On November 1 (14), 1916, the deputy and leader of the Cadet Party Pavel Milyukov delivered his famous anti-government speech in the State Duma: “Stupidity or Treason?” His speech heated up the already excited public opinion to the limit and, in essence, became a signal for the start of active preparations for the revolution, which broke out within 3 months. Miliukov, who initially became the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the new government, within two months lost both his post and all influence on the political situation in Russia. He died in Paris in 1943. Until very recently, historians believed that he fell victim to his own stupidity. However, newly discovered archival documents tell a different story...
Ivan Lopatin
Speech by P. N. Milyukov at a meeting of the State Duma
After a significant break in work, the Duma nevertheless met on November 1, 1916. By this time, such a political climate had developed in the country that even right-wing deputies began to criticize the “mediocre ministers” in their sensational speech at the autumn session of 1916 in the Duma, the text of which distributed throughout the country in lists, P.N. Miliukov showed the evidence that the government's policy was dictated "either by stupidity or treason."
P.N. Miliukov .
- Gentlemen, members of the State Duma. It is with a heavy feeling that I enter this podium today. You remember the circumstances under which the Duma met more than a year ago, on July 10, 1915. The Duma was impressed by our military failures. She found the reason for these failures in the shortcomings of military supplies and pointed out the reason for the lack in the behavior of the Minister of War Sukhomlinov.
You remember that the country at that moment, under the impression of the formidable danger that had become obvious to everyone, demanded the unification of popular forces and the creation of a ministry of people in whom the country could trust. And you remember that then from this pulpit even Minister Goremykin admitted “that the course of the war requires a huge, extraordinary upsurge of spirit and strength.” You remember that the authorities then made concessions. The ministers hated by society were then removed before the convening of the Duma. Sukhomlinov, whom the country considered a traitor, was removed (voice on the left: “He is”). And in response to the demands of the people's representatives at the meeting on July 28, Polivanov announced to us, with general applause, as you remember, that an investigative commission had been created and the beginning had been made of putting the former Minister of War on trial.
And, gentlemen, the social upsurge was not in vain: our army received what it needed, and the country entered the second year of the war with the same upsurge as in the first. What a difference, gentlemen, now, in the 27th month of the war, a difference that I especially notice, having spent several months of this time abroad. We are now facing new difficulties, and these difficulties are no less complex and serious, no less profound, than those we faced last spring. The government needed heroic means to combat the general breakdown of the national economy. We ourselves are the same as before. We are the same in the 27th month of the war as we were in the 10th and as we were in the first. We remain committed to total victory, we remain willing to make the necessary sacrifices, and we still want to maintain national unity. But I will say openly: there is a difference in position.
We have lost faith that this government can lead us to victory... (voices: “That’s right”), because in relation to this government, both the attempts at correction and the attempts at improvement that we made here did not turn out to be successful. All allied states called the best people from all parties into the ranks of power. They gathered around the heads of their governments all the trust, all the elements of organization that were evident in their countries, which were more organized than ours. What did our government do? Our declaration said this. Since the time when the majority in the Fourth State Duma emerged, which it previously lacked, a majority ready to give confidence to a cabinet worthy of this trust, from that very time on, almost all members of the cabinet who could in any way count on trust, all of them one after another systematically had to leave the office. And if we said that our government has neither the knowledge nor the talents necessary for the present moment, then, gentlemen, now this power has fallen below the level at which it stood in the normal time of our Russian life (voices from the left: “That’s right, right"), and the gap between us and her widened and became impassable. Gentlemen, then, a year ago, Sukhomlinov was put under investigation, now he has been released (voices from the left: “Shame”). Then the hated ministers were removed before the opening of the session, now their number has been increased by a new member (voices on the left: “True”, voices on the right: “Protopopov”). Without appealing to the intelligence and knowledge of the authorities, we then turned to their patriotism and their conscientiousness. Can we do it now.? (voices on the left: “Of course not”).
A German document was published in the French yellow book, which taught rules on how to disorganize an enemy country, how to create unrest and unrest in it. Gentlemen, if our government wanted to deliberately set itself this task, or if the Germans wanted to use their means, means of influence or means of bribery for this, then they could not do anything better than to act as the Russian government did (Rodichev and places: “Unfortunately, this is so”). And you, gentlemen, now have consequences. Back on June 13, 1916, from this pulpit, I warned that “the poisonous seed of suspicion is already bearing abundant fruit,” that “dark rumors of betrayal and treason are spreading from end to end of the Russian land.” I quote my words at that time. I pointed out then - I quote my words again - that “these rumors climb high and spare no one.” Alas, gentlemen, this warning, like all others, was not taken into account. As a result, in the statement of the 28 chairmen of provincial governments, who gathered in Moscow on October 29 of this year, you have the following instructions: “a painful, terrible suspicion, ominous rumors about betrayal and treason, about dark forces fighting in favor of Germany and seeking destruction through national unity and sowing discord to prepare the ground for a shameful peace, have now passed into a clear consciousness that the enemy’s hand is secretly influencing the direction of the course of our state affairs.
Naturally, on this basis, rumors arise about the recognition in government circles of the pointlessness of further struggle, the timeliness of ending the war and the need to conclude a separate peace. Gentlemen, I would not like to meet the excessive, perhaps painful suspicion with which the excited feeling of the Russian patriot reacts to everything that happens. But how will you refute the possibility of such suspicions when a bunch of shady individuals direct the most important state affairs in personal and base interests? (applause from the left, voices: “That’s right”). I have in my hands the issue of Berliner Tageblatt dated October 16, 1916 and in it there is an article entitled: “Manuilov, Rasputin
. Sturmer
": The information in this article is partly late, partly this information is incorrect. So the German author is naive to think that Stürmer arrested Manasevich-Manuylov
, his personal secretary. Gentlemen, you all know that this is not so and that the people who arrested Manasevich-Manuylov and did not ask Sturmer were removed from the office for this.
No, gentlemen, Manasevich-Manuilov knows too much to be arrested. The Sturmer did not arrest Manasevich-Manuylov (applause from the left, voices “True.” Rodichev from the seat: “Unfortunately, it’s true”). You may ask: who is Manasevich-Manuilov? Why is he interesting to us: I'll tell you, gentlemen. Manasevich-Manuilov is a former secret police official in Paris, the famous “Mask” of the New Time, who reported to this newspaper piquant things from the life of the revolutionary underground. But he, what is more interesting for us, is also the executor of special secret assignments. One of these assignments may interest now. Several years ago, Manasevich-Manuylov tried to fulfill the instructions of the German Ambassador Pourtales, who assigned a large sum, they say about 800,000 rubles, to bribe Novoye Vremya. I am very glad to say that an employee of Novoye Vremya threw Manasevich out - Manuylov from his apartment and Pourtales had a lot of work to conceal this unpleasant story... Here, the personal secretary of the Minister of Foreign Affairs Stürmer, gentlemen, what kind of assignments were used for not so long ago (voices from the left: “That’s right,” prolonged noise).
Chairman.- I humbly ask you to stop the noise.
P.N. Milyukov.- Why was this gentleman arrested? This has long been known and I will not say anything new if I repeat to you what you know. He was arrested for taking a bribe. Why was he released? This, gentlemen, is also no secret. He told the investigator that he shared the bribe with the chairman of the Council of Ministers. (Noise. Rodichev from the spot: “Everyone knows that.” Voices: “Let me listen, quieter”),
Chairman.- Please g.g. Duma members keep calm
P.N. Milyukov.- Manasevich, Rasputin, Sturmer. The article mentions two more names. - prince Andronnikova and metropolitan Pitirima , as participants in the appointment of Stürmer together with Rasputin (noise). Let me elaborate on this purpose in more detail. I mean Stürmer as Foreign Minister. I survived this assignment abroad. For me it is intertwined with the impressions of my trip abroad. I'll just tell you in order. what I learned on the way there and back, and you can draw your own conclusions. So, as soon as I crossed the border, a few days after my resignation Sazonova , how first Swedish, and then German and Austrian newspapers brought a series of news about how Germany greeted Stürmer's appointment. That's what the newspapers said. I will read the excerpts without comment.
Particularly interesting was the editorial in the Neue Freie Press of June 25th. This is what this article says: “No matter how Russified old man Stürmer has become (laughter), it is still quite strange that foreign policy in a war that emerged from pan-Slavist ideas will be led by a German (laughter). Minister-President Stürmer is free from delusions, led to war. He did not promise - gentlemen, please note - that without Constantinople and the straits he would never make peace. In the person of Sturmer, a weapon was acquired; which can be used at will. Thanks to the policy of weakening the Duma, Sturmer became a man who satisfies secret desires "right-wingers who do not at all want an alliance with England. He will not argue, like Sazonov, that the Prussian military helmet needs to be neutralized."
Where do the German and Austrian newspapers get this confidence that Stürmer, fulfilling the wishes of the right, will act against England and against the continuation of the war? From information in the Russian press. A note was published in Moscow newspapers regarding the far-right note ( Zamyslovsky from the spot: “And every time it turns out to be a lie”), delivered to Headquarters in July before Sturmer’s second trip. This note states that, although it is necessary to fight until final victory, it is necessary to end the war in a timely manner, otherwise the fruits of victory will be lost as a result of the revolution (Zamyslovsky from the place: “Signatures, signatures”). This is an old topic for our Germanophiles, but it is developing in a number of new attacks.
Zamyslovsky (from the seat) - Signatures. Let him say the signatures.
Chairman.- Duma member Zamyslovsky, I ask you not to speak from your seat.
P.N. Milyukov.- I quote Moscow newspapers.
Zamyslovsky(from place). - Slanderer. Say signatures. Don't slander.
Chairman.- Member of the State Duma Zamyslovsky, I ask you not to speak from your seat.
Zamyslovsky.- Signatures, slanderer.
Chairman.- Member of the State Duma Zamyslovsky. I call you to order.
Vishnevsky(from place). - We require a signature. Let him not slander.
Chairman.- Member of the State Duma Vishnevsky, I call you to order.
P.N. Milyukov.- I said my source - these are Moscow newspapers, of which there are reprints in foreign newspapers. I am conveying the impressions that determined the opinion of the press abroad regarding the appointment of Stürmer.
Zamyslovsky(from place). - Slanderer, that's what you are.
Markov 2nd(from place). - He just told a deliberate lie.
Chairman.- I repeat that I call you to order.
P.N. Milyukov.- I am not sensitive to the expressions of Mr. Zamyslovsky (voices on the left: “Bravo, bravo”). I repeat that the old topic is being developed this time with new details. Who makes the revolution? Here's who: it turns out that it is done by city and zemstvo unions, military-industrial committees, and congresses of liberal organizations. This is the most undoubted manifestation of the coming revolution. “The left parties,” the note states, “want to continue the war in order to organize and prepare a revolution in the interim.”
Gentlemen, you know that, in addition to such a note, there are a number of separate notes that develop the same idea. There is an indictment against the city and zemstvo organizations, and there are other indictments that you know. So, gentlemen, that is the idefix of the revolution coming from the left, that idefix, the obsession with which is obligatory for every member of the cabinet who joins (voices: “That’s right!”), and to this idefix everything is sacrificed: the high national impulse to help the war, and the beginnings of Russian freedom, and even the strength of relations with the allies. I then asked myself, what is the recipe for this? I went further to Switzerland to relax, and not to engage in politics, and here the same dark shadows followed me. On the shores of Lake Geneva, in Bern, I could not get away from Stürmer’s former department - the Ministry of the Interior and the Police Department.
Of course, Switzerland is a place “where all kinds of propaganda intersect, where it is especially convenient to follow the machinations of our enemies. And it is clear that the system of “special assignments” should be especially developed here, but among them there is a developed system of a special kind that attracts our special attention. They came to me and said: “Please tell me, there in Petrograd, what does the famous Rataev do?” They asked why some official Lebedev, unknown to me, came here. They asked why these officials of the police department turn out to be regular visitors to the salons of Russian ladies , known for their Germanophilism. It turns out that Vasilchikova has successors and continuers. To open the ways and means of that propaganda, which Sir recently openly told us about George Buchanan
. We need a judicial investigation, like the one that was carried out over Sukhomlinov. When we accused Sukhomlinov, we also did not have the data that the investigation revealed. We had what we have now: the instinctive voice of the entire country and its subjective confidence (applause).
Gentlemen, I might not have dared to talk about each of my individual impressions if there were no cumulative ones, and especially if there had not been the confirmation that I received when I moved from Paris to London. In London I came across a direct statement made to me that for some time now our enemies have learned our deepest secrets and that this did not happen during Sazonov’s time (exclamations from the left: “Aha”). If in Switzerland and Paris I asked myself whether there was some other kind of diplomacy behind our official diplomacy, here I already had to ask about a different kind of thing. I apologize that, reporting such an important fact, I cannot name its source, but if this message of mine is correct, then Stürmer may find traces of it in his archives. (Rodichev from the spot: “He will destroy them”).
I am passing over the Stockholm story, which, as is known, preceded the appointment of the present minister and which made a grave impression on our allies. I can speak of this impression as a witness; I would like to think that here was a manifestation of that quality that is well known to old acquaintances HELL. Protopopova
- his inability to take into account the consequences of his own actions (laughter, voices from the left: “A good qualification for a minister”). Fortunately, in Stockholm he was no longer a representative of the deputation, since the deputation no longer existed at that time; it returned in parts to Russia. What Protopopov did in Stockholm, he did in our absence (Markov 2nd from the spot: “You did the same thing in Italy”). But still, gentlemen, I cannot say exactly what role this story played in that hallway, already known to us, through which, following the others, A.D. Protopopov passed on his way to the ministerial chair (voices on the right: “Which hallway? "). I named these people for you - Manasevich-Manuilov, Rasputin, Pitirim, Sturmer. This is the court party whose victory, according to the Neue Freie Presse, was the appointment of Stürmer: “The victory of the court party, which is grouped around the young Queen.”
In any case, I have some reason to think that the proposals made by the German adviser Warburg to Protopopov were repeated in a more direct way and from a higher source. I was not at all surprised when, from the lips of the British ambassador, I heard a heavy accusation against the same circle of people of wanting to prepare the way for a separate peace. Maybe I stayed too long on Stürmer? (Cries: “No, no!”).
But, gentlemen, all the feelings and moods that I spoke about earlier were predominantly focused on him. I think that these feelings and moods did not allow him to occupy this chair. He heard the exclamations with which you greeted his exit. Let us hope with you that he will not return here again. (Applause from the left. Noise. Shouts from the left: “Bravo!”). We tell the government, as the bloc's declaration said: we will fight you, we will fight with all legal means until you leave. They say that one member of the Council of Ministers, hearing that this time the State Duma was going to talk about treason, cried out excitedly: “I may be a fool, but I am not a traitor.” (Laughter.) Gentlemen, the predecessor of this minister was undoubtedly an intelligent minister, just as the predecessor of the Minister of Foreign Affairs was an honest man. But they are no longer part of the cabinet. So, isn’t it all the same for the practical result whether in this case we are dealing with stupidity or treason?
When you wait a whole year for Romania to make a speech, insist on this speech, and at the decisive moment you have neither troops nor the ability to quickly transport them along the only narrow-gauge road, and thus you once again miss the favorable moment to strike a decisive blow in the Balkans , - what would you call it: stupidity or treason? (voices on the left: “It’s the same thing”). When, contrary to our repeated insistence, from February 1916 to July 1916, and already in February, I spoke about Germany’s attempts to seduce the Poles and about Wilhelm’s hope of getting an army of half a million, when, contrary to this, the matter is deliberately slowed down, and the attempt to resolve an intelligent and honest minister, at least at the last minute, the issue in a favorable sense ends with the departure of this minister and a new postponement, and our enemy finally takes advantage of our delay - is this: stupidity or treason? (voices from the left: “Treason”). Choose any. The consequences are the same.
When, with increasing insistence, the Duma reminds us that it is necessary to organize the rear for a successful struggle, and the authorities continue to insist that organizing means organizing a revolution, and deliberately prefers chaos and disorganization - what is this, stupidity or treason? (voice on the left: “Treason.” Ajemov : "It is nonsense". Laughter). Little of. When, on the basis of general discontent and irritation, the authorities are deliberately engaged in causing popular outbreaks - because the participation of the police department in the latest unrest in factories has been proven - so when unrest and unrest are deliberately caused by provocation and they know that this can serve as a motive for stopping war - what is being done, consciously or unconsciously?
When, in the midst of a war, the “court party” undermines the only person who has created a reputation for honesty among the allies (noise) and when he is replaced by a person about whom everything that I said earlier can be said, then this... ( Markov 2nd : “Is your speech stupidity or treason?”). My speech is a service to my homeland, which you will not do. No gentlemen, it's your choice, there's too much stupidity. (Zamyslovsky: “That’s true.”) It’s as if it’s difficult to explain all this with just stupidity.
Therefore, the population cannot be blamed if it comes to such a conclusion, which I read in the statement of the chairmen of the provincial governments. You must also understand why we have no other speech today than the one I have already said: seek the departure of this government. You ask how we will begin to fight during the war? But, gentlemen, they are only dangerous during war. They are dangerous for war: that is why during the war and in the name of war, in the name of the very thing that forced us to unite, we are now fighting them. (Voices from the left: “Bravo.” Applause.)
We have many, many individual reasons to be dissatisfied with the government. If we have time, we will say them. And all the particular reasons come down to this one: the inability and maliciousness of this government (Voices from the left: “That’s right”).
This is our main evil, victory over which will be tantamount to winning the entire campaign. (Voices from the left: “That’s right!”) Therefore, gentlemen, in the name of millions of victims and streams of shed blood, in the name of achieving our national interests, in the name of our responsibility to all the people who sent us here, we will fight until we achieve that real responsibility of the government, which is determined by three signs of our common declaration: the same understanding by members of the cabinet of the immediate tasks of the current moment, their conscious readiness to implement the program of the majority of the State Duma and their obligation to rely not only on the implementation of this program, but also in all their activities on the majority State Duma.
A cabinet that does not meet these criteria does not deserve the trust of the State Duma and must leave: (Loud applause).”
Notes:
Andronikov Mikhail Mikhailovich(1875-1919), prince, in 1896 assigned to the Ministry of Internal Affairs; in 1914 he was dismissed from service due to her failure to attend and was appointed an official of special assignments under the chief prosecutor of the Synod, where he was listed until 1917. A swindler and swindler, he tried to use Grigory Rasputin in his machinations, who caught him and expelled him in disgrace, and in December 1916 he even contributed to his expulsion from Petrograd.
Rezanov A.S. Assault signal P.N. Milyukova. Paris, 1924. pp. 45-61. Dates: 1916
During these October days, in the well-known house No. 10 on Admiralteyskaya Embankment, the Cadets ministers gathered every day at six o’clock. (Konovalov Minister of Trade and Industry, Kishkin Minister of State Charity, Kartashev Minister of Religions of the Provisional Government, adjacent Tretyakov), together with the members of the Central Committee delegated to these meetings - Milyukov leader of the cadet party, Shingaryov Member of the IV State Duma, doctor, Minister of Finance (from May 1917), Vinaver, Adzhemov and me. The purpose of these meetings was, firstly, to keep the ministers in constant contact with the Central Committee and, on the other hand, to have constant and correct information about everything happening in the government. In these meetings of ours, Konovalov always looked extremely depressed and it seemed that he had lost all hope. “Oh, dear V.D., it’s bad, very bad!” - I remember this phrase of his well, he repeatedly told it to me (he treated me with special trust and goodwill). In particular, he was oppressed by Prime Minister Kerensky.
By that time he had completely become disillusioned with Kerensky and had lost all confidence in him. Mainly, he was driven into despair by Kerensky's inconstancy, the complete impossibility of relying on his words, his accessibility to any influence and pressure from the outside, sometimes the most random. “This happens all the time, almost every day,” he said. - You will agree on everything, insist on certain measures, and finally achieve agreement. “So, so, Alexander Fedorovich, now it’s firmly, finally decided, there will be no change?” You receive categorical assurance. You leave his office - and a few hours later you learn about a completely different decision that has already been implemented, or, at best, that an urgent measure that should have been taken right now, right today, is being postponed again, new doubts have arisen or have been resurrected old ones - seemingly already eliminated. And so on day after day. A real fairy tale about a white bull." He and all of us were especially concerned about the military situation in St. Petersburg and the role of Colonel Polkovnikov Commander-in-Chief of the Petrograd Military District, in whom he did not feel an iota of trust. Apparently, Kerensky in these days was in a period of discouragement, it was completely impossible to move him to any energetic measures, and as time passed, the Bolsheviks worked at their full capacity, feeling less and less embarrassed. The situation became more and more dire every day. Rumors about the upcoming Bolshevik revolt in the coming days circulated throughout the city, worrying and worrying everyone. During these days, a completely academic order was issued for the arrest of
P.N. Miliukov
Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich is better known in modern Russia as a political figure of the liberal opposition, a talented publicist, leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party (People's Freedom Party, Cadet Party), Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government, and an active participant in the Civil War. But it is absolutely impossible to dispute the fact that this man left a significant mark on history not only as its protagonist. A historian, researcher, teacher at Moscow University, he made a significant contribution to the development of Russian historical science at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, becoming one of the brightest representatives of Russian historiography of that time. It is to P.N. Milyukov that Russian society actually owes the scientific substantiation of the legality and necessity of government reforms in Russia, carried out “from above,” but in agreement with “public opinion.” The entire liberal-democratic and bourgeois intelligentsia, who enthusiastically accepted the gains of February 1917, fell for this “bait.” But the Bolsheviks, like Peter I, carried out a radical reform of the Russian state system, without any regard for “public opinion” in the person of the same bourgeois intelligentsia. Ultimately, they artificially led the country away from its historical path, leaving neither “society” in it, nor its “opinion,” nor P.N. Milyukov himself.
Family and early years
Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov was born on January 15 (27), 1859 in Moscow. It was believed that his grandfather - Pavel Alekseevich Milyukov - came from the Tver nobles. During the era of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, one of his ancestors was granted a charter, however, there was no documentary evidence of his noble origin. Having gone to Siberia in search of gold, the grandfather failed and went completely broke. The father of the future politician, Nikolai Pavlovich Milyukov, is a graduate of the Academy of Arts, an architect by profession. He taught a lot, served as an inspector at two art schools in Moscow, worked as an appraiser in a bank, and for some time held the position of a city architect. The atmosphere in the family was far from prosperous due to the difficult relationship between the parents. The mother was proud of belonging to the noble family of the Sultanovs, invariably emphasizing that her marriage to N.P. Milyukov (this was her second marriage) was a misalliance. Quarrels constantly broke out in the family; no one took serious care of the children. P.N. Miliukov later recalled: “The father, busy with his own affairs, did not pay attention to the children at all and was not involved in our upbringing. Our mother led us..."
Pavel was the eldest of two children born in marriage. From an early age he developed a strong interest in poetry and music. He began writing poetry early: at first they were imitations of Nikitin and Pushkin, and later - his original works. P. N. Milyukov carried his love for music throughout his life: he had an absolute ear for music and played the violin beautifully.
The future historian received his education at the 1st Moscow Gymnasium, located on Sivtsev Vrazhek. After graduating from the gymnasium, in the summer of 1877, together with P.D. Dolgorukov P.N. Miliukov volunteered to participate in the Russian-Turkish War of 1877 - 1878 as a treasurer of the military economy, and then as an authorized representative of the Moscow sanitary detachment in Transcaucasia.
In 1877 he became a student at the Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University. At first, the young man was attracted by such a new direction of science as linguistics and comparative linguistics. “History,” recalled P. N. Milyukov, “didn’t interest me right away,” because the first teachers of general and Russian history - V.I. Guerrier and Popov did not stimulate interest in the subject and did not leave good impressions. Everything changed when V. O. Klyuchevsky and P. G. Vinogradov appeared at the university, real, according to P. N. Milyukov, luminaries of learning and talent. P. G. Vinogradov impressed the students with his serious work on historical sources. “Only from Vinogradov did we understand what real scientific work means and, to some extent, learned it,” wrote P. N. Milyukov. "IN. O. Klyuchevsky, according to P.N. Milyukov, overwhelmed students with his talent and scientific insight: his insight was amazing, but its source was not accessible to everyone.”
In 1879, after the death of their father, the Miliukov family was on the verge of ruin. To ensure a decent living for his mother (his younger brother Alexey did not live with his family by that time), the student was forced to give private lessons.
In addition, the period of P. N. Milyukov’s studies at the university was marked by a particularly strong surge in the student movement. On April 1, 1881, Miliukov was arrested for attending a student meeting. The result was expulsion from the university, although with the right to admission after a year.
The break from his studies was used by P. N. Miliukov to study Greco-Roman culture in Italy. After graduating from the university, P. N. Milyukov was left at the department of V. O. Klyuchevsky. At the same time, he taught at the 4th Women's Gymnasium (from 1883 to 1894), gave lessons at a private girls' school and at the Agricultural School. Having successfully passed his master's exams and given two trial lectures, P. N. Milyukov became a private assistant professor at Moscow University in 1886, which significantly changed his social status and circle of acquaintances. He became a member of many Moscow historical societies: the Moscow Archaeological Society, the Society of Natural Science, Geography and Archeology. At the university, the historian taught special courses on historiography, historical geography and the history of the colonization of Russia.
Master's thesis by P.N. Milyukov
For six years (from 1886 to 1892) P. N. Milyukov prepared his master’s thesis “The state economy of Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century and the reform of Peter the Great.”
By the time he defended his dissertation, it was published as a monograph, and the young scientist already had a big name in the scientific world. Miliukov actively published his articles in famous historical and literary magazines “Russian Thought”, “Russian Antiquity”, “Historical Bulletin”, “Historical Review”, “Russian Archive”, etc., participated in the English magazine “Atheneum”, where he published annual reviews of Russian literature. In 1885 he was elected a corresponding member, and in 1890 - a full member of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society.
The opponents in the defense were V.O. Klyuchevsky and V.E. Yakushkin, who replaced I.I., who refused due to illness. Yanzhula.
The dissertation brought P.N. Milyukov truly all-Russian fame. The originality of this work lay in the fact that the researcher, following S.M. Solovyov and to a certain extent V.O. Klyuchevsky noted the “organism” of the transformations of the early 18th century with the previous development of Russia, and noted their artificiality, and considered the very necessity of Peter I’s transformations doubtful. They were “timely” only in the sense of external conditionality: a favorable foreign policy situation prompted Russia to war, which resulted in reforms. According to Miliukov, the internal conditionality of Peter’s reforms was completely absent:
Miliukov was the first in the history of Russian historiography to express the idea that the reforms of Peter I were a spontaneous and completely unprepared process. They gave much less results than they could have, because they went against the opinions and wishes of society. Moreover, according to Miliukov, Peter I not only did not recognize himself as a reformer, but in fact he was not one. Miliukov considered the personal role of the Tsar to be the least important factor in carrying out the reforms:
The conclusion about the limited influence of Peter I on the development and course of the reform itself was one of the fundamental theses of Miliukov’s dissertation. Despite the critical remarks already available in the scientific literature about the role of the tsar-reformer (in particular, in the works of N.K. Mikhailovsky and A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky), it was Miliukov who formulated this conclusion in the most categorical form and with his name entered subsequent literature.
The high scientific merits of the work, the scale and completeness of the material studied, reasoned and strictly proven conclusions, and the novelty of the research caused a lot of positive reactions to the dissertation among the scientific community and professors of Moscow University. A proposal was even made to assign P.N. Miliukov received a doctorate immediately. Most likely, this is exactly what the scientist was counting on when he presented an extremely controversial but original work as a dissertation research. However, his teacher V.O. was categorically against it. Klyuchevsky, who won over the Academic Council to his side.
In his memoirs, Miliukov noted that to all the insistence of other professors that the work was outstanding, Klyuchevsky inexorably insisted: “Let him write another one, science will only benefit from it.”
Most researchers explain Klyuchevsky’s position as a personal grudge against the ambitious Miliukov. He rejected the topic of his master's thesis previously proposed to him by his teacher and, taking the reforms of Peter I as the object of study, pointedly withdrew from his scientific leadership. Klyuchevsky was never able to come to terms with the quick success of an unauthorized student, which ruined their relationship forever.
His work on Peter I brought Miliukov great fame and authority. Almost all scientific and socio-political magazines published responses to his book on their pages. For his research P.N. Miliukov was awarded the S.M. Solovyov.
However, the resentment and “feeling of insult” that, according to him, remained with him from the defense, hurt the young scientist’s pride. Miliukov gave himself a word, which he subsequently kept: never to write or defend a doctoral dissertation. In this regard, he refused S.F.’s offer. Platonov nominated his other work for a doctorate - “Controversial Issues in the Financial History of the Moscow State” and defended it at St. Petersburg University. This work was a review, which Miliukov, at the request of the same S.F. Platonov, wrote on the book by A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky “Organization of direct taxation in the Moscow State from the Time of Troubles to the Era of Transformations” (St. Petersburg, 1890).
At the end of the 1880s, changes occurred in the personal life of P.N. Milyukova: he married Anna Sergeevna Smirnova, daughter of the rector of the Trinity-Sergius Academy S.K. Smirnova, whom he met in the house of V.O. Klyuchevsky. Like her husband, who was fond of playing the violin all his life, Anna Sergeevna loved music: according to the reviews of those around her, she was a talented pianist. Having left her family against the will of her parents, Anna lived in a private boarding school (her main source of livelihood was piano lessons) and attended women’s courses in general history by Professor V.I. Gerye, taught by V.O. Klyuchevsky. Anna became Miliukov’s faithful companion, was an activist in the movement for the emancipation of women, and took an active part in the life of the Cadet Party. They remained together for exactly half a century - until her death in 1935 in Paris. Three children were born into the Milyukov family: in 1889 - son Nikolai, in 1895 - son Sergei, the youngest child was the only daughter Natalya.
“Political unreliability” and the link of P.N. Milyukov
Recognition in the scientific world, prizes and wide fame that befell Miliukov after the publication of his works were undoubtedly a reward for his hard work, but they only gratified the historian’s ambition. His further career within the walls of Moscow University seemed very problematic. According to the university charter of 1884, only professors could be full-time employees of the university with an appropriate salary, and it was impossible to obtain this title without a doctorate. There remained the opportunity to seek inclusion on the staff as an assistant professor, but this option encountered resistance from V.O. Klyuchevsky, who at that time occupied the position of vice-rector of the university. A university career, Miliukov noted with regret, “was closed for me before the government closed it.”
In this regard, one cannot but agree with the opinion of some subsequent researchers who believed that Russia owes, oddly enough, the phenomenon of the politician Miliukov, who almost brought the country to the brink of national and political catastrophe, to the great historian V.O. Klyuchevsky. In particular, N.G. Dumova in her book “Liberal in Russia: the tragedy of incompatibility” considers 1892-1893 as a turning point in the biography of P.N. Milyukova. The conflict with Klyuchevsky led to the fact that the historian actually began to be forced out of the university: he was not included in the full-time teaching staff; the vice-rector, by his authority, does not allow the main course of lectures to be given at the faculty; successfully defending a doctoral dissertation in such conditions also becomes impossible.
The precarious social and financial situation forces P.N. Miliukov to look for new areas where he could more fully realize his potential. Although during this period Miliukov continued to be actively engaged in historical research, took part in the activities of scientific societies, and published in journals, social and then political activities were increasingly mixed into these activities.
To develop self-education for teachers in the provinces, the Moscow Archaeological Society organized a lecture bureau. The professors who were part of it had to travel around the country and give general education lectures. As such a lecturer P.N. Miliukov spoke in Nizhny Novgorod, where he gave a series of lectures on the Russian liberation movement of the 18th-19th centuries. In them, he traced the development of the Russian liberation movement, starting from its inception in the era of Catherine II and ending with the contemporary state of affairs. The liberal orientation of the lectures, in which he, in his own words, “could not help but reflect... one way or another this general high spirits” associated with society’s expectations from the accession of Nicholas II, aroused enormous interest among the assembled public.
Using examples from the era of Catherine II, Miliukov tried to convey to listeners the need to develop dialogue between society and government, educate citizenship and create public institutions in Russia.
The lectures given aroused dissatisfaction with the authorities, who saw them as sedition and a harmful influence on young people. The Ministry of Internal Affairs opened an investigation against Miliukov. By order of the police department of February 18, 1895, he was removed from any teaching activity due to “extreme political unreliability.” The Ministry of Public Education issued an order to dismiss the historian from Moscow University and prohibit him from teaching anywhere. Until the end of the investigation P.N. Miliukov was expelled from Moscow. He chose Ryazan as his place of exile - the provincial city closest to Moscow, which did not have a university (this was the condition of the authorities).
In Ryazan, Miliukov participated in archaeological excavations, wrote articles and feuilletons in Russkie Vedomosti, and actively contributed to the encyclopedic dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron, worked on the creation of his main fundamental work, “Essays on the History of Russian Culture.”
The first edition of “Essays” was published in 1896-1903 in three issues and four books. In Russia, before 1917, 7 editions of “Essays” were published. While already in exile, Miliukov published a new, revised edition of the book. It took into account published literature on various fields of knowledge and the changes that the author considered necessary to make to his concept of the historical development of Russia. The new edition was published in Paris in 1930-1937, and was an anniversary edition, dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the first edition.
At the beginning of 1897, Miliukov received an invitation from the Sofia Higher School in Bulgaria with a proposal to head the department of general history after the death of M. P. Drahomanov. The authorities allowed the trip. The scientist stayed in Bulgaria for two years, taught courses on general history, on antiquities of archeology and on the history of philosophical and historical systems, studied Bulgarian and Turkish (in total, Miliukov knew 18 foreign languages). Deliberately ignoring the gala reception at the Russian embassy in Sofia on the occasion of the name day of Nicholas II caused irritation in St. Petersburg. The Bulgarian government was demanded to fire Miliukov. The “unemployed” scientist moved to Turkey, where he took part in an expedition of the Constantinople Archaeological Institute in excavations in Macedonia.
In November 1898, at the end of the two-year period of supervision, Miliukov was allowed to live in St. Petersburg.
In 1901, for participating in a meeting at the Mining Institute dedicated to the memory of P. Lavrov, P. N. Milyukov was again arrested and sent to Kresty prison. After staying there for six months, he settled at Udelnaya station near St. Petersburg.
During this period, Miliukov became close to the liberal zemstvo environment. He became one of the founders of the magazine “Osvobozhdenie” and the political organization of Russian liberals “Union of Liberation”. In 1902-1904 he repeatedly traveled to England, then to the USA, where he lectured at the University of Chicago and Harvard University, and at the Lowell Institute in Boston. The course taught was compiled into the book “Russia and Its Crisis” (1905).
Actually, this is the biography of P.N. Miliukov as a historian and scientist can be completed. The revolutionary events of 1905-1907 finally turned the privatdozent, “excommunicated” from teaching, into an opposition politician and publicist who seriously believed that society could be “prepared” for constitutional reforms.
P.N. Miliukov - politician
Since the summer of 1905, the former historian became one of the founders and undisputed leader of the constitutional democrat party. He is also the publisher and editor of the cadet press, the permanent leader of the cadet faction in all 4 Dumas.
Miliukov, as is known, could not be elected to either the First State Duma or the Second. Opposition from the authorities had an effect, although the formal pretext for exclusion from participation in the elections was non-compliance with the requirements of the housing qualification. However, Pavel Nikolaevich acted as the de facto leader of the Duma faction of the Cadets. They said that Miliukov, who visited the Tauride Palace every day, “conducted the Duma from the buffet”!
Miliukov's cherished dream of parliamentary activity came true in the fall of 1907 - he was elected to the Third Duma. The leader of the Cadet Party, having headed its parliamentary faction, became an even more influential and prominent figure. They joked that Miliukov was an ideal parliamentarian; he was created as if by order especially for the British Parliament and the Encyclopedia Britannica. In the Third Duma, the cadet faction was in the minority, but its leader P.N. Miliukov became the most active speaker and chief expert on foreign policy issues. He dealt with these issues in the IV Duma, and also spoke on various problems on behalf of the faction.
At the congress of the Constitutional Democratic Party, held on March 23 - 25, 1914, P.N. Miliukov proposed the tactic of “isolating the government,” which received the support of the majority of delegates. This meant the legitimation of open confrontation between the Cadets and the authorities, which was reflected in the harsh speeches of party representatives in the Duma and in the periodical press.
The First World War first made adjustments to the cadets' tactics. P.N. Miliukov became a supporter of the idea of ending the internal political struggle until victory, for which the opposition forces should support the government. He viewed the war as an opportunity to strengthen the foreign policy influence of the state, associated with the strengthening of positions in the Balkans and the inclusion of the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits into the Russian Empire, for which he received the eloquent nickname “Milyukov-Dardanelles”.
But the “sacred unity” with the government did not last long: the economic crisis in the country, the defeat of the army and internal political instability led to the fact that a strong opposition to the government began to form in the Duma, which united in August 1915 into the Progressive Bloc. P.N. Miliukov was an organizer and one of the leaders of the bloc, who believed that Russia could win the war only by replacing the existing government with a ministry that enjoyed the country's confidence.
At the end of 1915 P.N. Miliukov experienced a deep personal tragedy: during the retreat from Brest, his second son Sergei, who volunteered for the war, was killed.
1916 is the peak of the Progressive Bloc's activity. This year, B.V. became the head of the Russian government. Stürmer, who concentrated in his hands three key positions of the Cabinet of Ministers, a protege of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and G.E. Rasputin. It is natural that the resignation of B.V. Stürmera became one of the main tasks of the bloc. An important step towards its implementation was the famous Duma speech of P.N. Milyukova dated November 1, 1916, which received the code name “Stupidity or Treason?” in historiography. based on a repeated refrain in it. Having based his speech on information unknown in Russia, collected by him during a trip abroad in the summer - autumn of 1916, P.N. Miliukov used them as evidence of B.V.’s incapacity and malicious intent. Sturmer, even mentioning in this regard the name of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. The speech denouncing the queen became very popular in the country, which is why among emigrants, already in the 1920s, it was often perceived as a “storm signal” for revolution.
Miliukov’s political obsession is also evidenced by the little-known words he uttered at a breakfast with the British Ambassador George Buchanan shortly before the February Revolution. Buchanan asked why the parliamentary opposition, in the midst of a difficult war, was so aggressive towards its government? Russia, from a diplomatic point of view, has acquired a legislative Duma, freedom of political parties and the press in ten years. Shouldn’t the opposition have moderated its criticism and waited for the realization of its wishes for “some ten more years”? Miliukov exclaimed with pathos: “Sir, Russian liberals cannot wait ten years!” Buchanan grinned in response: “My country has waited for hundreds of years...”
After the February Revolution P.N. Miliukov took part in the formation of the Provisional Government, which he joined as Minister of Foreign Affairs. After the abdication of Nicholas II, he tried to achieve the preservation of the monarchy in Russia until the convening of the Constituent Assembly.
At the ministerial post, the decline of P.N.’s political career began. Milyukov: the war was unpopular among the people, and on April 18, 1917, he sent a note to the allies in which he outlined his foreign policy doctrine: war to a victorious end. This revealed the main shortcoming of P.N. Miliukov-politician, who cost him his career: being convinced of the correctness of his views and firmly convinced of the need to implement the program guidelines of his party, he calmly walked towards his goals, not paying attention to external influences, to the real situation in the country, to the mentality of the population. Manifestation of discontent and demonstrations in the capital after P.N.’s note. Miliukov caused the resignation of the minister on May 2, 1917.
In the summer - autumn of 1917 P.N. Miliukov participated in the political life of Russia as Chairman of the Central Committee of the Constitutional Democratic Party, a member of the permanent bureau of the State Conference and the Pre-Parliament. In August 1917, he supported the proposals of General L.G. Kornilov, at the same time actively made calls to the Russian public about the need to fight Bolshevism.
Bolshevik coup P.N. Miliukov did not accept and began to use all his influence to fight the Soviet regime. He advocated armed struggle, for which he sought to create a united front. In November 1917, Miliukov participated in a meeting of Entente representatives on the fight against Bolshevism. Having gone to Novocherkassk, he joined the volunteer military organization of General M.V. Alekseeva. In January 1918 he was a member of the Don Civil Council. When Alekseev asked Miliukov in February 1918 to familiarize himself with the draft of the so-called “Political Program of General Kornilov,” Miliukov expressed disagreement with the fact that the project was created without consultation with political parties. He also rejected Kornilov’s attempt to create a government alone. Miliukov believed that the publication of the program would deprive the volunteer movement of support from broad sections of the population. Ultimately, the leaders of the Volunteer Army, still sensitive to the comments of liberal politicians, did not accept any program. Together with the cadet boys and yesterday's students, they went to die in the Kuban steppes. And P.N. Miliukov, as befits a “giant of thought and the father of Russian democracy,” moved from the inhospitable Don to Kyiv, where, on behalf of the Cadet Party conference, he began negotiations with the German command about the need to finance the anti-Bolshevik movement. A staunch supporter of the Entente at this moment saw in the German occupiers the only real force capable of resisting the Bolsheviks. The Cadet Central Committee condemned his policies, and Milyukov resigned as chairman of the Central Committee. At the end of October he admitted his policy towards the German army was wrong. He welcomed the military intervention of the Entente states.
At the same time, P.N. Miliukov resumed his activities as a historian: in 1918, in Kyiv, “The History of the Second Russian Revolution” was being prepared for publication, published in 1921-23 in Sofia.
Emigrant
In November 1918, P.N. Miliukov went to Western Europe to obtain support from the allies for anti-Bolshevik forces. He lived for some time in England, where he edited the weekly The New Russia, published in English by the Russian emigrant Liberation Committee. He appeared in the press and in journalism on behalf of the White movement. In 1920 he published the book “Bolshevism: An International Danger” in London. However, the defeats of the White armies at the front and the indifferent policy of the Allies, who failed to provide the White movement with sufficient material support, changed his views on ways to rid Russia of Bolshevism. After the evacuation of the troops of General P.N. Wrangel from Crimea in November 1920, Miliukov stated that “Russia cannot be liberated against the will of the people.”
During these same years, he received tragic news from Soviet Russia about the death of his daughter Natalya from dysentery.
In 1920 P.N. Miliukov moved to Paris, where he headed the Union of Russian Writers and Journalists in Paris and the council of professors at the Franco-Russian Institute.
Summing up the results of the anti-Bolshevik struggle in 1917 - 1920, he developed a “new tactic”, the theses of which he presented in May 1920 at a meeting of the Paris Committee of Cadets. The “new tactics” towards Soviet Russia, aimed at internally overcoming Bolshevism, rejected both the continuation of armed struggle within Russia and foreign intervention. Instead, it provided for the recognition of the republican and federal order in Russia, the destruction of landownership, and the development of local self-government. P.N. Miliukov considered it necessary, together with the socialists, to develop a broad plan in land and national issues, in the sphere of state construction. It was expected that this platform would gain the support of democratic forces within Russia and inspire them to fight against the Bolshevik regime.
A change in worldview put P.N. Milyukov was in opposition to most of the Russian emigration and made enemies of many cadets who were his like-minded people in Russia. In June 1921, he left the party and, together with M.M. Vinaver, forming the Paris Democratic Group of the People's Freedom Party (in 1924 it was transformed into the Republican Democratic Association).
Monarchists who rightly accused P.N. Miliukov in unleashing the revolution in Russia and in all its consequences, several attempts were made to assassinate him. In Paris, a city with a relatively liberal emigrant colony, the former politician had to live in a “semi-safe” apartment and go into hiding for fear of attacks. March 28, 1922 in the building of the Berlin Philharmonic in P.N. Miliukov was shot, but V.D. Nabokov, a famous cadet, the father of the writer V. Nabokov, shielded the former party leader with himself, as a result of which he himself was killed.
In exile P.N. Miliukov wrote and published a lot: his journalistic works “Russia at the Turning Point”, “Emigration at the Crossroads” were published, “Memoirs” were begun, and remained unfinished. Miliukov wrote articles about Russia for the Encyclopedia Britannica, collaborated in other publications, and gave lectures on the history of Russia in many countries, including the United States of America, where he traveled at the invitation of the American association Lowell Institute.
From April 27, 1921 to June 11, 1940 P.N. Miliukov edited the newspaper Latest News, published in Paris. It devoted a lot of space to news from Soviet Russia. Since 1921, P.N. Miliukov consoled himself by finding “signs of revival and democratization” in Russia, which, in his opinion, were contrary to the policy of the Soviet government. In the 1930s, he began to positively evaluate Stalin’s foreign policy for its imperial character, approved of the war with Finland, reasoning: “I feel sorry for the Finns, but I am for the Vyborg province.”
For 20 years, “Last News”, headed by Miliukov, played a leading role in the life of the emigration, uniting around itself the best literary and journalistic forces of the Russian diaspora. It is enough to name those whose works regularly appeared on the pages of the newspaper: I. A. Bunin, M. I. Tsvetaeva, V. V. Nabokov (Sirin), M. A. Aldanov, Sasha Cherny, V. F. Khodasevich, K D. Balmont, A. M. Remizov, N. A. Teffi, B. K. Zaitsev, N. N. Berberova, Don Aminado, A. N. Benois and many, many others. The liberal “Last News” carried on a fierce debate with the far-right emigrant newspaper “Vozrozhdenie”, headed by Miliukov’s former comrade-in-arms in the Liberation Union and the Kadet Party, P. B. Struve.
 |
Former like-minded people, who had previously entered into fierce disputes among themselves, became irreconcilable enemies in emigration. Disputes between the two newspapers were on all political issues, and above all, on the most painful one - who is to blame for what happened to Russia? Their endless bickering on this topic became a common feature of emigrant life. The neutral magazine Illustrated Russia published the following satirical picture: two dogs are squabbling, tearing out a gnawed bone from each other. The emigrant, looking at them, realizes: - Oh, I forgot to buy “News” and “Renaissance”!
In the conditions of World War II, P.N. Miliukov unconditionally sided with the USSR, viewing Germany as an aggressor. He sincerely rejoiced at the Stalingrad victory, assessing it as a turning point in favor of the USSR.
P.N. Miliukov died in Aix-les-Bains on March 31, 1943 at the age of 84, and was buried in a temporary plot of the local cemetery. Soon after the end of the war, the only surviving child of P.N. Milyukova, eldest son Nikolai, transported his father’s coffin to Paris, to the family crypt at the Batillion cemetery, where A.S. had previously been buried. Milyukova.
Personality assessments of P.N. Milyukov
It must be said that the attitude of his contemporaries towards Miliukov throughout his life remained complex and contradictory, and assessments of his personality were often polar opposite. In the memoir literature it is almost impossible to find impartial judgments about this extraordinary person, not colored by personal attitudes. He always had many enemies and at the same time many friends. Sometimes friends became enemies, but it happened - though rarely - and vice versa.
The ability to flexibly maneuver between political extremes, the desire to search for mutually acceptable solutions (those traits for which opponents on the right and left usually branded “cowardly liberalism”) coexisted in Miliukov with extraordinary personal courage, which he repeatedly demonstrated at decisive moments in his life. As Prince V.A. Obolensky, who knew Pavel Nikolaevich closely (and was quite critical of him), testified, he completely lacked a “fear reflex.”
His character combined the most contradictory features. Great political ambition and complete indifference to insults from opponents (he told friends: “They spit on me every day, but I don’t pay any attention”). Restraint, coldness, even some stiffness and true, unostentatious democracy in dealing with people of any rank, of any position. Iron tenacity in defending one's views and sudden, dizzying, completely unpredictable turns in one's political position. Commitment to democratic ideals, universal human values and unwavering devotion to the idea of strengthening and expanding the Russian Empire. An intelligent, insightful politician - and at the same time, according to the nickname that has stuck with him, “the god of tactlessness.”
Miliukov never attached importance to everyday comfort; he dressed cleanly, but extremely simply: his shabby suit and celluloid collar were the talk of the town.
In Paris, he lived in an old “abandoned house, where almost all his rooms were completely filled with shelves of books,” which made up a huge library of more than ten thousand volumes, not counting numerous sets of newspapers in different languages.
There were legends about Miliukov's ability to work. Pavel Nikolaevich managed to do a huge number of things in a day; all his life he wrote serious analytical articles every day, worked on books (the bibliographic list of his scientific works compiled in 1930 amounted to 38 typewritten pages). At the same time, he devoted a lot of time to editorial, Duma and party activities. And in the evenings he kept up with all sorts of entertainment: he was a regular at balls, charity evenings, theater premieres, and vernissages. Until his old age he remained a great ladies' man and enjoyed success, as one of the people close to him, D.I. Meisner, recalled.
In 1935, after the death of his wife A.S. Milyukova, P.N. At the age of 76, Miliukov married Nina (Antonina) Vasilievna Lavrova, whom he met back in 1908 and maintained the closest relationship for many years. Nina Vasilievna was much younger than her husband. Obeying her tastes, Miliukov agreed to move to a new apartment on Montparnasse Boulevard, where for the first time in his life he decorated his surroundings differently, “in a bourgeois way.” However, he himself, as before, remained outside all external conventions. According to the recollections of contemporaries, the elderly historian felt like a stranger in this apartment; he almost never dined in the dining room, preferring to have a snack in the office, right at his desk. When, during the German occupation, the Milyukovs' Paris apartment was robbed, Pavel Nikolaevich was most worried about the loss of his library and some manuscripts - the most precious thing that remained in his life.
Historical legacy of P.N. Milyukov
P. N. Milyukov’s views on the history of Russia were formulated in a number of works of a purely historical nature: “The state economy of Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century and the reform of Peter the Great”; “The Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought” is the largest domestic historiographic study of the late 19th century; “Essays on the history of Russian culture”, “Law school in Russian historiography (Soloviev, Kavelin, Chicherin, Sergeevich)”. His historical views were also reflected in his journalism: “The Year of Struggle: A Journalistic Chronicle”; "Second Duma"; "History of the Second Russian Revolution"; “Russia at a turning point”; “Bolshevik turning point of the Russian revolution”; “Republic or monarchy”, etc.
Despite his wide fame and popularity, Miliukov as a historian was not actually studied before the revolution. Important critical assessments of his views were given only by N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky and B. I. Syromyatnikov. The rest of the scientific community was disgusted by the passion of its recent member for politics, and therefore P.N. Milyukov was no longer taken seriously as a historian.
In Soviet times, the scientific concept of P.N. Milyukov was also viewed through the prism of his political views. This tradition remained almost unchanged in Soviet literature from the 1920s to the mid-1980s. According to the point of view of A.L. Shapiro and A.M. Sakharov, Miliukov stood on the principles of positivism and belonged to the school of neo-statists. They call him the most biased historian of the early twentieth century, who skillfully subordinated historical material to the argumentation of the political positions of the Russian bourgeoisie.
Only in the early 1980s did authors begin to free themselves from ideological standards in relation to the historian. For the first time, interest in the historiographical work of P. N. Milyukov appears. During this period, I. D. Kovalchenko and A. E. Shiklo expressed their point of view on the methodological views of P. N. Milyukov and defined them as typically neo-Kantian. It was recognized that, having learned something from historical materialism, P. N. Milyukov remained on idealistic positions and tried to use his theoretical weapons to refute the Marxist historical concept.
The most detailed study of the historical concept of P.N. Milyukov began in the 1990s, when the heritage of the Russian Abroad became one of the main objects of study by domestic historians.
In connection with the 140th anniversary of the birth of Miliukov, an international scientific conference dedicated to the memory of the historian was held in Moscow in May 1999, which resulted in the fundamental work “P. N. Milyukov: historian, politician, diplomat.” (M., 2000). It sums up the results of the study of the philosophical, historical and sociocultural foundations of Miliukov’s worldview, shows his contribution to Russian historical science, to the development of the doctrine and ideology, program and tactics of a new type of liberalism.
From this time on, the study of Miliukov’s historical creativity begins to acquire objectivity and comprehensiveness. And yet, it can be stated with bitterness that among Russian historians, the main work of P.N. Milyukov, “Essays on the History of Russian Culture,” remains uninterpreted today (to paraphrase G.V. Plekhanov, it remains a favorite, unread book, still something reading Russian public).
“Essays on the history of Russian culture” and the historical concept of P.N. Milyukov
Today we have every reason to assert that Miliukov’s historical concept developed on the basis of, in interaction and in contradiction with various theoretical, methodological and scientific-historical theories of both domestic and foreign science. The sources of influence on Miliukov’s historical constructions were varied, and his theoretical and methodological views reflected the complex historiographical situation of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when three main methodological systems collided - positivism, neo-Kantianism and Marxism.
Miliukov’s concept of the history of Russia developed gradually. The initial stage of its formation occurred in the mid-1880s and early 90s of the 19th century, when the historian wrote his master’s thesis “The State Economy of Russia in the Era of the Transformations of Peter I.” In Miliukov's first works, purely positivist positions are visible; the influence of the state (legal) historiographic school of S.M. Solovyov and the views of V.O. Klyuchevsky is great.
The further development of Miliukov’s concept is set out in “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” and a number of his historical and journalistic works.
In the first issue of “Essays” Miliukov outlined “general concepts” about history, its tasks and methods of scientific knowledge, defined the author’s theoretical approaches to the analysis of historical material, and contained essays on the population, economic, state and social system. The second and third issues examine the culture of Russia - the role of the church, faith, school, and various ideological movements.
P. N. Milyukov pointed out the existence of different directions in understanding the subject of history. History, filled with stories - stories about heroes and leaders of events (pragmatic, political), has been replaced by history, the main task of which is to study the life of the masses, i.e. internal history (everyday or cultural). Thus, P. N. Milyukov believed, “history will cease to be a subject of simple curiosity, a motley collection of “days past anecdotes” - and will become “a subject capable of arousing scientific interest and bringing practical benefit.”
Miliukov considered the opposition between “cultural” history, material, social, spiritual, etc., existing in science to be unfounded. “Cultural history” is understood by him in the broadest sense of the word and includes: “economic, social, state, mental, religious, and aesthetic” history. “...We consider attempts to reduce all of the listed aspects of historical evolution to just one completely hopeless,” the historian concludes.
The very historical concept of P.N. Milyukov was initially built on a positivist multifactorial approach to the analysis of historical material.
Demographic factor
Among the factors influencing the process of historical development, Miliukov attached particular importance to the “population factor,” i.e. historical demography. Miliukov constantly compared population processes in Russia with similar processes in Western European countries. He believed that there were two types of countries: countries with low welfare, and weak development of individuality, with the presence of unspent sources of livelihood. In these countries, population growth will be most significant. The second type is characterized by a high degree of well-being of the population, the individual has great scope for development, and labor productivity can be increased by artificial means, and, accordingly, population growth is inhibited. Miliukov classifies Russia as one of the first type of countries. Russia was characterized by a low level of well-being, the isolation of a lower social system, poor development of individuality, and, accordingly, a large number of marriages and births.
Miliukov “considered demographic processes, both in Russia and in Europe, in their totality and as determined by the ethnographic composition of the population and colonization,” considered it necessary to take into account the time of settlement, and noted the delay of these processes in Russia compared to Western European ones.
Geographical and economic factors
The second section of “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” deals with economic life. According to Miliukov, Russia's economic development was lagging behind Western Europe. The initial thesis of his reasoning: the transition from subsistence to barter economy in the countries of Western Europe was completed much earlier than in Russia. The belatedness of the historical process is explained by Miliukov exclusively by climatic and geographical reasons, because The Russian plain was freed from continuous ice cover much later than Western European territory. Over time, this delay could not be overcome, and it was deepened by the interaction of a number of local conditions.
According to P.N. Milyukov, the population usually begins by plundering natural resources. When there are not enough of them, the population begins to migrate and settle in other territories. This process, according to the historian, took place throughout the history of Russia and was far from over in the 19th century. The researcher names the north and southeast as the main directions of colonization. The continuous movement of the Russian people prevented the growth of population density, which determined the primitive nature of our economic economy:
“...In general, our entire economic past is a time of dominance of subsistence farming. In the agricultural class, only the liberation of the peasants caused the final transition to barter farming, and in the peasant class, natural farming would have flourished to this day if the need to get money to pay taxes had not forced the peasant to bring his products and personal labor to the market,” wrote P. N. Milyukov.
Miliukov associated the beginning of the industrial development of Russia exclusively with the activities of Peter I and the factor of state necessity. The second stage of industrial development - named after Catherine II; a new type of completely capitalist factory - with the reform of 1861, and the traditional state patronage of industry, according to the historian, reached its apogee by the end of the 19th century.
In Russia, unlike the West, manufacture and factory did not have time to develop organically from home production. They were created artificially by the government. New forms of production were transferred from the West ready-made. At the same time, Miliukov notes that since the second half of the 19th century there has been a rapid break in Russia with its economic past.
The general conclusion arising from the analysis of the economic development of Russia and Western countries: “having fallen behind its past, Russia is still far from catching up with the European present.”
Role of the State
P. N. Milyukov explains the predominant role of the state in Russian history by purely external reasons, namely: the elementary nature of economic development, due to demographic and climatic factors; the presence of external threats and geographical conditions that contributed to continuous expansion. Therefore, the main distinguishing feature of the Russian state is its military-national character.
Next, Miliukov identifies five fiscal and administrative revolutions in the life of the state, carried out as a result of growing military needs in the period between the end of the fifteenth century and the death of Peter the Great (1490, 1550, 1680 and 1700-20). Summing up his arguments in the conclusion to the first volume of the Essays, Milyukov wrote: “If we want to formulate the general impression that is obtained when comparing all the aspects of the Russian historical process that we have touched upon with the same aspects of the historical development of the West, then, it seems, it will be possible to reduce this impression to two main features. What is striking about our historical evolution is, firstly, its extreme elementaryness, and secondly, its complete originality.”
According to P.N. Milyukov, the development of Russia occurs in accordance with the same universal laws as in the West, but with a huge delay. The historian believed that at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, Russia was already going through the stage of state hypertrophy and was developing in the same direction as Europe.
However, already early critics, in particular N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky and B.I. Syromyatnikov, drew attention to the unsuccessful and completely inexplicable leap from the former backward “originality” to the future successful uniformity with the West in Miliukov’s concept. Later, Miliukov made changes to the thesis about originality. In 1930, in a lecture “The Sociological Foundations of the Russian Historical Process,” given in Berlin, Miliukov reduced his concept of originality to the idea of backwardness or slowness. And subsequently, in his efforts to distance himself from the Eurasians, Miliukov completely destroyed the Russia-Europe dichotomy by recognizing the existence of multiple “Europes” and constructing a West-East cultural bias that included Russia as the easternmost flank of Europe, and therefore as the most distinctive European country.
Thus, P. N. Milyukov in “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” tries to return to state theory, but accumulates the latest achievements of domestic and European thought, laying a more solid foundation for it.
The historian constantly emphasizes such a feature of Russia as the absence of a “dense impenetrable layer” between the government and the population, i.e. feudal elite. This led to the fact that public organization in Rus' was made directly dependent on state power. In Russia, unlike the West, there was no independent landowning noble class; by its origin it was a service class and dependent on the military-national state.
The military-national state was personified by P. N. Milyukov with the Muscovite kingdom of the 15th-16th centuries. The main spring is “the need for self-defense, which imperceptibly and involuntarily turns into a policy of unification and territorial expansion.” The development of the Russian state is connected with the development of military needs. “The army and finances... have been absorbing the attention of the central government for a long time since the end of the 15th century,” writes P. N. Milyukov. All other reforms have always been caused only by these two needs.
However, P. N. Milyukov does not accept the empiricism of positivism and the absolutization of the economic factor in the sociological schemes of Marxism. He presents his position as something between idealism and materialism. The philosophical studies of P. N. Milyukov belong to the period when the research program of neo-Kantianism was just beginning to take shape in Russian historiography. The main battles between positivists and neo-Kantians were still ahead, therefore in the works of P. N. Milyukov we find neither a formulation of the problem of the specific logic of historical research, nor methods for resolving it. One can, perhaps, talk about the evolution of a historian towards neo-Kantianism only by keeping in mind the general cultural atmosphere, imbued with interest in personality, creativity, historicism, culture in general, and in particular, “cultural history”, which the author reflects on.
“Cultural history” by P.N. Milyukov
In 1896, two outstanding historians - K. Lamprecht in Germany and P.N. Milyukov in Russia, independently announced a new direction in historical science. And to denote this direction, both historians chose a new term - “cultural history”. It was a reaction to the crisis of historicism in the 19th century. To explain the historical process, both used socio-economic factors; subsequently, both were suspected of historical materialism.
“While Miliukov relied on sociology and used social psychology as an additional auxiliary means to establish the parallelism of material and spiritual processes, Lamprecht took a step further. He got lost in folk psychologism, which is based on artistic and historical categories. Ultimately, Lamprecht concentrated his scientific interests on national consciousness, or the mental life of the people. In contrast, Miliukov sought to establish a cultural tradition or democratize society,” this is how the modern German scientist T. Bohn outlined the unique historical and cultural situation at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, where he sees the origins of the modern understanding of anthropological searches.
Miliukov considers the “place of development” and the economy as a building in which spiritual culture lives and develops. Its existence, according to P. N. Milyukov, is a reception process, which is transmitted by school, church, literature, and theater. For Russia, external cultural influence played a decisive role in this process. The main feature of Russian culture, according to the historian, is the absence of a cultural tradition, which he understands as “the unity of public education in a certain specific direction.” Initially, the influence of Byzantium dominated, manifesting itself most forcefully in the attitude of Russian society to religion, then, starting from the era of Peter the Great's reforms, Russia experienced a decisive influence of German and French cultures.
In this matter, P. N. Milyukov continues the tradition of his teacher V. O. Klyuchevsky, who believes that the 17th century marks the beginning of a new Russian history, however, the process of Europeanization affects only the upper strata of Russian society, mainly the nobility, which predetermined it further break with the people.
When the Russian man “awake up to an unexpectedly large sum of alien habits, learned in small ways, it was already too late to go back,” states P. N. Milyukov. “The old way of life had already been virtually destroyed.”
The only force that could come out in defense of antiquity was schism. According to P.N. Milyukov, he was a big step forward for the religious self-awareness of the masses, since for the first time he awakened their feelings and thoughts. However, the split did not become the banner of nationalist protest, because “in order to accept... under the protection of the nationalist religion the entire national antiquity, it was necessary that all of it be subjected to persecution...”. This did not happen in the 17th century, and by the era of the reforms of Peter I, the schismatic movement had already lost its strength.
The reform of Peter I is the first step in the formation of a new cultural tradition, the reform of Catherine is the second. P.N. Milyukov considered the era of Catherine II to be an entire era in the history of Russian national identity. It was at this time that the “prehistoric, tertiary period” of Russian social life ends, the old forms finally die out or emigrate to the lower strata of society, the new culture finally wins.
A characteristic feature of Russian culture, according to P. N. Milyukov, is the spiritual gap between the intelligentsia and the people, which was revealed primarily in the area of faith. As a result of the weakness and passivity of the Russian church, the attitude of an intelligent person towards the church was initially indifferent, while the people were characterized by religiosity (albeit formal), which intensified immensely during the schism. The final line between the intelligentsia and the people was laid as a result of the emergence of a new cultural tradition in our country: the intelligentsia turned out to be the bearer of critical elements, while the masses of the people were nationalistic.
In his later work, “The Intelligentsia and Historical Tradition,” P. N. Milyukov argues that, in principle, the break between the intelligentsia and the traditional beliefs of the masses is quite natural. It is not at all a characteristic feature of the relationship between Russian strata of society, but “is a permanent law for every intelligentsia, if only the intelligentsia is truly the advanced part of the nation, performing its functions of criticism and intellectual initiative.” Only in Russia did this process, due to the peculiarities of its historical development, acquire such a pronounced character.
The very emergence of the intelligentsia in Russia Miliukov dates back to the 50-60s of the 18th century, but its number and influence at that time was so insignificant that the historian begins the continuous history of Russian intellectual public opinion from the 70s - 80s of the 18th century. It was during the era of Catherine II that an environment appeared in Russia that could serve as an object of cultural influence.
The fate of the Russian faith and the absence of tradition, believes P. N. Milyukov, determined the fate of Russian creativity: “... the independent development of national creativity, as well as the national faith, was stopped at the very beginning.”
The historian identifies four periods of development of literature and art. The first period - until the 16th century - is characterized by the mechanical reproduction of Byzantine designs. The second period - the 16th-17th centuries - is a period of unconscious folk art with the active use of local national characteristics. Under pressure from adherents of true Greek antiquity, all national creativity is persecuted. Therefore, during the third period, art began to serve the upper class and copy Western works. Everything popular at this time becomes the property of the lower strata of society. With the onset of the fourth period, art became a true need of Russian society, attempts at independence were revealed, the goal of which was serving society, and the means was realism.
The history of the Russian school is closely dependent on the history of the Russian church. As a result of the failure of the church to establish a school, knowledge began to penetrate into society outside of it. Therefore, having started to create a school, the state did not encounter any competitors, which subsequently predetermined the very strong dependence of the Russian school on the mood of the Russian authorities and society.
Thus, P. N. Milyukov considers the history of Russian spiritual culture as a unity of social, power facts and internal mental processes. Unfortunately, in the Soviet tradition, such a synthetic approach to cultural history was lost and replaced by class analysis.
To this day, there is an opinion in the scientific community that the “Westernizer” Miliukov belittled the development and significance of Russian culture. Even in the latest publications (for example, in the works of S. Ikonnikova) we encounter such conclusions. However, Miliukov's concept of borrowings is more complex and interesting. The researcher largely anticipates the modern vision of the interaction of cultures, their mutual dialogue.
Miliukov believes that simple borrowing is being replaced by creative comprehension. Changing the composition of participants in the dialogue contributes, according to P.N. Miliukov, the destruction of some historical prejudices. For example, when assessing the legal school in Russian historiography, he focuses not on borrowing, but on combining the ideas of the historical school and the German philosophy of Hegel and Schelling. A dialogue of cultures is taking place, according to P.N. Miliukov, certain stages: acceptance of foreign culture (translations); “incubation period” accompanied by compilations and imitations of others; completely independent development of Russian spiritual creativity and, finally, the transition to the stage of “communication with the world as equal” and influencing foreign cultures.
Characteristics of dialogue given by P.N. Miliukov in the latest, Paris edition of the “Essays”, largely echoes the model of dialogue by Yu.M. Lotman - the perception of a one-way flow of texts, mastering a foreign language and recreating similar texts - and, finally, a radical transformation of a foreign tradition, i.e. stages when the party that receives some cultural texts becomes the transmitter.
Thus, considering the process of borrowing, Miliukov resorts to a figurative comparison of it with photography, or more precisely, with a developer, without which an image that already exists in potency is not perceived by a person: “The picture was, in fact, before its “manifestation” in solution. But every photographer knows that not only is a developer necessary to reveal the picture, but that to a certain extent it is possible to influence the distribution of light and shadow in the picture by changing the composition of the solution. Foreign influence usually plays the role of such a “developer” of the created historical picture - a given national type.”
The theme of revolution in the historical and journalistic works of Miliukov
The First Russian Revolution was reflected in the journalistic works “The Year of Struggle” and “The Second Duma”. The articles in the first collection cover the period from November 1904 to the end of May 1906; the second - from February to June 3, 1907. Considering the history of the first Russian revolution, Miliukov assesses it as a natural phenomenon. It was called upon to carry out, in a reformist way, the transformation of tsarism into a legal bourgeois state in the form of a constitutional monarchy. Miliukov reduced the causes of the revolution of 1905-1907 to a statement of political preconditions with a clear dominance of the psychological factor. He saw the essence of the revolutionary upheavals at the beginning of the twentieth century in the conflict between government and society over the constitution, and he considered all phases of the first Russian revolution to be phases of the struggle for the constitution.
Miliukov, as a participant in the events, was characterized by a political and legal approach to the first Russian revolution. Therefore, these works cannot even be called historical and journalistic. The participant in the events expressed his opinion - and that’s all.
Miliukov devotes a large work to the Second Russian Revolution, “The History of the Second Russian Revolution.” His vision of the revolution is significantly complemented by the work “Russia at the Turning Point. Bolshevik period of the revolution" (Paris, 1927, Vol. 1-2).
The opportunistic conclusions and the weakness of the source base of the above studies are partly explained by the fact that the politician P.N. Milyukov in 1917-1920 did not have a real opportunity to create, in fact, a historical work.
He began writing “The History of the Second Russian Revolution” at the end of November 1917 in Rostov-on-Don, and continued in Kyiv, where it was planned to publish 4 issues. In December 1918, the printing house of the Letopis publishing house, where the first part of the book was typed, was destroyed by the Petliurites. The entire set of the book was destroyed. Miliukov, now busy saving the fatherland from the Bolsheviks, was able to start working on “History” again only in the fall of 1920, when he received a copy of the manuscript that he had saved from the publisher, who had moved to Sofia. The matter began in full swing in December 1920: the author gained access to an extensive collection of Russian periodicals stored in Paris. It was they, combined with personal observations, memories and conclusions of the ex-historian Miliukov, that formed the basis of his “History of the Second Russian Revolution”. The full text of the book was prepared for printing and published in Sofia in three parts (1921-1923).
The “History” he wrote does not contain the moral indignation and accusatory tone that was present in the works of contemporary authors of the moderate socialist trend. Miliukov the politician did not try to defend socialism from “Bolshevik” perversions. For him, the main issue of the revolution was the question of power, not justice. In his History, Miliukov argued that the success of the Bolsheviks was due to the inability of their socialist opponents to view the struggle from these positions.
Other socialist leaders (Chernov, Kerensky) usually began the periodization of the history of the October Revolution with the Bolshevik coup, thereby ignoring their own failures and defeats throughout 1917. Miliukov considered the Bolshevik regime to be the logical result of the activities of Russian politicians after the collapse of the autocracy. If, in the view of the socialists, the Bolshevik government was a kind of separate, qualitatively new phenomenon, completely isolated from the so-called “conquests of the February Revolution,” then Miliukov viewed the revolution as a single political process that began in February and reached its culmination in October.
The essence of this process, according to Miliukov, was the inexorable disintegration of state power. Before the readers of Miliukov's History, the revolution appeared as a tragedy in three acts. The first is from February to July days; the second is the collapse of the right-wing military alternative to the revolutionary state (Kornilov mutiny); the third - “The Agony of Power” - the history of the last Kerensky government up to such an easy victory over it by the Leninist party.
In each of the volumes, Miliukov focused on government policy. All three volumes of History are filled with quotes from speeches and statements of leading politicians of post-February Russia. The purpose of this quotation panorama is to show the pretentious incompetence of all the rapidly changing rulers.
Analyzing the causes of the revolution, the author again draws attention to the complex system of interaction of geographical, economic, political, social, intellectual, cultural, and psychological factors, diluting all this with examples drawn from periodical materials.
Miliukov, as one would expect, placed all the blame for the defeat of the revolution on Kerensky and the socialist leaders. He accused his fellow politicians of “inaction under the guise of phrases,” a lack of political responsibility and the resulting common sense action. Against this background, the behavior of the Bolsheviks in 1917 was an example of a rational desire for power. The moderate socialists were defeated not because they failed to achieve their goals, but because they themselves did not know what they wanted. Such a party, according to Miliukov, could not win.
“The History of the Second Russian Revolution” aroused sharp criticism from both emigrant and Soviet historiography. The author was accused of rigid determinism, schematic thinking, subjectivity of assessments, and positivistic “factualism.”
But here's what's interesting. Although in “History” the theme of betrayal and “German money”, thanks to which the Bolsheviks were able to achieve their goals, loudly sounds, in general both in this book and in the two-volume “Russia at the Turning Point” (history of the civil war) published in 1926, Lenin and his followers are portrayed as strong, strong-willed and intelligent people. It is known that Miliukov in exile was one of the most stubborn and implacable opponents of the Bolsheviks. At the same time, he retained his attitude towards them as serious bearers of the state idea, whom the people followed, until the end of his life, which alienated almost the entire white émigré community from himself - from fierce monarchists to yesterday’s comrades-in-arms liberals and socialists of all stripes.
Partly for this reason, and partly because of not very high professionalism and a purely positivist approach to research methodology, Miliukov’s latest works were not successful. It’s not for nothing that they say that you cannot step into the same river twice. A historian who himself strives to make history, as a rule, dies for science forever.
This happened with P.N. Milyukov. For a long time, his name as a politician was inclined in every way by the Russian monarchist emigration; At home, the leader of the Cadet Party was also cursed and almost completely forgotten. In history lessons in Soviet schools, he was remembered only as the hapless “Milyukov of the Dardanelles,” calling for war to the bitter end, when the “tops” couldn’t and the bottom “didn’t want to.” Moreover, I. Ilf and E. Petrov in their satirical novel “The Twelve Chairs” (by chance or not?) gave the treasure hunter Kisa Vorobyaninov not only an external resemblance to the former leader of the Kadet Party, but also made a clear nod towards Miliukov, naming his colleague Ostap Bender "a giant of thought and the father of Russian democracy."
Nevertheless, there has always been interest in the scientific community in the original concept of “cultural history” by P.N. Milyukov. This concept was invariably reflected even in Soviet university textbooks; Miliukov’s historical works were translated and repeatedly republished in the West. And today, interest in the historian and politician Miliukov does not wane, forcing researchers from different countries to turn again and again to the study of his scientific heritage.
Elena Shirokova
The following literature was used in preparing the article:
- Alexandrov S.A. The leader of the Russian cadets P.N. Miliukov in exile. M., 1996.
- Arkhipov I. P. N. Milyukov: intellectual and dogmatist of Russian liberalism // Zvezda, 2006. - No. 12
- Vandalkovskaya M.G. P.N. Miliukov // P.N. Milyukov. Memories. M., 1990. T.1. P.3-37.
- Vishnyak M.V. Two paths February and October - Paris. Publishing house "Modern Notes", 1931.
- Dumova N.G. Liberal in Russia: the tragedy of incompatibility. M., 1993.
- Petrusenko N.V. Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich // New historical bulletin, 2002. - No. 2 (7)
politician, leader of the Kadet Party, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government, publicist and pro-Western historian.
From an ancient noble family. Son of professor-architect Nikolai Pavlovich Milyukov. He was educated at home and graduated from the 1st Moscow Gymnasium (1877). In the summer of 1877, he was in Transcaucasia as the treasurer of the military economy, and then as an authorized representative of the Moscow sanitary detachment. In September 1877 entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, among his teachers were P.G. Vinogradov, V.O. Klyuchevsky and N.S. Tikhonravov.
Scientific activity
Since 1886, he was a private assistant professor at Moscow University, and simultaneously taught at the gymnasium and at the Higher Women's Courses; in 1892 he was awarded a master's degree in Russian history for his dissertation on the topic “State economy of Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century. and the reforms of Peter the Great" (he was also awarded the S.M. Solovyov Prize). From 1892 to 1895 he taught the course “History of Russian Culture” at the university. In 1895, Miliukov was dismissed from the university with a ban on teaching “for having a harmful influence on young people” and because of “extreme political unreliability” and was exiled to Ryazan, where in 1895-1897. participated in archaeological excavations. In 1897, Miliukov was invited to Bulgaria, where he was offered to give a course of lectures on history at the Sofia Higher School. In 1898 he was removed from teaching at the request of the Russian authorities. Miliukov traveled to Macedonia and took part in an archaeological expedition. He described his impressions in “Letters from the Road,” which were published in Russkie Vedomosti.
Gradually, Miliukov formed his own view of history. He denied the laws of the historical process, contrasted the historical development of Russia and the West and, based on the theory of the eternal cultural backwardness of Rus', concluded about the progressive role of foreign borrowings, etc. Miliukov wanted to prove that the masses in Russia have always been characterized by inertia. In addition, Miliukov argued that the decisive role in the history of the country was played by state power, which had a supra-class character.
Political activity
In 1899, Miliukov returned to Russia, to St. Petersburg. A year later, in February 1900, he presided over an evening dedicated to the memory of P.A. Lavrova. For his “funeral speech”, Miliukov was arrested and sentenced to 6 months in prison with a ban on residing in the capital after the end of his prison term. V.O. stood up for Miliukov. Klyuchevsky, who turned to the emperor with a request to reduce the term of imprisonment; Ultimately, the sentence was cut almost in half.
In 1902, Miliukov prepared a draft policy statement for the magazine “Liberation,” and a year later, in 1903, he undertook a long trip abroad, which lasted until 1905. During this trip, Miliukov gave lectures in the USA about Russia and the Slavs. In the winter of 1903 -1904. he lived in England and met N.V. in London. Tchaikovsky, P.A. Kropotkin, E.K. Breshko-Breshkovskaya, R. MacDonald. In addition, he had a meeting with V.I. Lenin, visited Canada, where he prepared the publication of the book “Russia and its Crisis”.
In April 1905, Miliukov returned to Russia. On May 24, at the opening congress of the Union of Unions, he was elected its chairman. Miliukov managed to convince the congress to accept his proposed appeal to society and the people, in which the idea of convening a Constituent Assembly was put forward. Miliukov set himself the task of creating not a revolutionary, but a constitutional party; according to him, the task of this party should be to fight “parliamentary means.”
At the founding congress of the Constitutional Democratic Party, which took place in October 1905, Miliukov was tasked with delivering an introductory address to the congress and a report on tactics. He prepared his appeal, but the final decisions on the tactics, ideology and organization of the People's Freedom Party (PNS) were made only at its 2nd congress, held in January 1906. Since 1905, member, since 1907, chairman Party Central Committee. Since February 1906, co-editor (together with I.V. Gessen) of the main cadet newspaper “Rech”; Miliukov himself published a lot in the newspaper and was the author of almost all of its editorials.
State Duma Deputy
Miliukov was not elected to the 1st State Duma; opposition from the authorities had an impact, although the formal pretext for exclusion from participation in the elections was non-compliance with the requirements of the housing qualification. After the dissolution of the Duma, he was one of the drafters of the Vyborg Appeal, which called on the population to civil disobedience. Due to Miliukov's participation in the drafting of the Vyborg Appeal, he was prohibited from participating in the elections to the 2nd State Duma.
In the fall of 1907, Miliukov was elected as a deputy to the 3rd State Duma. As chairman of the Cadet faction, it was Miliukov who took upon himself all speeches in the Duma on issues of a constitutional and political nature. However, the main specialty to which Miliukov turned his attention was foreign policy issues.
At the Extraordinary Session of the Duma, on the occasion of the outbreak of the First World War, on July 26, 1914, Miliukov read out a statement he had written, which was approved by the Party Central Committee: “We are fighting for the liberation of the Motherland from foreign invasion, for the liberation of Europe and the Slavs from German hegemony... We are united in this fight; We don’t set conditions, we don’t demand anything.” Because of this statement and Miliukov’s desire to wage the war to a victorious end, he was called the “leader of the Duma opposition.”
In the summer of 1915, Miliukov became one of the main initiators of the creation of the Progressive Bloc. As he himself wrote in his memoirs: “I was called the “author of the bloc,” “leader of the bloc,” and they expected from me the direction of the bloc’s policy. … It was the highlight of my career.” The bloc's program was as follows: the creation of a government consisting of persons who enjoy the country's trust; a radical change in management methods and the creation of a general administration for political crimes; the equation of peasants with other classes; reform of city and land institutions, etc. At the same time, Miliukov took an active part in organizing and directing a large-scale slander campaign in the press aimed at discrediting the government and the Royal Family.
On November 1, 1916, Miliukov delivered his famous speech in the Duma, which was banned for publication, but was distributed in lists throughout the country. In his speech, Miliukov categorically and without any evidence accused Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and Russian Prime Minister B.V. Stürmer in preparing a separate peace with Germany. In his memoirs, Miliukov wrote: “I spoke about rumors, about “treason”... about the actions of the government that arouse public indignation, and in each case I left it to the listeners to decide whether it was “stupidity” or “treason”... But I disguised the most powerful part of the speech with a quote “ Neue Freie Press.” There the name of the empress was mentioned in connection with the names of the camarilla surrounding her...” One of the results of Miliukov’s slanderous speech was another government crisis and the resignation of B.V. Sturmer.
On February 27, 1917, Miliukov, at a private meeting of the Duma, made a proposal to wait a little time until the nature of the movement was clear, and in the meantime create a temporary committee of Duma members to restore order in the country. This proposal was accepted, and Miliukov was elected a member of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma. At meetings of the Progressive Bloc and the Provisional Committee, Miliukov actively participated in the discussion of all issues of the revolution, including the composition of the government.
On March 2, Miliukov made a speech in the Catherine Hall of the Tauride Palace and announced the composition of the Provisional Government, headed by Prince G.E. Lviv. Miliukov spoke quite clearly about the emperor and the Romanov dynasty: “The old despot, who brought Russia to complete ruin, will voluntarily renounce the throne - or will be deposed. Power will pass to the regent, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. Alexey will be the heir.” However, on March 3 it became known that Nicholas II abdicated the throne in favor of his brother. Therefore, at a meeting of the Provisional Committee and members of the Provisional Government with the participation of Mikhail Alexandrovich, Milyukov spoke out against the abdication of the Grand Duke. He argued his position by saying that strong power is necessary to strengthen the new order, but it also needs the support of a symbol of power, to which the masses are already accustomed. However, such statements did not find support among the majority of leaders of the Progressive Bloc.
Foreign Secretary
In the first composition of the Provisional Government, Miliukov served as Minister of Foreign Affairs. One of his first steps in his new post was to order embassies to provide assistance in the return of emigrant revolutionaries to Russia. Also, Miliukov continued to adhere to his position of war to the bitter end, and therefore intended to work and advocate for Russia to fulfill its obligations to its Entente allies. However, this caused even more indignation on the part of the left parties, as well as the Petrograd Soviet. The left increased pressure on the government and demanded that it immediately appeal to its allies with a proposal to abandon “annexations and indemnities.” When he expressed his disagreement with such a decision, a new campaign began against Miliukov as Minister of Foreign Affairs and the one who could directly contact the Allies.
Due to the heavy defeats suffered at the front, as well as economic difficulties and anti-war revolutionary agitation, a sharply negative attitude towards the continuation of the war spread in Russia. The Statement of the Provisional Government of March 27 (April 9), 1917 spoke of full compliance with the obligations assumed towards the Allies. However, at the same time, the Declaration contained provisions that allowed for a speedy end to hostilities (for example, refusal of annexations and indemnities, etc.). Due to some concern on the part of the allies, which was caused by the ambiguity of the Statement of the Provisional Government, on April 18 Miliukov attached his transmitting note (the so-called “Milyukov Note”), which was an additional document to the Statement and which set out the point of view of the country’s leadership on Russia's participation in the war. In the note, Miliukov stated that the position of the Provisional Government does not give any reason to think about weakening the role of Russia in the common allied struggle and proclaims a nationwide desire to bring the world war to a victorious end. The note served as the pretext for the April Crisis, which became the first armed demonstration against the Provisional Government on April 20 and 21. Participants in this demonstration demanded Miliukov's resignation from the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs. In a similar situation, Miliukov was forced to resign on May 2(15), 1917.
Emigration
After his resignation, he continued his political activities as the leader of the Kadet Party, supported the Kornilov movement (after the defeat of the speech, he was forced to leave Petrograd for Crimea). Miliukov had a sharply negative attitude towards the Bolsheviks coming to power and was a consistent supporter of armed struggle against them. On November 14, Miliukov was elected to the Constituent Assembly but did not participate in its activities, since he left for the Don.
Having moved from the Don to Kyiv, Miliukov came into contact with the command of the German troops (May 1918), as he considered Germany as a potential ally in the fight against the power of the Bolsheviks. The Central Committee of the Cadet Party condemned this policy, and Miliukov resigned as chairman of the Central Committee. At the end of October, he admitted his policy towards the German army was wrong. Since the end of 1918, Miliukov was abroad (in Romania, Paris, London).
Two years later, in 1920, Miliukov settled in Paris. There he became editor-in-chief of the influential foreign Russian newspaper “Last News” and held this position from March 1921 to 1941. During his emigration, Pavel Nikolaevich wrote a number of works on the history of the revolution and civil war.
In 1922, during a speech in Berlin, Miliukov was assassinated by monarchists, but the bullet hit V.D. Nabokov, who covered it with himself.
On the eve of World War II, Miliukov was a determined opponent of Germany, and shortly before his death, he sincerely rejoiced at the victory of Soviet troops at Stalingrad. In 1954, after the lease for the grave expired, the ashes were transferred to Paris, to the Batignolles cemetery, where they were buried next to A.S. Milyukova.
Family
In his first marriage, Miliukov was married to the daughter of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Anna Sergeevna Smirnova (1861 - 1935); 2nd marriage - to Nina Vasilievna Grigorievna (1881 - 1960). Children: Nikolai (1889-1957), Sergei (1894-1915), Natalya (1898-1921).
Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich (1859-1943), Russian politician, leader of the Cadet Party, historian. Born on January 15 (27), 1859 in Moscow, in the family of an inspector and teacher at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. He studied at the 1st Moscow Gymnasium, where he discovered great abilities in the field of humanities, especially in the study of languages; in 1877 he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. He studied with professors F.F. Fortunatov, V.F. Miller, M.M. Troitsky, V.I. Gerye, P.G. Vinogradov, V.O. Klyuchevsky. Communication with the latter determined the choice of profession and scientific interests related to the study of the history of the Fatherland.
From his first year at university, Miliukov became involved in the student movement, joining its moderate wing, which advocated university autonomy. In 1881, as an active participant in the movement, he was arrested and then expelled from the university (with the right of reinstatement after a year). The time missed for classes was spent in Italy, where he studied Renaissance art.
Lenin's judgments were deeply realistic. He is a centralist and a statist - and most of all counts on measures of direct state violence.
Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich
After graduating from the university, he was left at the department of Russian history, headed by V.O. Klyuchevsky, for “preparation for a professorship.” In preparation for the master's (candidate's) exam, I read special courses on historiography, historical geography, and the history of the colonization of Russia. The course on historiography was later compiled into the book Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought (1896). At the same time, he taught at the 4th Women's Gymnasium, at the Agricultural School, and at higher courses for women.
In 1892, Miliukov defended his master's thesis on the book The State Economy of Russia in the First Quarter of the 18th Century and the Reform of Peter the Great, published in the same year. In the preface, the author wrote: historical science “puts on priority the study of the material side of the historical process, the study of economic and financial history, social history, and the history of institutions.” The dissertation was highly appreciated by the scientific community: the author received the S.M. Solovyov Prize for it. However, the proposal to immediately award a doctorate did not pass; V.O. Klyuchevsky protested, and this cooled the relationship between student and teacher for many years.
Gradually, Miliukov began to pay more and more attention to educational activities. He was elected chairman of the Commission for the Organization of Home Reading, collaborated on the Moscow Literacy Committee, and repeatedly traveled to the provinces to give lectures. In 1894, for a series of lectures given in Nizhny Novgorod, which contained “hints on the general aspirations of freedom and condemnation of the autocracy,” Miliukov was arrested, expelled from Moscow University and exiled to Ryazan.
The years spent in exile were filled with scientific work. In Ryazan, Miliukov began his most significant research - Essays on the history of Russian culture (first published in a magazine, in 1896-1903 they were published as a separate publication in three issues). The first issue sets out “general concepts” about history, its tasks and methods of scientific knowledge, and defines the author’s theoretical approaches to the analysis of historical material; here are essays on the population, economic, state and social system. The second and third issues examine the culture of Russia - the role of the church, faith, school, and various ideological movements.
While in exile, Miliukov received an invitation from the Sofia Higher School in Bulgaria to head the department of general history. The authorities allowed the trip. The scientist stayed in Bulgaria for two years, gave lectures, studied Bulgarian and Turkish (in total, Miliukov knew 18 foreign languages). Deliberately ignoring the ceremonial reception at the Russian embassy in Sofia on the occasion of the name day of Nicholas II caused irritation in St. Petersburg. The Bulgarian government was demanded to fire Miliukov. The “unemployed” scientist moved to Turkey, where he took part in an expedition of the Constantinople Archaeological Institute in excavations in Macedonia.
Upon returning to St. Petersburg for participating in a meeting dedicated to the memory of P.L. Lavrov, the scientist was again arrested and spent six months in prison. He lived in the vicinity of St. Petersburg, since he was prohibited from living in the capital. During this period, Miliukov became close to the liberal zemstvo environment. He became one of the founders of the magazine “Osvobozhdenie” and the political organization of Russian liberals “Union of Liberation”. In 1902-1904 he repeatedly traveled to England, then to the USA, where he lectured at the University of Chicago and Harvard, and at the Lowell Institute in Boston. The course taught was compiled into the book Russia and Its Crisis (1905).
Loading...
