The period of the second half of the XIX - early XX centuries. is rightfully considered the silver age of Russian culture (a detailed table is presented below). The spiritual life of society is rich and diverse.

The political changes that occurred after the reforms of Alexander II were not as significant as the social and psychological changes. Having received greater freedom and food for thought, scientists, writers, philosophers, musicians and artists, it would seem, are striving to make up for lost time. According to N. A. Berdyaev, having entered the XX century. Russia has gone through an era comparable in importance to the Renaissance, in fact, this is the time of the Renaissance of Russian culture.

The main reasons for the rapid cultural growth

A significant leap in all spheres of the cultural life of the country was facilitated by:

• new schools opening in large numbers;
• an increase in the percentage of literate, and, accordingly, reading people to 54% by 1913 among men and 26% among women;
• an increase in the number of applicants to enter the university.

Government spending on education is gradually increasing. In the second half of the XIX century. the state treasury allocates 40 million rubles a year for education, and in 1914 at least 300 million. The number of voluntary educational societies, which could be attended by the most diverse segments of the population, and the number of public universities are increasing. All this contributes to the popularization of culture in such areas as literature, painting, sculpture, architecture, science is developing.

Culture of Russia in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries.

Russian scientists, artists, artists and writers are gaining fame abroad. Achievements of Russian culture of the period under review receive worldwide recognition. The names of Russian travelers and discoverers adorn the maps of the world. The art forms that originated in Russia have a significant impact on foreign culture, many of whose representatives now prefer to be equal to Russian writers, sculptors, poets, scientists and artists.

The social upsurge during the period of the abolition of serfdom created favorable conditions for the development of Russian science. In the eyes of the younger generation, the importance and attractiveness of scientific activity grew. Graduates of Russian universities began to travel more often for internships in foreign scientific centers, contacts of Russian scientists with foreign colleagues revived.

Great strides have been made in mathematics and physics. Pafnuty Lvovich Chebyshev (1821-1894) made major discoveries in mathematical analysis, number theory, and probability theory. In 1860 he was elected a foreign member of the Paris Academy of Sciences. Chebyshev laid the foundation for the Petersburg mathematical school. Many talented scientists have come out of it, including Alexander Mikhailovich Lyapunov (1857 - 1918). His discoveries spurred the development of a number of important areas of mathematics.

A striking event in the history of science was Sofia Vasilievna Kovalevskaya (1850-1891). Even in her early youth, she discovered extraordinary mathematical abilities. But Russian universities were closed to women, and she went abroad. There she received her Ph.D. and became a professor at Stockholm University, where she taught a number of excellent courses in mathematics. The works of Kovalevskaya received worldwide recognition.

played an important role in the development of physics Alexander Grigorievich Stoletov (1839-1896). He owns a number of studies in the field of photoelectric phenomena, subsequently used in the creation of modern electronic technology.

Development of physical Sciences determined the advances in electrical engineering. P. N. Yablochkov created an arc lamp (“Yablochkov’s candle”) and was the first to carry out the transformation of alternating current. A. N. Lodygin invented a more advanced incandescent lamp.

The discovery of world significance was the invention of the radiotelegraph. Alexander Stepanovich Popov (1859-1905), the son of a priest, showed an interest in electrical engineering as a student. In the future, the study of electrical phenomena, electromagnetism became the main direction of his scientific research. In 1895, at a meeting of the Russian Physical and Chemical Society, he made a presentation on the use of electromagnetic waves for signal transmission. The device he demonstrated, the lightning detector, was essentially the world's first receiving radio station. In subsequent years, he created more advanced devices, but his attempts to establish radio communications on navy encountered skepticism and misunderstanding of the command.

Marine officer Alexander Fedorovich Mozhaisky (1825-1890) dedicated his life to building heavier-than-air aircraft. He studied the flight of birds, made models, and in 1881 began building an airplane with two steam engines with a capacity of 20 and 10 hp. Mozhaisky's aircraft was notable for its thoughtful and technically competent design for its time. There are no official documents about his test. Apparently, the flight attempt ended unsuccessfully due to insufficient engine power. The creation of an aircraft on steam engines was hardly feasible at all. Later experiments of this kind abroad were also not very successful: the French inventor K. Ader in 1891 managed to fly only 100 m. right inscribed in the history of aviation.

60-70s of the XIX century. called " golden age» Russian chemistry. Student of N. N. Zinin Alexander Mikhailovich Butlerov (1828-1886) developed a theory of chemical structure, the main provisions of which have not lost their significance to this day. In the second half of the XIX century. the great chemist made his discoveries Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev (1834-1907). He was born in Tobolsk in the family of the director of the gymnasium. His talent as a scientist unfolded at St. Petersburg University. The greatest merit of Mendeleev was the discovery of the periodic law of chemical elements. On its basis, Mendeleev predicted the existence of many then unknown elements. Mendeleev's book Fundamentals of Chemistry has been translated into almost all European languages.

D. I. Mendeleev thought a lot about the fate of Russia. He associated its entry onto the path of economic and cultural upsurge with the wide and rational use of natural resources, with the development of the creative forces of the people, the spread of education and Sciences. He expressed his thoughts about the present and future of the country in the books " To the knowledge of Russia», « cherished thoughts», « Notes on public education in Russia».

Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev

Using the achievements of chemistry and biology, Vasily Vasilyevich Dokuchaev (1846-1903) laid the foundation for modern soil science. He revealed the complex and lengthy process of the origin of soils. world fame Dokuchaev brought the monograph " Russian black soil". In the book " Our steppes before and now» (1892) scientist laid out a plan to deal with droughts. Dokuchaev's ideas influenced the development of forestry, melioration, hydrogeology and other sciences.

An outstanding Russian scientist, naturalist, founder of Russian physiology was Ivan Mikhailovich Sechenov (1829-1905). At first, his fate developed in the same way as most of his peers from noble families. He became an officer, served in a sapper regiment. But, feeling attracted to scientific work, he retired and entered the medical faculty of Moscow University as a volunteer. After graduating from the course of sciences, he went abroad at his own expense to improve in medicine. He was lucky to become a student of the famous German scientist G. Helmholtz, a physicist, mathematician, physiologist and psychologist. Abroad, Sechenov prepared a dissertation on the physiology of alcohol intoxication. Returning to his homeland, he headed the Department of Physiology at the St. Petersburg Medical and Surgical Academy and organized a physiological laboratory - one of the first in Russia. Of outstanding importance was his course of lectures on bioelectricity. In the future, he dealt with the problems of the human psyche. Sechenov's works were widely known. Reflexes of the brain" And " Psychological studies».

Activities of another world famous Russian biologist, Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov (1845-1916), concentrated in the field of microbiology, bacteriology, medicine. In 1887, Mechnikov, at the invitation of the French scientist Louis Pasteur, moved to Paris and headed one of the laboratories of the Pasteur Institute. Until the end of his days, he did not break ties with Russia, corresponded with Sechenov, Mendeleev, and other Russian scientists, repeatedly visited his homeland, and helped Russian trainees at his famous institute. The French government, which highly appreciated Mechnikov's scientific achievements, awarded him the Order of the Legion of Honor.

Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov

Professional historians have long been dissatisfied with the multi-volume work of N. M. Karamzin “ History of Russian Goverment". Many new sources on the history of Russia were revealed, and ideas about the historical process became more complicated. In 1851 the first volume " History of Russia since ancient times”, written by a young professor at Moscow University Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820-1879). Since then, for many years, a new volume of his " Stories". The last, 29th volume was published in 1880. Events were brought up to 1775.

Comparing the historical development of Russia and other European countries, Solovyov found much in common in their destinies. He also noted the originality of the historical path of Russia. In his opinion, it consisted in its intermediate position between Europe and Asia, in the forced centuries-old struggle with the steppe nomads. Asia attacked first, Solovyov believed, and from about the 16th century. went on the offensive Russia is the advanced outpost of Europe in the East.

« Russian history» S. M. Solovyov was written at a high professional level, is still used by specialists, is reprinted. It is familiar to everyone who is interested in national history. However, the style of presentation in it is somewhat dry, in this respect it is inferior to " Stories» Karamzin.

Solovyov's student was Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911). He replaced his teacher at the Department of Russian History at Moscow University. In keeping with the spirit of the times, Klyuchevsky showed great interest in socio-economic issues. He tried to trace the process of the formation of serf relations in Rus', to reveal their essence from an economic and legal point of view. Klyuchevsky had an uncommon gift for a lively, figurative presentation. His "Course of Russian History", compiled on the basis of university lectures, still has a wide readership.

Klyuchevsky led a quiet, measured life as an armchair scientist, outwardly not rich in events. " In the life of a scientist and writer, he said, the main biographical facts are books, the most important events are thoughts.».
The greatest Russian scholars who worked in the field of world history gained wide popularity not only in Russia, but also abroad. Maxim Maksimovich Kovalevsky (1851-1916) He became famous for his works on the history of the European peasant community. Of particular importance for the Russian reader was his work " Origins of Modern Democracy”, where the turning points of European history at the end of the 18th century were considered.
In the second half of the XIX century. Russian scientists have achieved significant success in various branches of knowledge. Moscow and St. Petersburg are among the world's scientific centers.

Topic 12. Russia in the second half of the XIX century. Great reforms of Alexander II

The need for reforms in the country, the main of which was the abolition of serfdom, became especially obvious for all sectors of Russian society during the Crimean War, which ended in defeat for Russia.

The country faced a dilemma: either the empire was losing its status as a European power, or it was hastily carrying out reforms and catching up with rivals.

Emperor Alexander II (1855-1881) in this situation came to an understanding of the need for urgent changes in the country.

Innovations appeared in domestic policy, expressed primarily in the lifting of many prohibitions of the previous period of reign: the free issuance (of course, to the wealthy strata) of foreign passports was allowed; weakened censorship; military settlements were liquidated; an amnesty for political affairs was held, as a result of which the Decembrists, Petrashevists, participants in the Polish uprising of 1830-1831 were released.

Notes and works concerning the most burning issues began to appear and vigorously discussed in society. A great influence on the formation of public opinion and the views of the king had a "Note on the liberation of the peasants in Russia" K.D. Kavelin, in which he noted the perniciousness of serfdom in economic, political and moral terms.

In 1856, the famous Slavophil Yu.F. Samarin (1819–1876), who preached the abolition of serfdom from the standpoint of the need to preserve and strengthen the peasant community. Many provisions of this project were subsequently reflected in the documents of the peasant reform.

Supporters of the liberation of the peasants were also some members of the imperial family.

There are different points of view regarding the reasons that forced the supreme power to abolish serfdom. Most local historians believe that leading role this was played by economic exhaustion serfdom: the lack of interest of the peasants as a result of their labor, the tightening of exploitation on landlord estates, contributing to a noticeable degradation of agriculture. Economic crisis, the plight of the peasants led, according to researchers, to a significant increase in social tension at the turn of 1850–1860. It was expressed in the rise of the peasant movement and protests from radical public figures - N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov and others.

By the middle of the XIX century. the crisis of the nobility as an estate and the landlord economy as a form of agricultural production became obvious. By this time, 3.5% of the nobles were dispossessed, 39.5% had less than 20 serfs, and 66% of the serfs were mortgaged into banks by landowners.

There is another point of view, according to which in the middle of the XIX century. serfdom was still far from having exhausted its possibilities, while anti-government demonstrations were extremely inactive. According to supporters of this point of view, the peasant reform was due to foreign policy factors, that is, the need to maintain the status of Russia as a powerful state.

Alexander II, in preparing the peasant reform, relied on the bureaucracy, the state apparatus subject to and obedient to him. In the 1830s–1850s a certain layer of progressive, state-minded people began to take shape among the bureaucracy. They were united by the unity of views on the program of the forthcoming reforms. Scholars have called this group the liberal bureaucracy. The patron of the liberal bureaucracy was the tsar's brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, and their most prominent representatives were the official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs N.A. Milyutin, his brother General D.A. Milyutin, General Ya.I. Rostovtsev, V.I. Dahl, Ya.I. Solovyov and others.

In the opinion of liberal bureaucrats, in order to strengthen the position of state power, it was necessary to free the peasants, create a strong peasant economy, and provide certain freedom to social forces. They also advocated the democratization of the state while retaining the monarchy.

In January 1857, a Secret Committee on Peasant Affairs was created, which included the highest dignitaries of the state and which, for a year, considered the projects of peasant reform developed during the previous reigns.

In February 1858, the Secret Committee was transformed into the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. A public discussion of the abolition of serfdom was introduced. Similar committees were created in 46 provinces.

As a result of heated discussions, the struggle of various noble groups, and the strengthening of the social movement in the autumn of 1858, a turning point occurred in the course of pre-reform work. The government and the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs determined the comprehensive principles on which the reform was to be built: the release of peasants with a field plot for ransom, the destruction of the patrimonial power of the landlords, and the introduction of civil rights to the peasantry.

In order to generalize the projects of the provincial committees of the nobility, as well as to develop the main legal documents regulating the implementation of the peasant reform, in February 1859 Alexander II created editorial commissions under the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs. They were headed by Ya.I. Rostovtsev, and the main organizer of the practical work was N.A. Milyutin.

The editorial commissions worked very intensively for about two years and held 409 meetings. They prepared legislative acts of reform.

After the closing of the editorial commissions, the codified drafts of the peasant reform were submitted for discussion, first to the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs, and then to the State Council (October 1860 - February 1861). Opponents of the reform tried to slow it down, but Alexander II showed firmness.

In total, not counting the royal manifesto of February 19, 1861, Alexander II approved 17 legal documents that had the force of law and aimed at regulating public relations after the abolition of serfdom in Russia.

After the promulgation of the manifesto on the emancipation of the peasants on March 5, 1861, the main legal provisions came into force, according to which the peasants received personal freedom, that is, they ceased to be the property of the landowner and received certain civil rights: to independently conclude transactions; engage in crafts at your own discretion; move to other classes; enter the service; acquire movable and immovable property, etc.

For the new land arrangement of the peasants, it was decided to create rural communities based on the community. The community resolved the issues of distribution and exploitation of the land fund. All issues were discussed and resolved at a village meeting, which united the peasants of each landowner's estate. Organizational and economic issues were decided and coordinated by the village headman, who was elected for three years. Several rural societies formed a volost, which was headed by a volost foreman who performed police and administrative functions.

The peasants were freed from the land. The size of the land allotment was determined on the basis of a voluntary agreement between the landowner and the peasant, with the participation of a conciliator and a village headman, and depended on the region of Russia (chernozem, non-chernozem, steppe provinces). If the peasants used a larger amount of land than provided for in the Regulations of February 19, 1861, then part of the surplus, which was called segments, was taken away in favor of the landowners.

The land was given to the peasants for ransom. They had to pay the landlord a lump sum of 20% of the cost of the allotment, and the rest was paid by the state, but with the return of this amount to him within 49 years with interest. The size of the redemption payments, depending on the region of Russia, was different, but was calculated based on the amount of the cash quitrent paid by the peasant to the landowner.

Before the conclusion of the redemption transaction, all peasants, as well as those who could not pay 20% of the cost of the allotment, were considered temporarily liable and had to fully fulfill their former duties - corvée and dues, although they were personally free.

To implement the peasant reform, a special institute of peace mediators was established, who were appointed by the Senate from local nobles to draw up charters that determined the specific conditions for the release of each peasant family. They also dealt with land disputes between landowners and peasants.

The reform was based on the principle of gradualness, that is, within two years it was necessary to draw up charter letters, for nine years the peasant could not give up his land allotment and leave the community.

The peasant reform embraced the specific and state villages.

Specific peasants (i.e., those who belonged to the imperial family) received their freedom as early as 1858. Their land arrangement, duties and redemption were determined in 1863 on the basis of general provisions reforms to abolish serfdom by a special royal decree. For the state peasants, the new land arrangement was fixed by the law of 1866. They continued to use the former allotments, and were transferred to redemption payments only in 1886.

The peasant reform led to reforms in other spheres of society.

An important event was the implementation of the Zemstvo reform on January 1, 1864. Local self-government bodies were created in counties and provinces, which dealt with issues of improvement, education, health care, social care, insurance, care for local trade and industry. Elections to zemstvos were held once every three years by curia, that is, in accordance with a certain property qualification. Citizens were divided into three categories: rural communities (peasants); townspeople; all other landowners (mainly the nobility).

Those chosen by curia were called zemstvo vowels, they met once a year at provincial and district meetings, where they elected their executive bodies (zemstvo councils) and solved the main problems in accordance with their own terms of reference. The financial support of zemstvo institutions was local fees, appointed by the zemstvos themselves.

On June 16, 1870, a new City Regulation was approved, according to which all-estate bodies of urban public self-government were created everywhere with broad powers to improve cities and develop their economy, as well as provide other city needs. The institutions of city self-government were: city electoral meetings, city duma, city government.

The most radical and consistent was the judicial reform, carried out by introducing new judicial charters into the legal sphere, approved on November 20, 1864. According to these regulations the most advanced for those times principles of organizing legal proceedings and conducting trials were consolidated. These included: the non-estate nature of the court and the equality of all citizens before the law; the separation of the judiciary from the administrative and the proclamation of the irremovability of judges; publicity and competitiveness of legal proceedings; the introduction of new legal institutions: jurors to consider complex criminal cases and issue a verdict (guilty or not guilty); sworn (private) attorneys - lawyers who provided legal advice and protection to the parties; reduction in the number of courts and simplification of the judicial system.

In accordance with the reform, the judicial system of Russia began to have five instances: 1) the world court, 2) the congress of justices of the peace, 3) the district court, 4) the judicial chamber, 5) the Senate.

The judicial reform of 1864 was a serious step for Russia on the way to the formation of civil society and the rule of law. Many components of this reform have found their application in the modern judicial system of the Russian Federation.

The preparation and implementation of the military reform (1861–1874) in Russia was carried out by D.A. Milyutin, who became Minister of War in 1861. He began by facilitating the service of soldiers, achieving in 1863 a reduction in its term to 15 years, the abolition of corporal punishment, the introduction of literacy training for soldiers, and a ban on returning to soldiers for crimes.

The whole complex of military reforms included the following: reduction in the size of the army; the establishment of a system of military districts, that is, the decentralization of military command in the country; the abolition of the recruiting system for recruiting the army and the introduction of universal military service (since January 1, 1874).

The new charter on military service introduced the same conditions for service in the army for all estates.

The network of military educational institutions for the training of officers: in 1862–1864. military gymnasiums and cadet schools were established. The army was re-equipped.

Military transformations made the Russian army more capable, liberated and were aimed at eliminating class restrictions. No wonder this reform is called one of the most humane reforms of the 1960s and 1970s. 19th century

An important place among the "great" reforms was occupied by the reform of the public education system. In the 1860s–1870s there was a turn towards the development and formation of women's education. In 1860, the Regulations on women's schools were adopted, which could be created in all provincial cities and were analogues of men's gymnasiums. It was much more difficult for women to receive higher education, since they were not allowed to enter universities, therefore, under the control of the Ministry of Public Education, it was allowed to create Higher Women's University-type Courses.

Serious changes have taken place in the system of primary and secondary male education. New documents were adopted: the Regulations on Primary Public Schools (July 14, 1864) and the Charter of Gymnasiums and Progymnasiums (November 19, 1864). Thus, the state-church monopoly on education and educational institutions lost its power. Now, with the appropriate permission of the bodies of the Ministry of Public Education, zemstvos could create educational institutions, public organizations as well as private individuals. These documents also laid the foundations for the division high school into classical (humanitarian) and real (technical).

Changes have also taken place in the system of higher education. So, on June 18, 1863, a new university charter was approved, which gave higher educational institutions significant autonomy. Significant attention in this document was given to the elective principle: all vacancies were filled through elections, including professorships. Democratic traditions emanating from the university environment have become an important factor public life in Russia.

The reforms carried out in Russia in the 1860s–1870s, despite their significance, were limited and contradictory, which contributed to the intensification of the ideological and political struggle and led to the final formation of three directions in the social movement: revolutionary, liberal, and conservative.

Supporters of conservatism stood guard over the autocracy, advocated the curtailment of reforms and the implementation of counter-reforms, the preservation of landownership. The ideologists of the conservatives were K.P. Pobedonostsev, D.A. Tolstoy, M.N. Katkov, V.P. Meshchersky and others.

The bureaucratic and bureaucratic state apparatus, the church, and a significant part of the periodical press were considered the stronghold and at the same time the sphere of the spread of conservatism. Conservative traditionalism was recognized as the official ideology of Russia until 1917.

Liberalism(translated from Latin - free) as a socio-political movement arose primarily among the intelligentsia, which advocated the introduction of constitutional principles into the political and legal system, democratic freedoms and the continuation of reforms. The liberals were opponents of the revolution and defended the evolutionary path of the country's development, so they were ready for cooperation and compromises with the autocracy. The ideological substantiation of Russian liberalism is contained in the works of K.D. Kavelina, B.N. Chicherina and others. The influential journal Vestnik Evropy, which was directed by M.M. Stasyulevich.

Representatives of Slavophile liberalism were grouped around the journal Russkaya Beseda, headed by A.I. Koshelev.

At the end of the 1870s. zemstvo liberals (I.I. Petrunkevich and S.A. Muromtsev) put forward the idea of ​​establishing a zemstvo representation in Russia under the supreme power. To a large extent, this was due to the fact that at the end of the reign of Alexander II, key positions in the executive branch were occupied by M.T. Loris-Melikov. The basis of the program of his activities was the idea of ​​cooperation with the liberal circles of society, their transfer from the opposition to the camp of allies in the fight against the revolutionary movement.

January 28, 1881 M.T. Loris-Melikov submitted a report to the emperor, the essence of which was the establishment of preparatory commissions with the involvement of representatives of the zemstvo bodies in them. The commissions had to discuss bills and express their opinion until they were submitted to the State Council.

Alexander II basically approved this project, but on March 1, 1881, as a result of a terrorist act, he was killed by Narodnaya Volya. Alexander III, who ascended the throne, and his reactionary entourage rejected the proposal of M.T. Loris-Melikov, who soon retired.

The most active in the social movement were representatives of the revolutionary direction, who sought to radically reorganize society, mainly by force. The ideological basis for this was the theory of a special, non-capitalist development of Russia through communal socialism, the ideologists of which were A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky. These theoretical views influenced the formation of a new radical trend - populism.

Ways to achieve a new just society were formulated by other ideologues of revolutionary populism, who laid the foundations of three ideological currents:

- rebellious (anarchist). Its ideologist M.A. Bakunin (1814-1876) believed that the Russian peasant was by nature a rebel and therefore he should be raised to a revolution that should destroy the state and create in its place a federation of self-governing communities and associations;

- propaganda. Its founder P.L. Lavrov (1823-1900) argued that the people were not ready for a revolution, so he paid the main attention to the long-term propaganda of socialist ideas and believed that the advanced part of the Russian intelligentsia should “wake up” the peasantry;

- conspiratorial. The theorist of this trend P.N. Tkachev (1844–1885), in his views on a possible revolution in Russia, emphasized a conspiracy to overthrow a coup by professional revolutionaries. The seizure of power, in his opinion, should quickly draw the people into socialist reconstruction.

For many years of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. the utopian theory of populist socialism became the theoretical and programmatic basis for many radical revolutionary movements and political parties.

Revolutionary radicalism largely stemmed from the peculiarities of the socio-economic and political development of the country (limited reforms, autocracy, police arbitrariness, lack of political freedoms, communal-collectivist way of life for the majority of the population). The absence of civil society contributed to the fact that only secret organizations could arise in Russia.

From 1861 to the mid-1870s. there was a formation of populist ideology and the creation of secret revolutionary circles.

This process was due to dissatisfaction with the peasant reform of 1861. The first secret organization was "Land and Freedom" (1861-1864), the founders and leaders of which were N.A. and A.A. Serno-Solov'evichi, N.A. Sleptsov, N.N. Obruchev, N.I. Utin and others. They kept in touch with the editorial office of the newspaper A.I. Herzen and N.I. Ogarev "Bell", with a committee of Russian officers in Poland, created a number of local organizations in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, issued revolutionary proclamations. In 1864, Land and Freedom decided to dissolve itself.

Since the mid 1860s. other secret circles began to appear. In 1863–1866 the circle of N.A. Ishutin and I.A. Khudyakov, whose member D. Karakozov in April 1866 made an attempt on Alexander II. The secret organization "People's Reprisal" (1869–1871) was created by S.G. Nechaev, who used provocative methods in his revolutionary activities, which led to the murder of student I. Ivanov, who was suspected of betrayal.

A large populist organization was considered a circle called "Chaikovites" (leaders M.A. Natanson, N.V. Tchaikovsky, S.L. Perovskaya and others), whose representatives initiated the "going to the people".

The active struggle of the populists against the autocratic system began in the mid-1870s. In 1874–1876 on the basis of the ideas of populist theorists, many young raznochintsy organized a "going to the people" with the aim of enlightening and propagating revolutionary ideas. But it ended in failure: the peasants did not understand their noble impulses.

In 1876, a new secret organization "Land and Freedom" was formed. Its program provided for the overthrow of the autocracy in a revolutionary way, the transfer of all land to the peasants and the introduction of local self-government. The organization was headed by G.V. Plekhanov, A.D. Mikhailov, S.M. Kravchinsky, N.A. Morozov, V.N. Figner and others. With the participation of "Earth and Freedom" in 1876 in St. Petersburg, the first political demonstration in Russia was held on the square in front of the Kazan Cathedral, where G.V. Plekhanov. In 1877, many landowners undertook a second "going to the people." They settled in the villages for a longer period as artisans, doctors, teachers. But their propaganda also did not give the desired results. Part of the Narodniks began to lean towards the terrorist struggle. IN AND. Zasulich in May 1878 made an attempt on the life of the St. Petersburg mayor F.F. Trepova, and S.M. Kravchinsky in August of the same year killed the chief of gendarmes N.V. Mezentsev.

Within the "Land and Freedom" two directions were determined. Representatives of the first direction (“politics”), disillusioned with propaganda, advocated the use of terror as the main method of struggle, and representatives of the second (“village workers”) supported the continuation of work in the village. In August 1879, at the congress of "Land and Liberty", there was a split into two independent organizations: "Black Redistribution" (1879–1881), whose leaders were G.V. Plekhanov, V.I. Zasulich, L.G. Deutsch, P.B. Axelrod, who continued to stand on the platform of peaceful propaganda of populist ideas in the countryside; "Narodnaya Volya" (1879–1881), headed by A.I. Zhelyabov, S.L. Perovskaya, N.A. Morozov, V.N. Figner and others. Its members, disappointed in the revolutionary possibilities of the peasantry, relied on the fight against the tsarist government with the help of terror, trying to create a political crisis in the country. Members of the "Narodnaya Volya" organized several assassination attempts on Emperor Alexander II. On March 1, 1881, the tsar died from a bomb explosion on the embankment of the Catherine Canal in St. Petersburg. The long struggle waged by the "Narodnaya Volya" ended in regicide, but there was no revolutionary explosion. The people remained inert, police repression intensified, and the overwhelming majority of the revolutionary Narodniks were crushed.

The reforms created the basis for the development of capitalist relations in Russia. In the second half of the XIX century. Russian industry experienced rapid growth. In the 1880s completed the industrial revolution in Russia. In the post-reform years, the volume of industrial production increased almost sevenfold. The number of factories and plants increased from 3,000 to 9,000. The construction of railways proceeded at a rapid pace. If by 1861 their length was 2 thousand km, then by the beginning of the 1880s. - over 22 thousand km.

Foreign capital was intensively attracted to the economy, mainly French, English, Belgian, and German. Investments went mainly to the mining, engineering and chemical industries. Domestic capital dominated in the light and food industries.

Most of the country's industrial potential was concentrated in five regions: in the central and northwestern part of Russia, in the Urals, in the Donbass and Baku. In the rest of the territories, agricultural and handicraft production prevailed.

The leading sector of the economy continued to be agriculture, which was dominated by an extensive development path. The abolition of serfdom gave impetus to the formation of capitalist relations in the countryside and led to an increase in marketability in the agricultural sector. Significantly increased - by 44% - for 10 years (by 1870) the export of bread abroad. But feudal vestiges have also survived, hindering the development of the Russian countryside.

In the agrarian evolution of post-reform Russia, two development paths coexisted:

- the first is the preservation of large landlord farms and their slow involvement in market relations (the Prussian path of development). This path is most widespread in the provinces of Central Russia;

- the second - the involvement of peasants and part of the landowners in farming and entrepreneurship (the American way of development). This path prevailed in Siberia, the steppe regions of the Trans-Volga region, the Caucasus and the North of Russia.

Serious changes in the post-reform period took place in the social structure of Russian society. The main feature in this area was the contradiction between class and social structure, their mismatch. The estate was a relic of the feudal system of relations and gradually became obsolete. For example, not all nobles were landowners, some of them received their livelihood in the civil service.

New classes of the developing capitalist society were emerging: the bourgeoisie and the workers (the proletariat). They were formed not on a legal, but on an economic basis. Their appearance was not foreseen by the estate hierarchy, therefore the composition of these classes consisted of representatives of different estates. The bourgeois class was replenished with nobles, peasants, and foreigners. The class of workers was formed primarily from poor peasants who went to work in the city. The burghers (townspeople) also often became hired workers.

At the same time, it should be noted that, unlike the West European, the Russian bourgeoisie was still economically and politically weak and dependent on the ruling power.

Under Alexander II, foreign policy had several goals that were successfully implemented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, headed since 1856 by the brilliant diplomat A.M. Gorchakov (1798–1883). Firstly, the restoration of Russia's international prestige and the status of a great power after the defeat in the Crimean War, as well as the abolition of the articles of the Paris Peace Treaty, humiliating for the country, which prohibits having a fleet and military fortifications on the Black Sea. Secondly, the preservation of Russian influence in the Balkans and support for the national liberation movement of the Slavic peoples against Turkey. Thirdly, the expansion of Russian territory and the annexation of Central Asia. Fourth, the normalization of relations with China and Japan, as well as the sale of the Alaska Peninsula by Russia to the United States.

European policy of Russia. In 1870–1871, taking advantage of the situation in Europe, primarily the intensification of contradictions between the main European powers, the conduct of the Franco-Prussian war, Russia declared itself not bound by an obligation forbidding it to keep a navy on the Black Sea. This was confirmed in March 1871 by the London International Conference, which became a major diplomatic success for Russia.

During this period, Russia moved closer to Germany and Austria-Hungary. As a result, in 1873 the Union of the Three Emperors arose, which lasted until 1878. For Russia, this alliance meant the restoration of its influence on European politics.

Eastern Crisis. Russo-Turkish War 1877–1878 In the 1870s the eastern question escalated again. By that time, Russia had strengthened its international positions and felt very confident, so it actively supported the national liberation struggle of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula against the Ottoman Empire.

In Russia itself, a powerful political trend arose - pan-Slavism, which called for the unification of the Slavic peoples under the leadership of the Russian state. Slavic committees were formed throughout the country, advocating all-round (including military) assistance to the Slavic brothers. Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary repeatedly appealed to Turkey with demands for reforms that would establish equal rights for the Slavic population, but the Turkish government rejected them.

Under these conditions, in order not to lose his influence in the Balkans, and also under the enormous influence of the Russian public inside the country, Alexander II decided on April 12, 1877 to declare war on Turkey. The fighting began to unfold in the Balkans and Transcaucasia. The Russian army entered the territory of Bulgaria, where the main battles with the Turkish army unfolded. The Russian army captured the strategically important Shipka Pass and fought heroically near Plevna. After the implementation of competent siege measures developed by the famous fortifier E.I. Totleben, the fortress was cut off from the outside world and surrendered in November 1877.

At the same time, successfully developed for Russia fighting and on the Transcaucasian front. Such important fortresses as Ardagan and Kars were occupied here.

The war came to a turning point in favor of Russia. Under the threat of complete defeat, Turkey offered to hold peace negotiations, as a result of which, on February 19, 1878, the Treaty of San Stefano was concluded. Its main result was the proclamation of the independence of Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, and the autonomy of Bulgaria. Russia received a number of fortresses in the Caucasus (Ardagan, Kars, Batum, Bayazet) and returned the territories of Southern Bessarabia lost during the defeat in the Crimean War.

The San Stefano peace treaty did not suit the European countries, and the tsarist government, under their pressure, was forced to submit some of its articles for discussion by the international congress. On July 1, 1878, the Treaty of Berlin was signed, which differed from the Treaty of San Stefano. Bulgaria was divided into two parts: northern and southern. The first was granted autonomy, and the second again became a Turkish province. Austria-Hungary received the right to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The victory in the Russian-Turkish war was the country's biggest military success in the second half of the 19th century. and strengthened Russia's influence in the Balkans and in the world.

Accession to Russia of Central Asia. In the second half of the XIX century. expansion and active penetration of Russia into Central Asia began. In the 1850s–1860s there was the assertion of Russia in Kazakhstan. In 1865, Russian troops captured Tashkent. Here, in 1867, the Turkestan Governor-Generalship was formed, which became the center of the Russian presence in Central Asia. Bukhara and Khiva fell into vassal dependence on Russia. The Kokand Khanate, which was defeated by the troops of General M.D. Skobelev, capitulated and in 1876 was included in the Turkestan region.

Far East policy of Russia. Sale of Alaska. In the 1850s Russia continued to develop the vast territories of Siberia and the Far East. To protect the land along the Amur River, the Trans-Baikal Cossack Army was formed in 1851, and in 1858 the Amur Cossack Host. At the initiative of the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia N.N. Muravyov, treaties were signed with China (Aigun in 1858 and Beijing in 1860) on the delimitation of adjacent territories along the Amur River.

In 1855, an agreement was concluded with Japan, according to which the Kuril Islands were recognized as the territory of Russia, and joint ownership was established on Sakhalin Island. In 1875, according to the new treaty, the Kuriles were completely ceded to Japan, and Sakhalin Island to Russia.

The sale of the Alaska Peninsula took place under Alexander II in 1867 during the period of his reforms. There was no visible threat to Alaska. Relations between Russia and the United States during this period were friendly. But the potential threat to Alaska remained. Firstly, it consisted in the fact that the tribes of the Indians were not conquered. English and American merchants supplied them with weapons and incited them to revolt. In 1847, the British established a trading post in the Upper Yukon. Coastal waters of Alaska swarmed with whaling ships different countries. And the colony could not cope with all this. Secondly, the huge territory was practically not mastered. In order to avoid clashes with the Indians, the colonists were forbidden to penetrate deep into the continent. The total Russian population here ranged from 600 to 800 people. The economic situation of the territory was fragile and continued to deteriorate. The maintenance of Alaska needed government subsidies. The consequences of the Crimean War, which exhausted Russia morally and materially, forced the tsar and his diplomats to change course foreign policy. Thirdly, in the event of war, Russia was unable to defend Alaska.

Thus, the fate of the territory was decided. December 28, 1866 Alexander II signed a document on the sale of the Alaska Peninsula. All this was done in secret.

The news of the decision to buy Alaska was met in American government circles very favorably, the formalities were quickly settled. And on March 30, 1867, the agreement was signed. The purchase price was declared equal to 7 million 200 thousand dollars. This payment was negligible for a huge acquisition. Alaska was sold for next to nothing. Only one gold in it was mined for an amount two and a half thousand times greater than that paid by the buyer.

But the most interesting thing in this whole story is that Russia was never able to bring money for Alaska to the country. A significant part of the 7.2 million dollars was paid in gold, which was loaded onto the Orkney ship, which headed for St. Petersburg. In the Baltic Sea, a group of conspirators tried to seize gold, but failed. For some reason, the ship sank along with the precious cargo.

History of Russian culture. XIX century Yakovkina Natalya Ivanovna

§ 3. RUSSIAN JOURNALS IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XIX CENTURY

Russian journalism of the second half of the 19th century had a number of common features with the newspaper press of that period, but at the same time, magazines, unlike newspapers that aimed to provide the most recent information, more deeply reflected the picture of public views and requests, political convictions and artistic quests 60– 90s of the XIX century. Freed from the need to provide everyday information in connection with the development of the newspaper business, the leading journals have received the opportunity for broad journalistic commentary and analysis of materials, seeking not only to reflect public opinion, but also to shape it. This goal was pursued by both radical-democratic and protective-conservative publications, while often falling into a somewhat didactic, teacher-like tone. In the 60s, the leading role was played by the journals of the socio-political and literary-critical direction - Sovremennik, Vestnik Evropy, Russian word”, “Delo”, etc. Paying great attention to the coverage of such socially significant problems as the implementation of bourgeois reforms, peasant and later labor issues, understanding the future development of Russia, the magazines of that time, mainly literary, thoroughly acquainted readers with the works of Russian and European writers, literary and art criticism, theatrical life; Since the 1970s, scientific articles have increasingly appeared in journals. At the same time, along with literary and artistic publications, special journals began to appear - medical, historical, technical, pedagogical, etc. "Sovremennik", created in 1836 by Pushkin, in 1847 he passed to N. A. Nekrasov and I. I. Panaev, and others. Most of the journals politically adhered to the liberal-monarchist direction. The radical democratic position was occupied by such publications as Sovremennik, Otechestvennye Zapiski, and the satirical magazines Iskra, Alarm Clock, and Gudok.

One of the most popular and long-lived "thick" magazines of that time was Vestnik Evropy, published for 52 years. Its founder (in 1866) and editor-publisher for 43 years was the historian and public figure M. M. Stasyulevich. The core of the editorial staff were professors A. N. Pypin, K. D. Kavelin, V. D. Spasovich, who left St. Petersburg University together with Stasyulevich in protest against the reactionary policy of the government. The magazine advocated the "Europeanization" of Russia, the beginning of constitutional legality, the guarantee of human rights, the independence of the judiciary, and the easing of censorship requirements. Reactionary ideas were sharply criticized in its pages. Thus, the only Russian magazine, Vestnik Evropy, criticized the book by K. P. Pobedonostsev, The Moscow Collection.

On the pages of the magazine saw the publication of works by A. N. Ostrovsky, A. K. Tolstoy, I. S. Turgenev, I. A. Goncharov, as well as articles by P. V. Annenkov, A. N. Veselovsky, V. V. Stasov and other critics and literary scholars. The editors paid much attention to introducing the Russian reader to the work of European writers, in particular Emile Zola. Since the 70s, such prominent scientists as I. I. Mechnikov, I. M. Sechenov, A. N. Beketov, N. I. Kostomarov and others began to take part in the publication, whose works constituted the "scientific section" of the journal . In 1897, Chekhov wrote that Vestnik Evropy was "the best magazine of all the thick ones."

A more radical position than Vestnik Evropy was taken by the Russian Thought magazine. The political program of the journal contained attempts to find ways and forms of the bourgeois-democratic transformation of Russia. In this regard, the editors paid much attention to the activities of zemstvos. In addition to the populist publicists Yuzhanov and Vorontsov, the writers V. G. Korolenko, D. N. Mamin-Sibiryak, A. P. Chekhov, and M. Gorky took part in the journal. After the closure of Otechestvennye Zapiski, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin published his works in Russian Thought.

One of the central places among the progressive press of the second half of the 19th century was occupied by the Sovremennik magazine. Created back in 1836 by Pushkin, in 1847 it passed to N. A. Nekrasov and I. I. Panaev. The magazine consistently, especially with the advent of N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov, defended the interests of the peasants in the pre-reform years, asserted realistic principles in art. Many articles of the political department and, above all, Chernyshevsky “Is it not the beginning of change”, “Have you learned?”, Dobrolyubov “When will the real day come?” and "Features for the Characteristics of the Russian Common People" propagated revolutionary democratic ideas. After Sovremennik and Russkoye Slovo were closed in 1866, Nekrasov, after a series of failed attempts resuming the magazine, rented "Domestic Notes", owned by Kraevsky. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, G. I. Uspensky, F. M. Reshetnikov, A. N. Ostrovsky, A. P. Shchapov, N. K. Mikhailovsky, and then V. M. Garshin , D. N. Mamin-Sibiryak, N. N. Zlatovratsky and others.

The ideological direction of the journal was characterized by a consistent struggle against the remnants of serfdom and political reaction, deep democracy and attention to the peasant question. The fiction of the magazine, especially in the 70s, had a pronounced peasant character, which was especially facilitated by the publication of the works of Nekrasov, G. Uspensky. Foreign literature was represented by the names of A. Daudet, E. Zola and others.

Saltykov-Shchedrin, Pisarev, Mikhailovsky acted as literary critics on the pages of the magazine, defending the ideas of high ideology and realism in art.

A new phenomenon in Russian journalism was the appearance of satirical publications. Some of them, such as the sheets "Stringless Balalaika", "Fly", "Gossip", "Laughter and Sorrow", were filled with old jokes and vulgar feuilletons. Similar in content to them were the magazines Veselchak, Entertainment, etc. They were designed for an undemanding reader - burghers, merchants, petty officials.

Others were such satirical magazines as Iskra, Whistle, Alarm Clock, which ridiculed the vices of contemporary society - embezzlement, bribery, abuse of power.

One of the most popular magazines of the 60s - early 70s was the satirical magazine Iskra, founded in 1859 in St. Petersburg by the satirist poet V. S. Kurochkin and the cartoonist N. A. Stepanov. Poets D. Minaev, N. S. Kurochkin, prose writers - N. and G. Uspensky, F. M. Reshetnikov, A. I. Levitov, publicists - G. E. Eliseev, M. M. Stopyansky collaborated in the journal. Iskra from the very beginning was a magazine with a clear democratic direction. One of its main themes was the contrast between the poverty of some and the luxury and abundance in which others live. In one of the feuilletons, Kurochkin wrote: “All people can be divided into two categories: the minority, who have more dinners than appetite, and the majority, who have more appetite than dinners.” The journal constantly spoke on behalf of this majority.

Having a large network of local correspondents, Iskra received information about various events in metropolitan and provincial life. The material of such messages was the section "They write to us." According to the memoirs of a contemporary, Iskra played the role of a public accuser. Officials were afraid to get on its pages.

When denouncing social evil in Iskra, it was necessary to use allegories, meaningful omissions, fictitious names and names - Odessa was meant by Primorsky, Yekaterinoslav by Gryaznoslavl, Chernilin by Chernigov. Readers had to follow the editorial advice: “Know how to read between the lines. At the most interesting point". The journal's democracy and radicalism also manifested itself in literary criticism. For example, after the publication of Chernyshevsky's novel What Is To Be Done? V. Kurochkin in the feuilleton “Insightful Readers” wrote, referring to a compatriot who read the novel: “You know that here we are talking about how people should live humanly, how they can already live, how even some already live ... how they love without bothering one another and without violating passions and affections, how they work, maintaining respect for the work of others, how from this common labor follows ... common prosperity, happiness. The feuilleton ended with ironic verses:

No, positively, romance

no maidens dancing the cancan,

Alice Rigolbosh...

The hero's wife - what a shame! -

Lives by his work;

Doesn't dress up for credit

And he says to the seamstress -

as with a face equal to her.

The well-known democratization of Russian life in the second half of the 19th century led to an influx into journalism not only of raznochintsy, but also people from the people's milieu, peasants, and workers. In addition, the capitalization of the country accelerated the quantitative growth of periodicals, which in turn contributed to the emergence of a whole army of workers serving the printing industry. At the same time, the influence of bourgeois relations on the periodical press contributed to the transformation of the latter into a kind of "literary industry" with all its inherent features. The new conditions of activity gave rise to fierce competition in the newspaper and magazine world, the desire to attract readers by any means and ensure the success of the publication. The Government Gazette in 1883 stated that "the publication of newspapers is becoming a matter of speculation and trade ... Most of our newspapers are mainly concerned with making a certain kind of impression on the public, arousing conversation and demand for the newspaper." For the sake of "exciting the conversation and demand for the newspaper" every opportunity was used. Hence the disproportionate development of such newspaper departments as scandalous chronicles and feuilleton, "inventing" news and incidents when they actually did not exist, the use of often the most unscrupulous advertising, publications, applications in the form of fashion samples, lyrics of fashionable songs and the spread of erotic themes. . The tabloid press has become a distributor of all kinds of "secrets of taverns and dens", erotic stories and novels, and advertisements of a dubious nature. Saltykov-Shchedrin caustically ridiculed such a base press in the articles "Diary of a Provincial" and "Letters to Auntie ...". The last article contains parodies of such ads: “Girl!!! looking for a job with a single man of respectable years. Letters to be addressed to the city of Kopys Praksovya Ivanovna” or “Cook! such one dish knows that you will lick your fingers. Ask on the Nevsky from 10 to 11 o'clock in the evening the girl "Guys fell down." Editor's note: “Our expectations of yesterday are gradually justified, but let the other cooks rush to us with their announcements. Clerk Lyubostrastnov.

Bribery has become widespread among editors and staff alike. The editor of a newspaper could receive a bribe for advertising the works of a firm, for supporting a candidate in elections to the city duma or zemstvo bodies. Theater critic - for a laudatory article about an unsuccessful play or mediocre actor. The old journalist recalled: “... I knew that the relationship between the theater and the review part of the press was unclean. Just like the rest of the press, I knew that bribery flourished, quite obvious, cynically frank. Everyone knew that Rossovsky, the reviewer of Petersburg Leaflet, bargained like a cab driver with actresses before each review. They knew that the theatrical chronicler of the New Time, Shumlevich or Shmulevich, gets 4-5 rubles per line ... from the one he writes about. Jokes were told by an excellent reviewer (also of Novoye Vremya) and an excellent playwright (author of Psychi) about how cute and witty Yury Belyaev takes bribes.” This created a new moral atmosphere in journalism. The editorial offices of magazines and newspapers began to take part in various commercial areas, as was the case with the editorial office of one of the most famous and popular St. Petersburg newspapers, Novoye Vremya.

By the 1980s, Novoye Vremya had already become a typical bourgeois publication both in terms of direction and principles of organizing newspaper business. And Suvorin's publishing house turned into a large capitalist enterprise with all its inherent shortcomings.

At the beginning of the 20th century, N. Snessarev, an employee removed from the editorial office, wrote and published an accusatory essay "The Mirage of the New Time" - "almost a novel", where he depicted not only the history of the creation and activities of this newspaper syndicate, but also described many unsightly facts, including including the participation of editorial staff in foreign concessions, the profits received from advertising these concessions, about dubious political campaigns prepared with the help of even more dubious revelations. Such vices of the bourgeois press fully manifested themselves in the next, 20th century, but they were born and grew in the second half of the 19th century.

Journalists, catering to the taste of the public and the requirements of the editor, gradually lost their own worldview, and often their abilities, turning into scribblers, without steadfast views, ready “for a penny and write a story with a certain required degree of enthusiasm, and compose a feuilleton novel with murders and robberies, and pull the fool merchant.

If back in the 60s and 70s journalists cared not only about their literary, but also moral reputation, then the journalists of the 80s and 90s were no longer upset by who they were considered to be - decent or dishonorable people. On the contrary, dexterity, the ability to lie successfully, to deceive when collecting material, or to get out of an awkward situation in any way, were considered good professional qualities. As a result, such magazine day laborers became indifferent to the direction of the organ for which they worked. Moreover, for a journalist - a low-income raznochintsy living exclusively by line-by-line payment, participation at a time in different, even opposite, newspapers or magazines was a forced necessity. The researcher noted: “Even such a journalist, far from momentary interests, as the theater and art critic S. V. Flerov, was not free from multi-writing. During the years of work in Moskovskie Vedomosti (and he served in them for almost a quarter of a century), he was obliged to give a weekly theatrical feuilleton for the entire “basement”, to supply theatrical and artistic chronicles. Neither a solid position in theatrical circles, nor the title of "king of reviewers" given to him by his fellow journalists exempted him from this.

The situation of provincial journalists was especially difficult. Difficulties in publishing provincial press organs and their fragility have been noted above. For journalists, this meant constant moving in search of work, unsettled life and penny earnings. The turnover of everyday day labor deprived provincial journalists of the opportunity to ever get into the "big", metropolitan press. In addition, the expulsion of a journalist from the city, and even physical reprisal against him, has become a common occurrence, especially in the provinces. “They are looking for a correspondent, they are surviving a correspondent ... they are beating a correspondent,” provincial journalists complained. “The head of the editorial office and two employees of the Southern Courier,” we read in the journal “Knizhny Vestnik”, “have been issued a certificate for the right to carry firearms for self-defense.”