who would beat whom and how they would beat him.” Heated debates flared up. Speeches were prepared in advance, articles and treatises were written. Herzen was especially sophisticated in his polemical fervour against the Slavophiles. It was an outlet in the deadening situation of Nikolaev Russia.

Despite differences in views, Slavophiles and Westerners grew from the same root. Almost all of them belonged to the most educated part of the noble intelligentsia, being major writers, scientists, and publicists. Most of them were students of Moscow University. The theoretical basis of their views was German classical philosophy. Both of them were concerned about the fate of Russia and the ways of its development. Both of them were opponents of the Nikolaev system. “We, like a two-faced Janus, looked in different directions, but our hearts beat the same,” Herzen would later say.

It must be said that all directions of Russian social thought advocated “nationality” - from reactionary to revolutionary, putting completely different content into this concept. The revolutionary viewed “nationality” in terms of democratizing national culture and educating the masses in the spirit of advanced ideas, and saw in the masses the social support of revolutionary transformations.

3. Revolutionary direction

The revolutionary movement was formed around the magazines Sovremennik and Otechestvennye zapiski, which were headed by V.G. Belinsky with the participation of A.I. Herzen and N.A. Nekrasova. Supporters of this direction also believed that Russia would follow the European path of development, but, unlike liberals, they believed that revolutionary upheavals were inevitable.

Until the mid-50s. the revolution was a necessary condition for the abolition of serfdom and for A.I. Herzen . Having dissociated himself in the late 40s. From Westernism, he came to the idea of ​​“Russian socialism,” which was based on the free development of the Russian community and artel in conjunction with the ideas of European socialism and assumed self-government on a national scale and public ownership of land.

A characteristic phenomenon in Russian literature and journalism of that time was the distribution of “seditious” poems, political pamphlets and journalistic “letters” in lists, which, under the censorship conditions of that time, could not appear in print. Among them, what stands out most is what is written V 1847 Belinsky “ Letter to Gogol ”. The reason for its writing was the publication in 1846 by Gogol of the religious and philosophical work “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends.” In a review of the book published in Sovremennik, Belinsky wrote in harsh tones about the author’s betrayal of his creative heritage, about his religiously “humble” views, self-abasement. Gogol considered himself insulted and sent a letter to Belinsky in which he regarded his review as a manifestation of personal hostility towards himself. This prompted Belinsky to write his famous “Letter to Gogol.”

In the “Letter,” the system of Nikolaev Russia was sharply criticized, presenting, according to Belinsky, “the terrible spectacle of a country where people trade in people, where there are not only no guarantees for personality, honor and property, but there is not even a police order, but only huge corporations of various official thieves and robbers.” Belinsky also attacks the official church, a servant of the autocracy, proves the “deep atheism” of the Russian people and questions the religiosity of church pastors. He does not spare the famous writer, calling him “a preacher of the whip, an apostle of ignorance, a champion of obscurantism and obscurantism, a panegyrist of Tatar morals.”

The most immediate, pressing tasks facing Russia at that time were formulated by Belinsky as follows: “The abolition of serfdom, the abolition of corporal punishment, the introduction, if possible, of strict enforcement of those laws that already exist.” Belinsky's letter spread to thousands of lists and caused a great public outcry.

P.Ya. became an independent figure in the ideological opposition to Nicholas’ rule. Chaadaev (1794 - 1856). Graduate of Moscow University, participant in the Battle of Borodino and the “Battle of the Nations” near Leipzig, friend of the Decembrists and A.S. Pushkin, in 1836 he published the first of his “Philosophical Letters” in the Telescope magazine, which, according to Herzen, “shocked all thinking Russia.” Denying the official theory of Russia's "amazing" past and "magnificent" present, Chaadaev gave a very gloomy assessment of Russia's historical past and its role in world history; he was extremely pessimistic about the possibilities of social progress in Russia. Chaadaev considered the main reason for Russia’s separation from the European historical tradition to be the rejection of Catholicism in favor of the religion of serfdom - Orthodoxy. The government regarded the “Letter” as an anti-government speech: the magazine was closed, the publisher was sent into exile, the censor was fired, and Chaadaev was declared crazy and placed under police supervision.

History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich

The revolutionary situation in Russia at the turn of the 50-60s of the XIX century. The fall of serfdom

At the end of the 50s of the XIX century. The crisis of feudalism in Russia reached its culmination. Serfdom restrained the development of industry and trade, preserved low level Agriculture. The peasants' arrears grew, and the landowners' debt to credit institutions increased.

At the same time, in the Russian economy, in the depths of the feudal system, the capitalist structure made its way, stable capitalist relations arose with a gradually emerging system of purchase and sale of labor. Its development took place most intensively in the industrial sector. The framework of the old production relations no longer corresponded to the development of productive forces, which ultimately led to the emergence of a new revolutionary situation in Russia at the turn of the 50-60s of the 19th century.

In the 50s, the need and hardships of the masses noticeably worsened, this happened under the influence of the consequences Crimean War, more frequent natural disasters (epidemics, crop failures and, as a consequence, famine), as well as increasing oppression on the part of landowners and the state in the pre-reform period. Recruitment, which reduced the number of workers by 10%, and requisitions of food, horses and fodder had a particularly severe impact on the economy of the Russian village. The situation was aggravated by the arbitrariness of the landowners, who systematically reduced the size of peasant plots, transferred peasants to households (and thus deprived them of land), and resettled serfs to worse lands. These acts assumed such proportions that the government, shortly before the reform, was forced to impose a ban on such actions by special decrees.

The response to the worsening situation of the masses was the peasant movement, which in its intensity, scale and forms was noticeably different from the protests of previous decades and caused great concern in St. Petersburg.

This period was characterized by mass escapes of landowner peasants who wanted to enlist in the militia and thus hoped to gain freedom (1854–1855), unauthorized resettlement to war-ravaged Crimea (1856), a “sober” movement directed against the feudal system of wine farming (1858–1859 ), unrest and escapes of workers during the construction of railways (Moscow-Nizhny Novgorod, Volga-Don, 1859–1860). It was also restless on the outskirts of the empire. In 1858, Estonian peasants took up arms in their hands (“Machtra War”). Major peasant unrest broke out in 1857 in Western Georgia.

After the defeat in the Crimean War, in the context of a growing revolutionary upsurge, the crisis at the top intensified, manifested, in particular, in the intensification of the liberal opposition movement among part of the nobility, dissatisfied with military failures, the backwardness of Russia, who understood the need for political and social changes. “Sevastopol hit stagnant minds,” the famous Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote about this time. The “censorship terror” introduced by Emperor Nicholas I after his death in February 1855 was virtually swept away by a wave of glasnost, which made it possible to openly discuss the most pressing problems facing the country.

There was no unity in government circles on the issue of the future fate of Russia. Two opposing groups formed here: the old conservative bureaucratic elite (head of the III department V.A. Dolgorukov, Minister of State Property M.N. Muravyov, etc.), which actively opposed the implementation of bourgeois reforms, and supporters of reforms (Minister of Internal Affairs S.S. Lanskoy, Ya.I. Rostovtsev, brothers N.A. and D.A. Milyutin).

The interests of the Russian peasantry were reflected in the ideology of the new generation of revolutionary intelligentsia.

In the 50s, two centers were formed that led the revolutionary democratic movement in the country. The first (emigrant) was headed by A.I. Herzen, who founded the “Free Russian Printing House” in London (1853). Since 1855, he began publishing the non-periodical collection “Polar Star”, and since 1857, together with N.P. Ogarev, the newspaper “Bell”, which enjoyed enormous popularity. Herzen's publications formulated a program of social transformation in Russia, which included the liberation of peasants from serfdom with land and for ransom. Initially, the publishers of Kolokol believed in the liberal intentions of the new Emperor Alexander II (1855–1881) and placed certain hopes on wisely carried out reforms “from above.” However, as projects for the abolition of serfdom were being prepared, illusions dissipated, and a call to fight for land and democracy was heard loudly on the pages of London publications.

The second center arose in St. Petersburg. It was headed by leading employees of the Sovremennik magazine N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov, around whom like-minded people from the revolutionary democratic camp rallied (M.L. Mikhailov, N.A. Serno-Solovyevich, N.V. Shelgunov and others). The censored articles of N.G. Chernyshevsky were not as frank as the publications of A.I. Herzen, but they were distinguished by their consistency. N.G. Chernyshevsky believed that when the peasants were liberated, the land should be transferred to them without ransom; the liquidation of autocracy in Russia would occur through revolutionary means.

On the eve of the abolition of serfdom, a demarcation emerged between the revolutionary-democratic and liberal camps. Liberals, who recognized the need for reforms “from above,” saw in them, first of all, an opportunity to prevent a revolutionary explosion in the country.

The Crimean War presented the government with a choice: either to preserve the serfdom that existed in the country and, as a consequence of this, ultimately, as a result of a political, financial and economic catastrophe, lose not only the prestige and position of a great power, but also threaten the existence of the autocracy in Russia, or to carry out bourgeois reforms, the primary of which was the abolition of serfdom.

Having chosen the second path, the government of Alexander II in January 1857 created a Secret Committee “to discuss measures to organize the life of the landowner peasants.” Somewhat earlier, in the summer of 1856, in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, comrade (deputy) minister A.I. Levshin developed a government program for peasant reform, which, although it gave serfs civil rights, retained all the land in the ownership of the landowner and provided the latter with patrimonial power on the estate. In this case, the peasants would receive allotment land for use, for which they would have to perform fixed duties. This program was set out in imperial rescripts (instructions), first addressed to the Vilna and St. Petersburg governors-general, and then sent to other provinces. In accordance with the rescripts, special committees began to be created in the provinces to consider the case locally, and the preparation of the reform became public. The Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. The Zemstvo Department under the Ministry of Internal Affairs (N.A. Milyutin) began to play a significant role in preparing the reform.

Within the provincial committees there was a struggle between liberals and conservatives over the forms and extent of concessions to the peasantry. Reform projects prepared by K.D. Kavelin, A.I. Koshelev, M.P. Posen. Yu.F. Samarin, A.M. Unkovsky, differed in the political views of the authors and economic conditions. Thus, the landowners of the black earth provinces, who owned expensive land and kept peasants in corvee labor, wanted to retain the maximum possible amount of land and retain workers. In the industrial non-chernozem obroch provinces, during the reform, landowners wanted to receive significant cash to rebuild their farms in a bourgeois way.

The prepared proposals and programs were submitted for discussion to the so-called Editorial Commissions. The struggle over these proposals took place both in these commissions and during the consideration of the project in the Main Committee and in the State Council. But, despite the existing differences of opinion, in all these projects it was about carrying out peasant reform in the interests of the landowners by maintaining landownership and political dominance in the hands of the Russian nobility, “Everything that could be done to protect the benefits of the landowners has been done,” - Alexander II stated in the State Council. The final version of the reform project, which had undergone a number of changes, was signed by the emperor on February 19, 1861, and on March 5, the most important documents regulating the implementation of the reform were published: “Manifesto” and “ General provisions about peasants emerging from serfdom."

In accordance with these documents, peasants received personal freedom and could now freely dispose of their property, engage in commercial and industrial activities, buy and sell real estate, enter the service, receive an education, and conduct their family affairs.

The landowner still owned all the land, but part of it, usually a reduced land plot and the so-called “estate settlement” (a plot with a hut, outbuildings, vegetable gardens, etc.), he was obliged to transfer to the peasants for use. Thus, Russian peasants received liberation with land, but they could use this land for a certain fixed rent or serving corvee. The peasants could not give up these plots for 9 years. For complete liberation, they could buy the estate and, by agreement with the landowner, the allotment, after which they became peasant proprietors. Until this time, a “temporarily obligated position” was established.

The new sizes of allotments and payments of peasants were recorded in special documents, “statutory charters”. which were compiled for each village over a two-year period. The amounts of these duties and allotment land were determined by “Local Regulations”. Thus, according to the “Great Russian” local situation, the territory of 35 provinces was distributed into 3 stripes: non-chernozem, chernozem and steppe, which were divided into “localities”. In the first two stripes, depending on local conditions, “higher” and “lower” (1/3 of the “highest”) allotment sizes were established, and in the steppe zone - one “decreed” allotment. If the pre-reform size of the allotment exceeded the “highest” one, then pieces of land could be produced, but if the allotment was less than the “lowest” one, then the landowner had to either cut off the land or reduce duties. Cut-offs were also made in some other cases, for example, when the owner, as a result of allocating land to the peasants, had less than 1/3 of the total land of the estate left. Among the cut-off lands there were often the most valuable areas (forest, meadows, arable land); in some cases, landowners could demand that peasant estates be moved to new locations. As a result of the post-reform land management, stripes became characteristic of the Russian village.

Charters were usually concluded with an entire rural society, the “mir” (community), which was supposed to ensure mutual responsibility for the payment of duties.

The “temporarily obligated” position of the peasants ceased after the transfer to redemption, which became mandatory only 20 years later (from 1883). The ransom was carried out with the assistance of the government. The basis for calculating redemption payments was not the market price of land, but the assessment of duties that were feudal in nature. When the deal was concluded, the peasants paid 20% of the amount, and the remaining 80% was paid to the landowners by the state. The peasants had to repay the loan provided by the state annually in the form of redemption payments for 49 years, while, of course, accrued interest was taken into account. Redemption payments placed a heavy burden on peasant farms. The cost of the purchased land significantly exceeded its market price. During the redemption operation, the government also tried to get back the huge sums that were provided to landowners in the pre-reform years on the security of land. If the estate was mortgaged, then the amount of the debt was deducted from the amounts provided to the landowner. The landowners received only a small part of the redemption amount in cash; special interest notes were issued for the rest.

It should be borne in mind that in modern historical literature, issues related to the implementation of the reform are not fully developed. There are different points of view about the degree of transformation during the reform of the system of peasant plots and payments (currently these studies are being carried out on a large scale using computers).

The reform of 1861 in the internal provinces was followed by the abolition of serfdom on the outskirts of the empire - in Georgia (1864–1871), Armenia and Azerbaijan (1870–1883), which was often carried out with even less consistency and with greater preservation of feudal remnants. Appanage peasants (belonging to the royal family) received personal freedom based on decrees of 1858 and 1859. "By the Regulations of June 26, 1863" the land structure and conditions for the transition to redemption in the appanage village were determined, which was carried out during 1863–1865. In 1866, a reform was carried out in the state village. The purchase of land by state peasants was completed only in 1886.

Thus, peasant reforms in Russia actually abolished serfdom and marked the beginning of the development of the capitalist formation in Russia. However, while maintaining landownership and feudal remnants in the countryside, they were unable to resolve all the contradictions, which ultimately led to a further intensification of the class struggle.

The response of the peasantry to the publication of the “Manifesto” was a massive explosion of discontent in the spring of 1861. The peasants protested against the continuation of the corvee system and the payment of quitrents and plots of land. The peasant movement acquired a particularly large scale in the Volga region, Ukraine and the central black earth provinces.

Russian society was shocked by the events in the villages of Bezdna (Kazan province) and Kandeevka (Penza province) that took place in April 1863. Peasants outraged by the reform were shot there by military teams. In total, over 1,100 peasant unrest occurred in 1861. Only by drowning the protests in blood did the government manage to reduce the intensity of the struggle. The disunited, spontaneous and devoid of political consciousness protest of the peasants was doomed to failure. Already in 1862–1863. the scope of the movement was significantly reduced. IN next years it declined sharply (there were fewer than 100 performances in 1864).

In 1861–1863 During the period of intensification of the class struggle in the countryside, the activity of democratic forces in the country intensified. After the suppression of peasant uprisings, the government, feeling more confident, attacked the democratic camp with repression.