The reign of Alexander III and the policy of "conservative renewal" of society.
In 1881, Alexander III became Emperor of Russia. Already in April 1881, he approved the manifesto "On the undeclared autocracy." Under Alexander III, many of the transformations initiated by the government of his father not only did not receive further development, but were greatly curtailed, and some were canceled. In 1881, a decree was passed that deprived the universities of their autonomy. From now on, the governor could close any educational institution. Tuition fees have doubled. All student organizations were abolished. In 1889, the "Regulations on district zemstvo chiefs" were published. The zemstvo chief became for the peasant both an administrator and a judge rolled into one. Rural courts and gatherings were subordinate to the zemstvo chief. In the 80-90s. a policy was pursued aimed at preserving the class isolation of Russian society. In an effort to elevate the role of the nobility, the government in 1885 founded the Noble Bank, which gave loans secured by family estates on favorable terms. A position favorable for the landlords on hiring for agricultural purposes was adopted. work. The government was going to cancel the Petrovsky "Table of Ranks". The peasantry had to remain the same as under serfdom: it was forbidden to sell and mortgage peasant allotments, the power of the community over the peasants was strengthened. To strengthen and glorify the autocratic power, churches in the Old Russian style were erected throughout Russia, and celebrations were held in honor of church anniversaries. Magazines were banned, including Domestic Notes. The domestic policy of Alexander III did not strengthen Russia, but increased hostility towards the government.
Revolution of 1905-1907
The abundance and acuteness of contradictions in Russia, the stagnation and lack of initiative in government policy, aggravated by the defeat in the war with Japan, led in 1905 to a revolution. By its nature, the revolution of 1905-1907. was bourgeois-democratic, because she set tasks bourgeois-democratic. transformation of the country: the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of democratic. republics, the elimination of the estate system and landownership, in other words, the revol. elimination of feudal-serf survivals. In essence, it was the preservation of these survivals that was the main socio-political cause of the revolution. Causes: agrarian-peasant question, nat. question. The leading social force in the revolution was the proletariat, and polit. the strike, characteristic of the proletariat, was the main. means of revolution. fight. The petty-bourgeois sections of the city and countryside, as well as the political parties that represented them, took an active part in the revolution. It was a popular revolution.
January 3, 1905 - a strike at the Putilov factory in St. Petersburg. The workers demanded an increase in salary, the abolition of obligations. overtime, 8 hour work day. They decided to arrange a peaceful procession to the tsar to submit a petition about the needs of the workers. At the insistence of the Social Democrats, in addition to economics. demands were included in the petition and polit.: amnesty polit. prisoners, inviolability of the person, freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc.
The authorities were aware of the impending march in advance and took military measures to suppress the “riots”. The city was divided into military sections. The troops were fully prepared. On the morning of January 9, a crowd of 140,000 men, women, old people and children, led by Georgy Gapon, with icons and portraits of the tsar, moved towards the Winter Palace. There was a command to open fire on the crowd ... Executions took place in other parts of the city. In total (unofficial data) over 1,200 people were killed, more than 2,000 were injured. January 9th went down in history as " bloody sunday ”.
The execution in the capital stirred up the whole country: in St. Petersburg, Moscow, the Baltic states, a wave of strikes began to grow, watered. rallies, demonstrations.
The revolution reached its apogee in October-December 1905, the center of events shifted to Moscow. Plants, factories, railways stopped for several days, shops closed, newspapers stopped coming out. Not only workers were on strike, but also students, pharmacists, and officials. On the streets - huge rallies, demonstrations demanding political freedoms, the establishment of a republic, the convening of a Constituent Assembly. This turmoil showed the authorities that it was time for change. A Manifesto appeared, granting Russia public liberties - inviolability of the person, freedom of speech, assembly, unions - and a legislative Duma. Executive power, governmental, remained in the hands of the king. On November 3, the cancellation of the ransom was announced. payments from peasants. The manifesto of 1905 became the frontier of the revolution. events. BUT, the innovation did not satisfy the needs of the radicals, and in December 1905 clashes between workers and the police broke out in Moscow, the strike grew into an armed uprising. This is the highest point in the development of the revolution. The city authorities were blocked by the rebels, but the Guards Semenovsky regiment arrived from St. Petersburg, which suppressed the uprising.
Tomsk State University of Systems
control and radio electronics (TUSUR)
Department of Industrial Electronics
History abstract
The labor movement in Russia in the last
quarter of the 19th century
Executor:
Student TMC DO
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
Content
1. Introduction 1
2. Three trends in populism 1
3. Populist organizations of the 70s. 3
4. The internal situation of Russia after the Russian-Turkish war 4
4.1 Revival of the liberal movement 4
4.2. Process of Vera Zasulich 5
4.3. Revolutionaries and power 6
4.4. "Dictatorship of the Heart" M. T. Loris-Melikova 7
4.5. End of reforms, end of Narodnaya Volya 9
4.6. Labor and labor movement 10
4.7. liberal movement at the end of the nineteenth century. 12
4.8. Liberal Populism 14
5. Conclusion 15
6. Literature 16
Introduction
Russia. Last quarter of the 19th century Reign of Alexander II. Reforms are being actively implemented in all spheres of public life, bringing the country to a qualitatively new level of development.
The fragile balance of power was broken by D.V. Karazokov's shot at Alexander II, thus opening a whole period of revolutionaries' hunt for the liberator tsar. The revolutionary movement turned out to be the main opposition during the reform adjustment period.
Three currents in populism.
Populism revealed three main ideologists (P. L. Lavrov, M. A. Bakunin, and P. N. Tkachev) and three currents: propagandist, rebellious, and conspiratorial.
Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov (1823-1900) was a professor of mathematics at the Artillery Academy, had the rank of colonel. He was close to Chernyshevsky. In "Historical letters" he expressed the idea of "unrequited debt" to the people. Every educated person, he wrote, must constantly remember this duty, must critically perceive the surrounding reality and ensure that life is built on the basis of "truth and justice." Ultimately, Lavrov believed, all historical progress is the result of the efforts of "critically thinking individuals" (ie, the intelligentsia).
Lavrov shared faith in a socialist utopia, the originality of Russia's historical development, the community as the basis of its future system, and the secondary importance of political issues to social ones. He stood for the revolution until the end of his days. At the same time, he severely criticized revolutionary adventurism. He pointed out that one should not “rush” history. Haste in the preparation of the revolution will not give anything but blood and vain sacrifices. The revolution, Lavrov believed, should be prepared by the theoretical work of the intelligentsia and its tireless propaganda among the people.
M. A. Bakunin in the 60s. participated in the international socialist movement. The theory of destruction, which he had long nurtured, took shape with him into a complete anarchist doctrine. He believed that all modern states are built on the suppression of man. No reforms will change their essence. They should be swept away in a revolutionary way and replaced by free autonomous societies organized "from the bottom up". Bakunin demanded the transfer of all land to farmers, factories, plants and capital - to workers' unions, the equalization of the rights of women with men, the abolition of the family and marriage, the introduction of public education of children.
In 1869, Bakunin met a student, Sergei Nechaev, who claimed to have fled from the Peter and Paul Fortress. Nechaev preached that a revolutionary must suppress all human feelings in himself, break with the laws, decency and morality of the existing system. To achieve high goals, he said, no means should be neglected, even those that are considered low.
In 1869, Nechaev went to Russia to realize his plans. He settled in Moscow and collected fragments of the Ishutin circle. Nechaev divided his Organization into "fives" and built them in a hierarchical order. The lower “five” obeyed the higher one, knowing only one of its members, who brought orders from above to it and monitored their execution. The main circle also consisted of five people and received orders from Nechaev, who pretended to be a representative of the “central committee”. One of the members of the “main five”, student I. Ivanov, Nechaev suspected of apostasy and ordered to be killed in order to “cement his organization with blood”. The murder was committed, but it was not possible to cover up the traces and Nechaev fled abroad (in 1872 he was extradited to Russia).
The investigation revealed the ugly history of the Nechaev offspring, and the government decided to take the case to an open court. There were 87 people in the dock. Four (members of the “main five”) were sentenced by the court to hard labor, 27 people to imprisonment for various terms, the rest were acquitted. Soon F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Demons” was published, written under the impression of the process. Nechaevshchina turned out to be not an accidental episode, but a symptom of dangerous phenomena that were brewing in the revolutionary movement.
Bakunin, after the Nechaev story, concentrated his activities in the revolutionary movement in the south of Europe. The unskilled layers of workers, as well as the lumpen proletariat, turned out to be the most susceptible to the propaganda of anarchism. Bakunin made the main bet on them and declared them to be the vanguard of the labor movement. In Russia, he pinned his hopes on the peasantry. He considered the Russian peasant a "born socialist." Among the people, Bakunin argued, the most effective is "propaganda with facts", that is, the organization of continuous petty uprisings, riots, agrarian unrest. He organized an uprising in northern Italy. The adventure ended in failure.
Bakunin's followers were active in many countries. In Russia they constituted a significant detachment of the Narodnik movement and at times actually tried to resort to "propaganda with facts."
Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev (1844-1885). convicted in the Nechaev case, later published the Nabat newspaper. He argued that the immediate goal should be the creation of a well-disciplined, disciplined revolutionary organization. Without wasting time on propaganda, she must seize power. After that, the organization suppresses and destroys the conservative and reactionary elements of society, abolishes all institutions that impede the establishment of equality and fraternity and creates a new statehood. In contrast to the Bakuninists, Tkachev believed that the state (moreover, a strong, centralized one) would remain after the victory of the revolution.
Since the end of the 70s. Tkachev's ideas began to gain the upper hand in the populist movement. However, in 1882 he fell ill with a mental disorder and died in a psychiatric hospital.
One of Tkachev's ideological predecessors was P. G. Zaichnevsky, who dreamed of a "bloody, inexorable revolution." But Tkachev generalized his main ideas on the basis of Nechaev's experience. He realized that the main thing in this experience is the creation of a powerful and obedient will of the leader of an organization aimed at seizing power.
Populist organizations of the 70s.
From the beginning of the 70s. in St. Petersburg there were several populist circles, headed by M. A. Natanson, S. L. Perovskaya and N. V. Tchaikovsky. In 1871, they united, and the members of the emerging underground society began to be called "Chaikovites", after the name of one of the leaders. Unlike the Nechaev organization, there was no strict hierarchical subordination here. All work was based on the voluntary zeal of members of the society. Its branches arose in Moscow, Kazan and other cities. In this federation of circles in its heyday, there were over 100 people. Most of the most prominent figures of populism came from the environment of the “Chaikovites”,
In 1872, Prince Pyotr Alekseevich Kropotkin (1842-1921), a scientist-geographer, later a theorist of anarchism, joined the St. Petersburg circle of "Chaikovites". With his arrival, the ideas of Bakuninism began to spread in the circle. and before that the circle was entirely on the positions of Lavrism.
The main business of the "Chaikovites" was propaganda among the workers. Attempts were made to establish work in the peasant environment. At the beginning of 1874, the police went to the "Chaikovites" as well. The arrests did not stop the main event of the “Chaikovites”, scheduled for 1874, “going to the people”. However, it was not even an organized event, but a spontaneous movement of radical youth. There never were so many members in the circles of the "Chaikovites" as people moved "to the people" in the spring of 1874 from St. Petersburg, Moscow, Saratov, Samara.
Lavrists and Bakuninists also went to the village. The first - with the long-term goal of re-educating the people in a revolutionary spirit, the second - in the hope of rousing them to revolt. The revolutionaries dressed in peasant clothes, were hired as carpenters, loaders, blacksmiths, peddlers. “Going to the people” reached a special scope in the Volga region. The main backbone of itinerant propagandists were former students, but there were also many retired officers, officials, and there were landowners.
The peasants readily responded to talk about the lack of land or the severity of redemption payments. But the preaching of socialism was not successful. The words of the visiting "gentleman" met with ironic grins. The haste of propaganda prevented the Narodniks from drawing sober conclusions as to whether the socialist doctrine was in line with the people's views.
It was not possible to raise an uprising anywhere. The police caught all the suspicious. In 37 provinces, 770 people were involved in the inquiry. The surviving propagandists fled to the cities. "Going to the people" undermined the ideas of Bakuninism and contributed to the spread of Tkachev's ideas. Among the Narodniks there was a growing conviction that in order to prepare the revolution it was not necessary to create a strong organization.
In 1876, a new organization emerged with the old name - "Land and Freedom". It included a number of survivors of the arrests of the participants in the “going to the people” - M. A. Natanson, G. V. Plekhanov and others. Later, S. M. Kravchinsky, N. A. Morozov and S. L. Perovskaya joined it . In total, the organization consisted of over 150 people. "Land and Freedom" was built on the principles of centralism, although still weak. Its core was the “main circle”. The society was divided into several groups. The "villagers", the largest group, were sent to work among the peasants. The "disorganization group" was intended to bring disorder into the ranks of the enemies, to fight against spies.
The society's program set itself the main goal of preparing a people's socialist revolution. The members of "Land and Liberty" were supposed to conduct explanatory work among the peasantry - both in verbal form and in the form of "propaganda with facts." Terrorist activity was seen as an auxiliary means. The program demanded the transfer of all land into the hands of the peasants, the freedom of secular self-government. The landowners learned a lesson from "going to the people", putting forward demands that were close and understandable to the peasants.
On December 6, 1876, Land and Freedom organized a demonstration in front of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. It was supposed to be a review of the revolutionary forces of the capital. They hoped to gather several thousand people, unfurl the red banner, make speeches, and maybe. even walk through the city. But only 300-400 people gathered. The townspeople started beating the demonstrators. About 20 people were arrested, the rest fled.
After that, the populists decided to focus again on work in the countryside. The landowners preferred to settle in groups for a long time in the most restless places: in the Volga region, in the Caucasus, the Kuban and the Don. They thought it was right there. where the traditions of the Cossack freemen and the legends about Razin and Pugachev were alive, it is easiest to raise an uprising.
The “sedentary” activity did not bring great success. The landowners were discouraged, their settlements were hunted down and raided by the police. By the autumn of 1877, there were almost no populist settlements left in the countryside. A serious crisis was brewing in Land and Freedom.
INTERNAL SITUATION IN RUSSIA AFTER THE RUSSIAN-TURKISH WAR 1877-1878
Revival of the liberal movement.
The Russian-Turkish war caused a rise in patriotic sentiments in society. This wave revived the liberal movement. Referring to the constitution drawn up for Bulgaria, the liberals asked the questions:
why the government refuses to introduce a constitution in Russia? Does it really think that the Russian people are less ready for a constitution than the Bulgarian people, who have just emerged from the power of the Turks?
The government forbade zemstvo leaders to come to all-Russian meetings and even to individual regions. Therefore, the Zemstvo began to gather for illegal congresses. They conspired no worse than the revolutionaries, and the police never found out about some congresses. At the end of the 70s. an illegal “Zemsky Union” arose.
In 1878, the government, concerned about the strengthening of the revolutionary movement, issued an appeal to the public, in which they called on them to help in the fight against the "gang of villains." But the appeal did not contain promises to change domestic politics and resume reforms, and therefore it did not find the support of the liberals.
Zemstvo leaders, having gathered at a secret congress in Kyiv, tried to agree with the revolutionaries on joint actions. They put the suspension of terrorist acts as an indispensable condition. Negotiations were unsuccessful, and the Zemstvo developed their own plan of action. The Kharkov Zemstvo was the first to speak, declaring that without a change in the internal policy of the government, no assistance from society was possible. The Minister of the Interior immediately sent out a circular banning the discussion and adoption of such statements at Zemstvo meetings.
Therefore, the vowel of the Chernigov Zemstvo, I. I. Petrunkevich, who began to read the draft address to the highest name, was rudely interrupted by the chairman. Petrunkevich did not obey and, supported by the assembly and the audience in the choirs, continued reading. Then the chairman called the gendarmes and with their help closed the meeting. This was one of the first political speeches of Ivan Ilyich Petrunkevich (1844-1928), who later became one of the prominent figures in the liberal movement. After an incident in the zemstvo assembly, Petrunkevich was exiled to the Kostroma province.
The Tver, Poltava and Samara provincial zemstvo assemblies also demanded the introduction of a constitutional system. The Tver Zemstvo directly stated that the Russian people should enjoy the same benefits of constitutional freedoms that the Bulgarian people received.
In 1879, an illegal zemstvo congress was held in Moscow, which was attended by about 30 representatives from 16 zemstvos. It was decided to start widespread propaganda in the zemstvos and the publication of literature abroad. The program of the Zemsky Union included three main points: freedom of speech and the press, guarantees of the inviolability of the person, and the convening of the Constituent Assembly.
Trial of Vera Zasulich.
In the summer of 1877, the St. Petersburg mayor F. F. Trepov, during a visit to the prison, ordered the flogging of the prisoner Bogolyubov, a participant in a demonstration in front of the Kazan Cathedral. On January 24, 1878, the populist Vera Zasulich came to Trepov for an appointment and shot him with a revolver. Trepov was seriously wounded, but survived. Zasulich did not belong to any revolutionary organization. Trepov was portrayed by conservative newspapers as a victim of the call of duty. The government, hoping to stir up anti-terror sentiment in society, sent the Zasulich case to a jury trial.
The trial took place on March 31, 1878. At first, the mood of the hall was not in favor of the accused, but in the course of the proceedings it changed dramatically. The jury found Zasulich not guilty, and the court, presided over by A.F. Koni, delivered a verdict of not guilty. The audience gave an ovation. On the one hand, Zasulich's shot drew the public's attention to the fact that the authorities commit lawlessness at every step. But on the other hand, he shook the negative attitude towards terror that existed in society. The extreme revolutionaries, who had long insisted on terror, decided that society fully sympathized with such methods of struggle. They also felt the indecision and weakness of the government.
Revolutionaries and power.
At the end of the 70s. tension in Russia increased. The students were worried. The voice of the supporters of the constitution grew louder and louder. After V. Zasulich's shot, a wave of terror swept across the country. The executions of murderers increased the general tension and caused new assassination attempts. Historians do not say in vain that at that time a revolutionary situation developed in Russia.
But the village remained relatively calm. And this drove the "villagers" from "Land and Freedom" into despair. Among them grew disillusionment with their work. One of them, Alexander Solovyov, in 1879 tracked down the tsar during a walk on Palace Square and rushed at him with a revolver. Alexander did not lose his head and ran, making zigzags. Solovyov fired five times, but did not hit the tsar, but wounded a policeman who came to the rescue.
Land and Freedom quickly turned into a terrorist organization. Some of its members protested against this, referring to the program. Supporters of terror raised the question of its revision. We decided to meet at a congress in Voronezh in order to look for a compromise. But by this time the “disorganization group” had become so isolated that it gathered for its own congress in Lipetsk. The most striking figure at this congress was AI Zhelyabov. He said that a social revolutionary party, in principle, should not demand political reforms and civil liberties. This is the business of the liberals, but in Russia they are flabby and powerless. Meanwhile, the lack of political freedoms hinders the launching of agitation among the peasants. This means that the revolutionaries must take upon themselves this task - to break despotism, in order then to come to grips with the preparation of the social revolution.
At the Voronezh congress, Zhelyabov led a group that took shape in Lipetsk. But she failed to prevail, and a compromise was reached. Without revising the program, they decided to intensify the fight against the government, responding with terror to the executions of revolutionaries. The only participant in the congress who resolutely and consistently protested against terror as a method of struggle was Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov (1856-1918).
The compromise was not salutary. Each side interpreted it differently. In August 1879, at the St. Petersburg congress, the factions finally separated. "Villagers" created the organization "Black Repartition". She tried to organize propaganda among the peasants and workers, but failed. In 1880, Plekhanov, the acknowledged leader of the Black Redistribution, went abroad.
Supporters of terror united in the organization "People's Will". It was headed by Andrey Ivanovich Zhelyabov (1851-1881) and Sofya Lvovna Perovskaya (1853-1881). They were brave, determined people. They felt dissatisfied with the existing order in the country, but were not accustomed to understand the means to achieve goals. "Narodnaya Volya" became a well-disciplined, branched and disciplined organization. It was headed by the Executive Committee, which had almost unlimited powers. Local circles and groups obeyed him. The party made a sharp tilt towards Tkachev's theories. She considered her main task a political coup and the seizure of power. After that, it was supposed to convene the Constituent Assembly and propose to it a program of measures for the transfer of land to the peasants, and plants and factories to the workers. The political upheaval was to be followed by the socialist revolution.
If these plans were implemented, Russia was threatened with everything that it experienced in a few decades, including the bloody chaos of the civil war and social experiments with dire consequences.
The tactic of seizing power of the Narodnaya Volya was to intimidate and disorganize the government through individual terror. There was also an uprising. No longer hoping for peasant revolts, the Narodnaya Volya tried to organize students and workers and infiltrate the army. Attempts to establish contacts with the officers were unexpectedly successful. Narodnaya Volya officer circles appeared in Kronstadt, in some military academies and schools in St. Petersburg, in the Volga region and in the Caucasus. In addition to the ideological side, "Narodnaya Volya" attracted young officers with their usual discipline and unity of command.
After the assassination of Solovyov, Alexander II appointed governor-generals with dictatorial powers in St. Petersburg and a number of other large cities. The police grabbed anyone suspicious, often missing the real conspirators.
Since the autumn of 1879, the Narodnaya Volya began a real hunt for the tsar. They were not embarrassed by the number of innocent victims. Twice they laid mines under the rails, lying in wait for the royal train. Once the explosive mechanism did not work, another time by mistake
the wrong train was derailed. An explosion was also heard in the Winter Palace under the royal dining room. Again, only an accident saved the emperor.
“The Dictatorship of the Heart” by M. T. Loris-Melikov.
By 1880, the situation in the country had changed so much that P. A. Valuev remembered his project of a national zemstvo assembly. Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich began to express similar thoughts. In January 1880, Alexander II discussed these issues in a narrow circle of elected persons. The heir to the throne, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich, strongly objected to the proposals of Valuev and Konstantin Nikolayevich, and the issue was dropped. The heir demanded the establishment of a "supreme commission of inquiry" with extensive powers. The emperor was unsympathetic to this idea. But a few days later he suddenly announced the creation of the Supreme Administrative Commission. It was headed by the Kharkov Governor-General Count M. T. Loris-Melikov.
Mikhail Tarielovich Loris-Melikov (1825-1888) came from Armenian nobles. A fighting general, a hero of the Russian-Turkish war, as governor-general of Kharkov, he waged a decisive struggle against the revolutionaries. But at the same time, he tried to improve relations with the peaceful opposition.
The Supreme Administrative Commission had great powers, but rarely met, did not actually act, and all its powers were in the hands of Loris-Melikov. But it seemed inconvenient for him to act as a temporary worker, a “grand vizier” in the Turkish manner, and a few months later the commission was dissolved, and the tsar appointed Loris-Melikov as minister of the interior. The scope of his powers has not changed much.
Loris-Melikov considered the fight against terrorism to be his main task. In it, he was merciless. Just a week after his appointment, in February 1880, he was shot at by a terrorist, and two days later the man was hanged. However, Loris-Melikov ensured that the repressions were directed exclusively against the revolutionaries and did not affect civilians. It was liquidated at his suggestion. The third branch of the imperial office, which earned a bad reputation and showed its inconsistency when things took a serious turn. Instead, the Police Department was created as part of the Ministry of the Interior.
D. A. Tolstoy was removed from the posts of Minister of Public Education and Chief Prosecutor of the Synod. A few more odious figures were removed. More liberal figures were appointed to the vacant seats. It was then that Senator K.P.
Under Loris-Melikov, the censorship was weakened, and the zemstvos were able to work quietly. Loris-Melikov from time to time gathered the editors of the capital's newspapers and zemstvo figures for meetings, trying to clarify relations with them and find out their opinion on various issues. Liberals, not spoiled by such attention, called the reign of Loris-Melikov "the dictatorship of the heart." But the revolutionaries and their sympathizers remained wary. The critic of Otechestvennye Zapiski N. K. Mikhailovsky believed that this was a policy of “fluffy fox tail” and “wolf mouth”.
Under the leadership of Loris-Melikov, a program of reforms for the coming years began to be developed. It was supposed to lower the redemption payments, to cancel the poll tax, which was paid by the lower classes. The question arose about the representative assembly.
Loris-Melikov understood that without resolving this issue, he would not be able to get close to the “well-meaning part of society” and isolate the revolutionaries. But he was against the immediate creation of a Western-style representative body, believing that such an institution would bring "complete confusion" to Russia. In a report to Alexander II, he proposed to use the experience gained in the development of the peasant reform: to convene “temporary preparatory commissions” and a general commission with the participation of representatives of zemstvos and some large cities. It was a distant prototype of a representative assembly.
In the meantime, the police managed to get on the trail of the "Narodnaya Volya" and stab it. On February 27, 1881, Zhelyabov was arrested. But Perovskaya remained at large. The leadership of the organization passed into her hands, and she insisted on the immediate execution of the plan worked out in every detail. The Narodnaya Volya knew that regicide would not lead to an immediate uprising. But they hoped that tensions would increase, panic would begin at the top. Step by step, blow by blow, and the government will lose all its prestige and all its power, which will fall at the feet of the "Narodnaya Volya".
March 1, 1881 In the last year of his reign, Alexander II felt tired and lonely. Failures in foreign and domestic policy were supplemented by family misfortunes and troubles. After the death of Empress Maria Alexandrovna, he married a second, morganatic marriage to Princess E. M. Yuryevskaya. But the heir to the throne refused to recognize her. There was a tense relationship between father and son.
On Sunday, March 1, in the morning, the Emperor received the Minister of the Interior. Alexander liked the plan of Loris-Melikov, which, as it were, returned him to the happy days of the beginning of his reign. He approved the minister's report and appointed a meeting of the Council of Ministers for March 4th - this body then met only in exceptional cases and under the chairmanship of the king himself.
At 3 pm, the emperor was on his way to the palace from his divorce. We went to the Catherine Canal - and then it was as if someone fired a cannon. The carriage shook and shrouded in smoke. The coachman quickened his pace, but Alexander ordered to stop. Getting out of the carriage, he saw two bloody Cossacks and a boy screaming in pain, who accidentally ran past. At some distance, a young man with long hair (Nikolai Rysakov) fought off the pressing crowd:
"Don't touch me, don't hit me, miserable misguided people!" Alexander approached him and asked: “What have you done, crazy?” The chief of police ran up: “Your Majesty are not injured?” “Thank God, no,” said the king, who still could not believe that he was lucky again. "What? Thank God? Rysakov suddenly asked with a challenge. “Look, have you made a mistake?”
Alexander bent over the hushed boy, crossed him and went to the departed carriage. Suddenly - again like a shot from a cannon, a thick cloud of smoke. When the smoke cleared, those who remained unharmed saw twenty seriously wounded men, the tsar leaning against the grate of the canal, in a torn overcoat and without legs, and opposite him - in the same condition - his murderer Grinevitsky. "To the palace... There - to die..." - Alexander II said in a barely audible voice. An hour later, he died in his office in the Winter Palace.
The end of the reforms, the end of the People's Will.
The Council of Ministers met only on 8 March. The new Emperor Alexander III presided. It seemed to many that since the late emperor approved Loris-Melikov's report, the discussion in the Council of Ministers was a mere formality. But Alexander III said that "the question should not be considered a foregone conclusion." Opinions were expressed for and against. The scales fluctuated until K. P. Pobedonostsev, thin and seemingly inconspicuous, took the floor.
The chief procurator of the Synod argued that only "pure" autocracy, such as it had developed under Peter I and Nicholas I, could resist the revolution. Inept reformers, by their concessions and semi-concessions, reforms and semi-reforms, can only shake the edifice of the autocratic state.
When Pobedonostsev finally fell silent, Loris-Melikov felt himself retired. Alexander III said that the project still needs to be thought about. They did not return to him again.
Meanwhile, the Executive Committee of Narodnaya Volya was almost completely arrested. On April 3, 1881, five Narodnaya Volya members were publicly hanged: A. I. Zhelyabov, S. L. Perovskaya, N. I. Rysakov, T. M. Mikhailov and N. I. Kibalchich (designer of projectiles).
In these events - March 1 and 8, April 3 - a political crisis was discharged. Soon the military cells of the "Narodnaya Volya" were crushed. The formidable organization broke up into a number of small circles and groups.
Under Alexander II, the autocracy followed the path of reforms. This path - from unlimited autocracy to a stable constitutional regime - is very dangerous. Transforming, the autocratic state loses its stability and becomes very vulnerable. This path can be traversed calmly and prudently, steadily advancing from reform to reform, following the logic of their development and not stopping in front of those to whom the soul does not lie. For the most dangerous thing on this path is the stops. A country that follows the government on the path of reform cannot suddenly stop.
Alexander II was largely to blame for the drama that had unfolded. Fortunately, the imperious hand of Alexander III intercepted the reins of government. But it was the hand of a conservative.
Alexander II left a good memory among the people. Many years have passed, many things have happened. And when (already at the beginning of the 20th century) Russian peasants were asked which of the historical figures they knew, the peasants answered, straining their memory: Stenka Razin, Emelka Pugachev ... Peter, Katerina (Catherine II) ... Suvorov, Kutuzov. Skobelev... Alexander, Tsar-Liberator...
Labor and labor movement.
During the last third of the 19th century. the number of workers in Russia tripled and by 1900 amounted to about 3 million people. Peasants remained the main source of replenishment of the cadres of workers. Their separation from the ground was slow. Insurance against illness and accidents did not exist then, and there were no pensions either. The worker considered the land allotment in his native village to be his only insurance.
In factories that worked in one shift, the working day reached 14-15 hours, in enterprises with a two-shift regime it was 12 hours. The labor of women and adolescents was widely practiced.
The wages of workers in Russia were 2 times lower than in England, 4 times lower than in the USA. But the worker did not receive this payment in full. The administration fined workers not only for absenteeism, but also for singing (peasant women could not give up the village habit of singing while working), for “appearing in the office not alone”, for smoking while working, etc. In most factories wages were issued irregularly or at long intervals - at Christmas, Easter, Pokrov. Until the next payday, the worker was forced to take food on credit from the factory shop - usually of poor quality and at high prices.
The workers lived in barracks at the enterprises. Part of the barracks was assigned to common bedrooms, and part was partitioned into closets. In the dormitories, bunks were arranged along the walls. They accommodated adults and children, men and women for the night. Only towards the end of the century separate bedrooms began to be allocated for men and women. Closets were reserved for family workers. There was not enough room for each family. More often two families lived in one closet, or even more. Only highly skilled workers who permanently lived in the city had the opportunity to rent an apartment or buy their own house.
The industrial crisis of the early 80s. hit the textile industry with particular force. The owners began to reduce production, stop factories, lay off workers. Wages went down and fines went up. But it soon became clear that the workers did not at all possess the endless patience that the peasants had. The same people behaved differently in the factory than in the countryside, where they were fettered by paternal authority and patriarchal traditions. The peasant brought with him to the factory the discontent that had accumulated in the village, here it grew even more and broke out.
The first strikes, very similar to riots, began in the 1970s. In the 80s, in connection with the industrial crisis, they acquired a significant scope. In 1880, there was a strike at the Yartsevo manufactory of the Khludov merchants in the Smolensk province. Throwing work, the weavers broke the glass in the factory. The authorities put down the strike by sending troops to Yartsevo. In subsequent years, unrest occurred in the Moscow province, in Yaroslavl and St. Petersburg. 1885 began with the famous Morozov strike.
The Nikolskaya manufactory of Timofey Morozov (near Orekhov-Zuev) was the largest cotton factory in Russia. It employed about 8 thousand workers. With the onset of the crisis, wages were reduced five times at the factory. Fines increased sharply, reaching up to 24 kopecks from the wage ruble. The leaders of the strike were Pyotr Moiseenko and Vasily Volkov. Moiseenko was from these places, worked in St. Petersburg, participated in several strikes. After one of them he was exiled to Siberia. Then he worked at the Nikolskaya manufactory. The young weaver V. Volkov came forward as a working leader during the performance.
The strike began on the morning of 7 January. The leaders failed to keep the striking weavers from arbitrariness. The crowd began to smash the apartments of the director and especially hated craftsmen, as well as a food store. By the night of the same day, troops arrived in Orekhovo-Zuyevo. The next day, soldiers' patrols appeared in the streets.
The governor has arrived. Volkov stepped out of the crowd that had surrounded the main office and presented his predetermined demands. They included raising wages, streamlining fines, and accepting finished products in front of witnesses. The workers also demanded that the administration give 15 days' notice of dismissal. During the negotiations, Volkov was arrested. The indignant crowd rushed to free him. There was a fight with a military guard. The police made more arrests. Many workers were sent to their villages. Under the influence of repression, the strike began to decline. Moiseenko was also captured. On January 18 the strike ended.
The trial of the strikers the following year attracted the attention of the whole country. The prosecutor brought charges against them on 101 counts. The jurors, having seen how ugly the order at the Morozov factory, found the defendants innocent on all counts. The conservative newspaper Moskovskiye Vedomosti called this verdict 101 a saluting shot "in honor of the working question that appeared in Russia." Moiseenko was sent to the Arkhangelsk province in an administrative order.
Impressed by the Morozov strike, the government in 1886 passed a law according to which participation in a strike was punishable by arrest for up to a month. Entrepreneurs were also prohibited from imposing fines in excess of the established amount. Control over the implementation of the law was entrusted to the factory inspectorate.
The publication of the law did not stop the strike struggle of the workers, mainly textile workers. Strikes broke out first in St. Petersburg, then in Tver, then near Moscow, still accompanied by pogroms and the expulsion of especially hated managers. An eyewitness recalled that in 1893, during a strike at the Khludovskaya manufactory in the Ryazan province, the Guslyanka River almost overflowed its banks, littered with skeins of yarn. Almost every major strike ended in clashes with the authorities, who always took the side of the owners. Only with the advent of the industrial upsurge in 1893 did the unrest of the workers gradually subside.
liberal movement at the end of the nineteenth century.
During the time of Alexander III, the liberal movement was going through difficult trials. Minister of the Interior D. A. Tolstoy made the fight against zemstvo liberalism one of the main directions of his policy.
The Zemsky Union ceased its activities. Zemstvo counter-reform soon followed.
Many zemstvo workers at that time went into “small deeds,” into undertakings to spread literacy, education, and culture among the people. But even on the basis of “small deeds” and “cultivation”, they faced nationwide problems and looked for their solution. These searches broadened and enriched the liberal program.
During these years, the slogan of the constitution in the liberal movement receded into the background. Demands developed on the basis of zemstvo practice have come forward: 1) the introduction of universal primary education; 2) the abolition of corporal punishment (in those years they applied only to peasants); 3) the creation of a small zemstvo unit on the basis of the volost administration.
These demands were expressed at zemstvo meetings and promoted in the press (in the Moscow newspaper Russkiye Vedomosti, in the journals Vestnik Evropy, Russkaya Mysl, Russkoe bogatstvo).
In 1885-1886. The St. Petersburg Literacy Committee under the Free Economic Society included young liberals - Prince D. I. Shakhovskoy, novice scientists brothers S. F. and F. F. Oldenburg, V. I. Vernadsky. Since then, the committee's activities have focused on publishing and distributing popular books to public libraries. The Committee raised the issue of introducing universal primary education and conducted studies that confirmed the real feasibility of this matter. At the request of the Ministry of the Interior, the activities of the Literacy Committee were placed in a strict framework. Almost all of its members left the Committee in protest. They continued their work in the society "Helping the Sick and the Poor in Reading".
Police persecution of the Literacy Committee provoked protests from the Free Economic Society, the oldest social and scientific organization founded in 1765. In 1895, the Society was headed by Count Peter Alexandrovich Heiden (1840-1907). It decided to petition for the abolition of corporal punishment and the introduction of universal education. The Society opened its doors wide to the public, inviting guests to its meetings. It turned into a kind of club in which the most burning issues were discussed.
In 1898, when the peasantry was once again starving, the food issue was placed on the Society's agenda. His discussion was used as an occasion to criticize the government. In response, the authorities forbade the publication of reports on the meetings of the Society in newspapers and the admission of outsiders to them. The Society was obliged to submit for approval the programs of its meetings. In protest, it stopped the general meetings of its members.
In 1883, the Society of Russian Doctors was founded in memory of N. I. Pirogov. The main task of the society was to organize the Pirogov congresses. Zemstvo doctors took an active part in their work, and they raised the issue of abolishing corporal punishment and helping the starving. Petitions of the Pirogov Society to participate in helping the starving were rejected by the authorities as "not in accordance" with its charter.
The question of a small zemstvo unit grew out of the urgent needs of the zemstvo economy. As it developed, it became more and more difficult to manage it directly from the county center, without intermediate links. With the device of such a body, Zemstvo leaders pinned their hopes for rapprochement with the peasantry and its involvement in the liberal movement.
The local administration often forbade the discussion of the question of a petty zemstvo unit. Zemstvos filed complaints with the Senate, and in 1903 the Ryazan Zemstvos managed to win the case in the Senate.
With the development of the zemstvo economy and the revival of the zemstvo movement, the need for a coordinating body, like the collapsed Zemsky Union, was felt more and more acutely. In 1896, during the coronation of Nicholas II, the chairman of the Moscow Provincial Zemstvo Council, D.N. Shipov, suggested that the chairmen of the provincial councils organize annual meetings. The first such meeting, with the permission of the administration, took place in the summer of the same year at the All-Russian exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod. But the next year, Minister of the Interior I, L. Goremykin forbade the meeting.
Since 1899, at the initiative of Princes Peter and Pavel Dolgorukov, prominent zemstvo figures began to gather for private meetings, for conversation. This circle began to be called - "Conversation". At first, it discussed only zemstvo-economic issues, and then moved on to political ones.
The liberal movement was slowly on the rise. At the end of the XIX century. it was no longer limited to a narrow circle of nobles. It included a significant part of the Zemstvo intelligentsia. It seized the universities, scientific and educational societies, and extended its influence to wide circles of the urban intelligentsia. In terms of numbers and activity, the liberal camp was no longer inferior to the conservative one, although it was not equal to the radical democratic one.
liberal populism.
After the liquidation of Narodnaya Volya, its peaceful, reformist direction began to play a more prominent role in the populist movement. It was called liberal populism.
The liberal Narodniks believed that there was as yet no real capitalism in Russia. Banks, joint-stock companies, stock exchanges - this is not capitalism, this is a "game of capitalism", they argued.
Therefore, there is still the possibility of avoiding capitalism by supporting the community, artel and other more or less collective forms of production familiar to the Russian people. They called such forms of labor "people's production." The liberal populists outlined a number of measures to support it: the expansion of peasant land ownership through resettlement and the purchase of land from the treasury and landlords, providing the peasants with cheap credit, and equalizing their rights with other estates.
The ideas of liberal populism spread especially widely among the “third element” in the zemstvos. But the influence and authority of the ideologists of this movement (N. K. Mikhailovsky, V. P. Vorontsov, S. N. Krivenko, and others) went far beyond the zemstvo intelligentsia.
Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky (1842-1904) was one of the leading contributors to Otechestvennye Zapiski and maintained contact with the People's Will. After the events of March 1, 1881, Mikhailovsky was expelled from St. Petersburg. When the link ended, he began to collaborate in the journal "Russian wealth", the publisher of which was the writer V. G. Korolenko. This magazine is known as the main publication of the liberal populists.
Mikhailovsky was a publicist, literary critic and philosopher. At the center of his teaching was the idea of personality, individuality. He considered the development of personality to be the measure of historical progress. The general laws of history, he wrote, determine only the order in which historical epochs follow one another. The specific content of the epochs, their light and shadows, their tonality largely depend on the people who lived and acted then. A living person, Mikhailovsky argued, "sets goals in history" and "moves events towards them" through all obstacles. Mikhailovsky's theories inspired young people and instilled in them an active attitude towards life.
In personal relationships, Mikhailovsky would be restrained, even a little dry, avoiding beautiful phrases, but close people noted his nobility, great self-discipline and businesslike care in relation to everyone he loved, respected, appreciated (there were many such people).
But human friendship is a thin, expensive and fragile fabric. Mikhailovsky eventually broke up with both Vorontsov and Krivenko. In addition to personal conflicts, ideological differences also played a role.
Vasily Pavlovich Vorontsov (1847-1918) at one time was close to the Chaikovites, belonged to the number of moderate Lavrists. Many years of work in the Zemstvo convinced him that there was no way to count on the success of revolutionary agitation among the peasantry. Too intimidated and downtrodden, it does not trust strangers and lives its own isolated life, realizing its creative potential in the community, artel, working peasant family.
Vorontsov, a talented scientist-economist, did a tremendous job of systematizing and processing the material accumulated as a result of Zemstvo statistical research. His contemporaries owed a significant expansion of their knowledge of the peasant community to his works. Before, a lot was said and argued about her, but little was known. Mikhailovsky highly valued Vorontsov's economic work, but denounced him for being overly fascinated by the ideas of Russian originality. He also believed that Vorontsov was idealizing the peasantry.
Did Mikhailovsky break up with Sergey especially hard? Nikolaevich Krivenko (1847-1906). At one time associated with Narodnaya Volya, Krivenko went to prison and exile, and after his return he began to write about rural teachers, doctors, about their inconspicuous, but so necessary work. Mikhailovsky reproached him for his frank preaching of the "theory of small deeds." Krivenko replied that “small deeds” can be combined into large ones and serve great goals.
A favorite topic of Krivenko's journalism was the agricultural communities created by the intelligentsia. He admitted that almost all attempts to form such communities ended in failure. They broke up due to internal strife and mutual intolerance. He believed that this was due to the fact that communities were always created on ethical, Tolstoyan principles, and economic tasks were relegated to the background. He is a dream. to organize such a community that would not set the goal of achieving personal righteousness, but would be distinguished by a business, socially useful orientation. Escape from city life, a return to nature, Krivenko considered an internal need that is gradually awakening in modern man.
He bought a plot of land near Tuapse and tried to organize an agricultural community. Despite great efforts, this undertaking still ended in failure. Krivenko died in Tuapse.
Conclusion
The post-reform era was marked by a sharp aggravation of social tension in the country. The lone revolutionaries were replaced by organized revolutionary groups armed with radical ideologies and determined to harm the autocracy. The relatively peaceful propaganda of Herzen and Chernyshevsky in less than two decades turned into rampant terrorism and regicide. All attempts by the authorities to contain public discontent could only lead to a temporary dampening of anti-government activity. The populists were replaced by outwardly innocent admirers of Marxism, whose destructive work in the near future will sweep away all the traditional foundations of Russian life from the face of the earth.
LITERATURE
1. Sakharov A.N., Buganov V.I. History of Russia 1995
2. Rodin I.O., Pimenova T.M. The whole story in one volume. 1997
3. Khalanchuk L.L. Russian history. 1997
Government bodies. During the reign of Alexander III, the monarchical power, somewhat shaken in the era of reforms of Alexander II, was significantly strengthened. All the highest functions of power (legislative, executive and judicial) were concentrated in the hands of the emperor. The implementation of each of them was carried out through a system of state institutions.
The State Council remained the highest legislative and advisory body. It consisted of ministers and persons appointed by the king. For the most part, these were well-known dignitaries, many of whom were in very advanced years, which allowed the salon public to call them State Soviet elders.
The State Council actively discussed bills submitted for its consideration either by the monarch or the government.
In some cases, when a particular issue affected the interests of several departments, special interdepartmental commissions were created. Their conclusions were discussed at meetings of the State Council. The project acquired the force of law after its approval by the emperor.
The main body of executive power was the Committee of Ministers. It was headed by a chairman, whose functions were very limited. The Committee of Ministers included not only ministers, but also heads of departments and state administrations. Cases that required the approval of various ministries were submitted to the Committee for consideration. The Committee of Ministers was not a single body coordinating the activities of individual departments. It was a meeting of administratively independent dignitaries.
Each minister had the right to report directly to the emperor and was guided by his orders.
By the beginning of the 1890s, there were 15 ministries and state institutions equivalent to them. The most extensive competence had two ministries: internal affairs and finance.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs was engaged in maintaining order in the empire, carried out censorship, was in charge of general statistics, mail and telegraph, as well as class institutions and zemstvo self-government, veterinary and medical affairs, public charity and confession affairs (except Orthodox).
The Ministry of Finance was in charge of finance, trade and industry, taxes, customs duties, wine monopoly, merchant shipping, and railway tariff policy.
The emperor was considered the head of the court and judicial administration, the entire court was carried out on his behalf. The competence of the monarch did not extend to specific legal proceedings; he had the role of supreme arbiter. The autocrat carried out his supervision of the court and administration through the Governing Senate, which strictly supervised the execution of the orders of the supreme power.
Administrative-territorial structure. Administratively, Russia was divided into 78 provinces and 18 regions. Sakhalin Island was considered a separate administrative unit. Since 1809, the Russian Empire also included Finland (the Grand Duchy of Finland), headed by the Russian emperor and which had wide internal autonomy: its own government (senate), customs, police, monetary unit.
The cities of St. Petersburg, Odessa, Sevastopol and Kerch - large ports of Russia and strategically important points were withdrawn from the provinces and controlled by city governors subordinate to the central government.
Provinces were divided into counties, and regions - into districts. The county was the lowest administrative unit, and its further division had already a special purpose: the volost (for peasant self-government), districts of zemstvo chiefs, districts of judicial investigators, etc. Zemstvo self-government was introduced only in 34 provinces of European Russia. In the rest of the districts, government bodies were in charge of the affairs of the local economy.
Questions and tasks
- What were the features of the political system of Russia in the second half of the 19th century?
- Name the highest governing bodies of the country. What were the powers of the Council of State? Remember when and on whose initiative it was created.
- Which ministries had the most extensive competencies? What matters were in their charge?
- List the major Russian cities that were ruled by mayors.
- Describe the administrative-territorial structure of the Russian Empire. What is a province, region, county?
Labor movement in the last quarter of the 19th century.
All this, against the background of the accumulating social protests of the masses of the ruined peasantry and urban workers, led to a revolutionary explosion at the beginning of the 20th century.
The domestic policy of Alexander III (80 - 90s of the XIX century)
Populism was the response of a part of the Russian intelligentsia to the socio-political and economic problems of Russia, not resolved by the reforms of Alexander II.
Populists in the 70s - 80s. 19th century
In the 70s. the ideologists of populism, in contrast to the founders (A. I. Herzen and N. G. Chernyshevsky), advocated a peasant revolution. Their goal was the violent destruction of the existing economic and political system of Russia and the creation of a new society of social justice, guaranteed by collective (communal) property and self-government of the people. The ideological leader of this (rebellious, anarchist) direction was M. A. Bakunin. Another populist leader of the 70s Mr.-P. L. Lavrov believed that the intelligentsia should, through propaganda, prepare the people for the revolution. P.N. Tkachev was the spokesman for the third trend in populism - conspiratorial or Blanquist (named after the French revolutionary Blanqui). He pinned his hopes on the party of the intellectual minority, by whose forces the unstable, in his opinion, state order of the Russian Empire would be crushed.
In 1876 ᴦ. The Narodniks created the revolutionary organization Land and Freedom. Its practical goal was the "speedy revolution" and the transfer of all land to the peasants, the introduction of people's self-government, freedom of religion and self-determination of the peoples of Russia.
In the late 70s. part of the populists went over to terrorist activities. In the summer of 1879 ᴦ. "Land and Freedom" split into two new parties - "Narodnaya Volya" and "Black Repartition". The goal of "Narodnaya Volya" was a political coup and the seizure of power, the establishment of broad regional self-government, the transfer of land to peasants, factories to workers, and the introduction of political freedoms. In August 1879 ᴦ. The executive committee of Narodnaya Volya pronounced the death sentence on Alexander II. March 1, 1881 ᴦ. he was fulfilled. The authorities brutally cracked down on the terrorists.
The Chernoperedelites remained for some time at the positions of “Land and Freedom”. Soon their leaders (G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Zasulich, P. B. Axelrod, L. G. Deich, and others) emigrated to Europe, where they switched to the positions of Marxism.
The reign of Alexander III (1881-1894) began with a crisis of power caused by the assassination of Alexander II. April 20, 1881 ᴦ. Alexander III signed the manifesto "On the inviolability of autocracy." Liberal ministers submitted their resignations. Alexander III dealt with the Narodnaya Volya. Tougher censorship. In 1882 ᴦ. a new censorship law was introduced. In 1884 ᴦ. a new University Charter appeared, which increased the dependence of universities on the administration. In 1887 ᴦ. a circular was issued restricting access to the gymnasium for children of the lower classes, and 1889 ᴦ. - a law was passed on zemstvo chiefs appointed from above from among the nobility. They were given judicial functions and control over the peasant community. Zemstvo "counter-reform" 1890 ᴦ. changed the procedure for election to the zemstvo, ensuring the predominance of nobles and wealthy owners in it.
In 1896 ᴦ. the government abolished the poll tax and introduced a more progressive land tax, focused on the real incomes of the population.
The stability of the internal situation of the country was visible. The emperor strengthened power and the state by forceful methods, Russification of the national outskirts. He resorted to the ideological doctrine traditional for the autocracy - Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality, while relying only on the nobility and big businessmen. But they were not allowed to power, they did not have representative bodies and a free press.
At the end of the XIX century. The working class of Russia gradually rallied, became aware of its class interests, developed forms of struggle, created its own organizations.
The first independent workers' organization appeared in Odessa in 1875 ᴦ. - “South Russian Union of Workers”, which was headed by E. O. Zaslavsky. In the charter as the main goal of the union the extreme importance of eliminating the socio-economic and political system of Russia through a violent coup was recognized. In 1878 ᴦ. scattered circles of the workers of St. Petersburg, under the influence of the Narodniks, united and created "Northern Union of Russian Workers", headed by V.P. Obnorsky and S.N. Khalturin.
The program of the union proclaimed the abolition of private ownership of land and the establishment of communal land tenure. It spoke of the extreme importance of the political struggle, formulated political demands for freedom of speech, the press and assembly, the destruction of estates, the introduction of free education, and the replacement of the army with the general armament of the people. The largest and most significant event in the labor movement of the 80s. there was a strike at the Nikolskaya manufactory of the manufacturer T. S. Morozov in Orekhovo-Zuyevo (January 1885 ᴦ.). It entered the history of the struggle of the proletariat as the Morozov strike.
A characteristic feature of the strike movement in the second half of the 80s. there was an increase in labor solidarity and cohesion. The labor movement in the late 80s - early 90s. was mainly economic in nature.
Hosted on ref.rf
Only a few strikes were marked by political demands. Major demonstrations of the workers took place in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Vladimir and Yaroslavl provinces, in the Urals, the Caucasus, Ukraine, Poland and Belarus. The labor movement at the end of the century was characterized by organization, solidarity, mass character and political demands.
From the mid 90s. workers' organizations increasingly fell under the influence of the emerging Russian social democracy.
Labor movement in the last quarter of the 19th century. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "The labor movement in the last quarter of the 19th century." 2017, 2018.
The development of the portrait in the 19th century was predetermined by the Great French Revolution, which contributed to the solution of new tasks in this genre. In art, a new style becomes dominant - classicism, and therefore the portrait loses the splendor and sugariness of the works of the 18th century and becomes more ....
For several centuries, the cathedral continued to stand in an unfinished state. When in 1790 Georg Forster glorified the soaring slender columns of the choir, which already in the years of its creation was considered a miracle of art, Cologne Cathedral stood in an unfinished frame, ... .
Option No. 1 Instruction for students CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING STUDENTS Grade "5": 53-54 points Grade "4": 49-52 points Grade "3": 45-48 points Grade "2": 1-44 points hour 50 min. – 2 hours. Dear student! Your attention... .
Socialist realism Neoplasticism Purism Cubofuturism Art...
On the eve of the terrible events of the revolution and during the revolution itself, the art of France was captured by a new wave of classicism. It was quite clear to the advanced thinking part of France during these years that the Bourbon monarchy was finally falling apart. The new requirements of life have caused the need for a new art, a new language, new means of expression. Passion for ancient culture coincided with the most urgent requirements of heroic, highly civic art, creating images worthy of imitation. Neoclassicism manifested itself primarily in architecture, where artists-architects, embodying the dream of a harmonious world, tried to solve the grandiose tasks of an ideal city, which is already evident in the urban planning projects of Claude Nicolas Ledoux. Ledoux's intentions were utopian (project of the Ensemble of the City of Chaux, 1771-1773). But more rationally thinking Jacques Ange Gabriel with his design of Place Louis XV (Place de la Concorde), open to the Tuileries Park and the Seine and connected with the wide green massifs of the Champs-Elysées; with his decision of the Small Trianon, which strikes with the accuracy of calculation, constructive clarity and logic, he embodied the aesthetics of neoclassical art in finished, visible architectural images. With the coming to power of Napoleon and even earlier, from the Directory, along with a change in the historical situation, the leading artistic direction, neoclassicism, was also transformed. He became more conventional, colder, more external. Neoclassicism of the beginning of the new century is called Empire, the style of the empire. The Empire style is monumental, representative in the exterior, exquisitely luxurious in the interior, using ancient Roman architectural forms and ornaments.
In painting, classicist tendencies are manifested most clearly. Again in art the role of reason is put forward as the main criterion in the knowledge of beauty, again art is called upon, first of all, to educate a person in a sense of duty, citizenship, to serve the ideas of statehood, and not to be fun and enjoyment. Only now, on the eve of the revolution, is this demand acquiring a more concrete, purposeful, tendentious programmatic character.
On the eve of the French Revolution, Jacques Louis David (1748-1825) appears in French painting. In his work, ancient traditions, the aesthetics of classicism merged with the political struggle, organically intertwined with the politics of the revolution, and this gave rise to a new phase of classicism in French culture, so to speak, "revolutionary classicism."
The son of a major Parisian merchant, who graduated from the Royal Academy, David in his early works is close to the traditions of the late baroque and even some stylistic elements of rococo. And only after receiving the “Roman Prize” as the best student of the Academy in Italy (1775), having become acquainted with the monuments of antiquity, having experienced, like many artists of those years, the influence of the works of Winckelmann and the painting of the German classicist artist Raphael Mengs, David finds his way.
On the eve of the revolution, the ideal of French bourgeois society, to which David also belonged, was antiquity, but not Greek, but Roman, from the time of the Roman Republic. The priests from the pulpit do not quote the Gospel, but the Roman historian Titus Livius; in the theater, the tragedies of Corneille, the playwright of the previous century, who, in the images of ancient heroes, glorified civic virtues and a sense of patriotism, are played out with great success. Thus a new style crystallized, and David, in his painting "The Oath of the Horatii" (1784-1785), acted as its herald. The civil journalistic theme, based on a plot from the history of Rome: the Horace brothers take an oath to their father in fidelity to duty and readiness to fight enemies - solved straightforwardly, in a strict, almost ascetic manner, was the battle banner of new aesthetic views. A logically clear composition, where figures resembling antique statues, or rather an antique relief, are clearly divided into three groups corresponding to the three arches of the background colonnade (on the left are the brothers, on the right are the women mourning them, the castle of the composition is the figure of the father taking the oath), linearly - plastic interpretation of the form, a sharp drawing, a hard local color that does not allow any complex nuances, all the precise and concise language create a monolithic work. Undoubtedly, in the "Oath" there are features of some pompous recitation, which was akin to the performance of the actor Talma, who plays a role in Corneille's tragedy "Horace".
With the beginning of the revolutionary events, David draws up mass festivities, is engaged in the nationalization of works of art and the transformation of the Louvre into a national museum. National holidays were organized, for example, on the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille or the proclamation of the Republic, in honor of the "Supreme Being" or the solemn transfer of the remains of Voltaire and Rousseau to the Pantheon. Most of these feasts were prepared directly by David. Each such design was a synthesis of the arts: fine, theatrical, musical, poetic, oratory.
In 1793, the National Museum was opened in the Louvre. From now on, the Louvre has become not only the center of artistic culture, but also an art school, where artists came and still come not only to copy, but also to comprehend themselves.
In 1790, David proceeded to a large painting commissioned by the Jacobins "The Oath in the Ballroom" (1790-1791), having decided to create an image of the people in a single revolutionary impulse, which, however, he manages to complete only in the drawing (the cardboard shown at the Salon of 1791, preparatory drawing, outlined figures on canvas, sketchbook with pencil sketches). Since 1792, he has been a member of the Convention, the people's assembly of revolutionary France, then, at the end of 1793 and the beginning of 1794, his secretary and even chairman. After the death of the "friend of the people" Marat, David, on behalf of the Convention, paints one of his most famous paintings, "The Murdered Marat", or "The Death of Marat" (1793). David accurately depicted the situation of the event: Marat is lying in the bath, the letter of petition is still clutched in his hand, with which Charlotte Corday entered him (even the text is visible: “It is enough to be unhappy to have the right ...”); the head, wrapped in a towel, and the hand that still holds the pen, dangled helplessly; on the pedestal where the writing instruments lie, large, as on an antique stele, is written "Maratu - David." Large color spots of gray-yellow (face and sheet), bright ocher (pedestal) and green (bath), statuary-plastic, linear interpretation of the form - everything makes David's painting a work of a severe, purely classic style and gives it a memorial character. "The Death of Marat" was perceived by the viewer, a participant in revolutionary events, as a genuine realistic genre. But the plot of great historical significance, in a lively modern form, turned it into a historical picture. In this sense, N. N. Punin’s remark is true that all historical paintings, starting with The Death of Marat, grew out of genre painting, including many works: Gericault, Delacroix, and Courbet.
J.L. David. Death of Marat. Brussels, Museum of Modern Art
Since 1793, David has been a member of the Committee of Public Safety - the body of the revolutionary dictatorship of the French bourgeoisie - and is moving closer to the head of the Jacobin party, Robespierre. Naturally, after the fall of the Jacobin dictatorship, the events of 9 Thermidor, the artist's political career was cut short, and he himself was (briefly) arrested.
J. O. D. Ingres. Portrait of Madame Devose. Chantilly, Condé Museum
His subsequent path is the path from the first artist of the republic to the court painter of the empire. During the Directory, he wrote The Sabine Women (1795-1799), a cumbersome archaic work, far from the harsh and laconic solutions of previous years. He responds to the rise of Napoleon with the canvas “Leonidas at Thermopylae” (1800-1814), in which, although Sparta is glorified, the features of an idealized resemblance to the first consul, who became emperor in 1804, quite clearly appear in the image of the Spartan hero.
During the period of the empire, David is the first painter of the emperor. By his order, he paints huge paintings (“Napoleon on the St. Bernard Pass”, 1801; “Coronation”, 1805-1807), although executed with picturesque brilliance, they are cold, pompous, full of false pathos and theatrical pathos. There is still a lot of romantic feeling in the depiction of Napoleon on St. Bernard: the hero is on a rearing horse, in a sharp movement, with an inspired face. In the Coronation, as correctly noted by the researchers, Napoleon is impassive and majestic. Surrounded by relatives, the clergy led by the Pope, brilliant marshals and the diplomatic corps, the emperor crowns Josephine, who humbly kneeled. The brilliance of the lace, red velvet, white silks and jewels - everything is aimed at conveying the glorification of imperial power.
The overthrow of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons force the former member of the Convention, who once voted for the death of the king, to emigrate from France. From now on, David lives in Brussels, where he dies.
In addition to historical compositions, David left a large number of beautiful portraits in terms of painting and characterization. In such portraits as the paired portraits of the Seresias (1795) or the famous portrait of Madame Recamier (1800), David, by the strict elegance of his writing, predetermined the characteristic features of that classicism of the early 19th century, which received the name of the Empire style in art.
J.O.D. Ingres. Thetis imploring Jupiter (Zeus and Thetis). Aix, Granet Museum
David was the creator of a huge school of disciples. Francois Gerard, Anne Louis Girodet, Antoine Gros and, finally, the great artist Ingres came out of his workshop.
In the first decade of the XIX century. the position of classicism as the leading style in art was still very strong. This period includes the formation of one of the leading masters of the classicist direction, Jean-Auguste Domenique Ingres (1780-1867). It was Ingres who had to turn David's classicism into academic art, with which the romantics entered into a confrontation.
Coming from the environment of the Toulouse artistic intelligentsia, studying at the Toulouse Academy of Fine Arts, Ingres at the age of seventeen ended up in revolutionary Paris, in David's studio. Having mastered the classic system with its cult of antiquity, Ingres deliberately abandoned the revolutionary nature of David's classicism, denying modernity, and expressed his only desire with his work - to escape life into the world of the ideal. Ingres bowed to antiquity. Wanting to gain complete independence from his time, he turns only to the past. The work for which he received the "Grand Prix de Roma" - "The Ambassadors of Agamemnon to Achilles" - indicates that he fully mastered the classic system: the composition is strictly logical, the figures resemble an antique relief, the color scheme is subordinated to the drawing, linear-plastic modeling . In "Self-portrait at the age of 24" (1804), the basic principles of Ingres' portrait art are already clearly traced: a bright individuality of characterization, sharpness of form, laconicism of strictly thought-out and selected details. Ingres looks at the model more aloofly than his teacher David. The plastic and linear rhythm in the interpretation of the image, the sharpness of the form, the clarity of the drawing play a significant role for him. So, in the portrait of Madame Riviere, the composition of the oval inscribed in a rectangle, chosen by him, is of particular importance. This oval is emphasized by the fluidity of the folds of the dress, the cashmere shawl, the softness of the blue velvet pillows. A three-quarter turn narrows the line of the shoulders, makes Mademoiselle Riviere's figure more fragile and constrained against the backdrop of a clear but distant landscape. The dazzlingly light cold color scale emphasizes the youth of the model, the clarity and uncomplicatedness of her inner world (both portraits were painted in 1805, exhibited at the Salon in 1806).
At this time, Ingres left for Italy, where he painted a lot of the architecture of the Eternal City, and it is significant that on one of the small tondos, made in oil technique, he captures the house of Raphael, the artist, who for the rest of his life remained a role model for him, a true idol. . In Rome, Ingres creates in 1807 one of the best portraits of his friend, the artist Francois Marius Granet. He places it against the background of the Roman landscape, half-turned, calmly looking at the viewer. But behind this external calmness there is an internal tension, which is felt in the pre-stormy atmosphere, in the gray clouds hanging over Rome. These greyish-greenish clouds echo the dozens of halftones in which the model's green cloak is painted. The whole portrait, according to mood, portends a new attitude of the romantics. So, having completely and perfectly comprehended the classicist method, Ingres did not always follow only the cut-off, linear-plastic modeling. Finally, a kind of departure from the usual scheme of classicism, a foreshadowing of the romantic trend was the very appearance in the works of Ingres of such an exotic motif as odalisques, with all their conditionally oriental attributes: a turban, a fan, a chibouk, etc. Not chiaroscuro, but the finest color gradations, By gently dissolving the contours in the air, he sculpts the volume of the body of one of the “nudes”, which received the name “Bather Valpinson” in art - after the name of the first owner of the painting. The pink flecks of the Bather's headband do not appear by chance, in addition to the olive green color of the curtain, adding warmth to the overall impression.
The finest colorist, who bows to the classical perfection of the model, is Ingres in the portrait of Madame Devose (1807). In the next female portraits, Ingres will become overly fond of entourage, accessories, various textures of objects: silk, velvet, lace, wallpaper damask. All this creates a complex ornamental pattern, the image is sometimes multiplied, reflected in the mirror (“Portrait of Madame de Senonne”, 1814; “Portrait of Madame Ines Moitessier”, 1856).
In the thematic paintings of the 10s, Ingres remains true to the classic themes. Unlike David, he, far from political unrest, seeks to penetrate the essence of pagan myth. A clear violation of the classic norms was the large painting by Ingres "Thetis imploring Jupiter" (1811), the plot of which is borrowed from the first song of the Iliad. In the name of special emotionality, the artist makes Jupiter unreasonably huge next to Thetis, whose body also seems to be devoid of anatomical correctness, her left arm is unnaturally twisted, her neck is too large - and all this in order to increase the excitement of her state, the passion of her prayer.
Developing the traditions of the French pencil portrait, Ingres creates "Portrait of Paganini", 1819; group portraits of the family of the French consul in Civita Vecchio Stamati, 1818; the family of the emperor's brother Lucien Bonaparte, 1815, etc. No matter how devoted Ingres to antiquity, all the beauty of the world that he worshiped could not be exhausted by it. Ingres refers to subjects from the Middle Ages, and to the early Renaissance, and to the period of the High Renaissance.
But his main work at that time was the altarpiece for the church of his native city of Montauban, called "The Vow of Louis XIII, asking for the protection of the Madonna for the French kingdom." Ingres deliberately chose the image of the Madonna close to the Sistine Madonna, expressing his admiration for Raphael and following the precepts of the great artist, but this direct dependence only emphasized the artificiality of the work and gave it a deliberately archaic character. The paradox, however, is that it was this creation that brought the artist, previously not officially recognized, success in the Salon of 1824. From now on, he becomes the recognized head of the official French school. Note that Delacroix's "Massacre on Chios" was exhibited at the same exhibition. Isn't it because the opponents of the emerging new trend - romanticism - turned to Ingres, making him the "keeper of the good doctrines" of the weakening and decaying classicism, because a new powerful opposition to it was approaching?!
In 1824, after an 18-year absence, Ingres returned to his homeland, was elected an academician, awarded the Order of the Legion of Honor, opened his studio, and from now on and until the end of his days remains the leader of the official academic direction. Ingres was always far from politics and did not take part in the events of 1830. But at that time he painted a wonderful portrait of the head of the political press of the 30s, the owner of the newspaper "Journal des Debats" Louis Francois Bertin the Elder (1832), a powerful gray-haired old man with with an intelligent, calm look of the “master of life and circumstances”, he writes with such force and fidelity that his contemporaries called him the image of “Jupiter the Thunderer of the new time”, and when Bertin appeared on the street, they said: “Here comes the portrait of Ingres”. In this work, in the severity and monochrome of writing, Ingres was closest to the traditions of the school of his teacher David.
The last years of the master, universally recognized and revered by all, are overshadowed by his fiercest battles, first with the romantics, led by Delacroix, then with the realists, who were represented by Courbet. Ingres works a lot in these advanced years, without losing his creative activity. The most captivating work of the old master is his "Source" (1856). This image of a young girl holding a jug from which water flows is an allegorical image of the life-giving eternal source of life, in which he managed to glorify life with extraordinary strength and passion, combining the concreteness of forms with plastic generalization. This is exactly what the numerous imitators of the artist, his epigones, who have mastered only the bare scheme of Ingres' methods, but did not comprehend his essence, were not able to do.
Ingres died when his main opponents were no longer romantics, but new artists who loudly declared their passion for depicting unvarnished reality.
Loading...
