Edited by prof. A.V. Zapadova. Third, revised edition
PUBLISHING HOUSE “HIGH SCHOOL”, MOSCOW – 1973
Introduction
Part I. The emergence of the Russian periodical press and its development in the 18th century – beginning of the 19th century
"Vedomosti"
“St. Petersburg Gazette” and “Notes” to them
"Monthly Essays"
Lomonosov and scientific journalism
"The Busy Bee" and "Idle Time"
Journalism of Moscow University
St. Petersburg magazines of 1769
"Drone"
"Painter"
"Interlocutor for lovers of the Russian word"
Journals of N. I. Novikov of the 1770s–1780s
"Friend of Honest People"
Journalism by A. N. Radishchev
Journals of I. A. Krylov
"Moscow Magazine"
"St. Petersburg Magazine"
Journalism 1800 – 1810s
"Bulletin of Europe"
Journals of Karamzinists
Publications associated with the Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts
Reactionary journalism
Patriotic War of 1812 and Russian journalism
Part II. Journalism of the noble period of the liberation movement in Russia
Journalism of the Decembrist movement
"Son of the Fatherland"
“Competitor of education and charity” and “Nevsky Spectator”
Almanacs of the Decembrists “Polar Star”, “Mnemosyne” and “Russian Antiquity”
Unfulfilled plans of the Decembrists
Russian journalism in the second half of the 1820s and in the 1830s
Publications by F. V. Bulgarin and N. I. Grech and the magazine “Library for Reading”
Journalistic activity of A. S. Pushkin
"Moscow Telegraph"
"Athenaeus", "Moskovsky Vestnik" and "European"
"Telescope" and "Rumor". N. I. Nadezhdin – publisher and critic
Journalistic activity of V. G. Belinsky in the 1830s
Part III. Journalism during the transition from the nobility to the common period of the liberation movement in Russia
Journalism in the forties
"Domestic Notes"
"Contemporary"
"Finnish Herald"
Journals of the "triumvirate"
"Repertoire and Pantheon"
"Moskvitian"
Slavophile publications
Russian press during the “dark seven years” (1848–1855)
Journal and publishing activities of A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogareva. "Polar Star" and "Bell"
Part IV. Journalism of the raznochinsky period of the liberation movement in Russia
Journalism in the sixties
"Contemporary". Journalistic activity of N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubova
Organ of revolutionary democracy
The peasant question in Sovremennik
Sovremennik in the fight against liberal-monarchist journalism
"Contemporary" about the peasant reform of 1861
"Whistle"
The problem of the people and revolution in Sovremennik
Journalistic skills of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov
"Contemporary" during the decline of the revolutionary movement
Nekrasov – editor
"Russian word". Journalism by D. I. Pisarev
Satirical journalism of the sixties
"Alarm"
Journalism of the seventies and eighties
"Domestic Notes"
Journalistic and journalistic activities of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin
Magazine "Delo"
Newspaper "Week"
Illegal revolutionary journalism of the 1870s
"Russian wealth". Journalism by V. G. Korolenko
"Bulletin of Europe"
"Russian Thought". Journalism N.V. Shelgunova
"Northern Herald"
Newspapers from the 1870s–1880s
Journalistic and journalistic activities of A. P. Chekhov
The emergence of the first workers' newspapers in Russia
The beginning of the journalistic activity of A. M. Gorky
Introduction *
The history of Russian journalism, as a subject of scientific research and an academic discipline, studies Russian periodicals from the time of its emergence at the beginning of the 18th century to the mid-nineties of the 19th century. and is based on the periodization established by V.I. Lenin.
“The history of the workers’ press in Russia,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “is inextricably linked with the history of the democratic and socialist movement. Therefore, only by knowing the main stages of the liberation movement can one really achieve an understanding of why the preparation and emergence of the workers’ press went this way and not any other way.
The liberation movement in Russia went through three main stages, corresponding to the three main classes of Russian society, which left their stamp on the movement: 1) the period of the nobility, from approximately 1825 to 1861; 2) raznochinsky, or bourgeois-democratic, from approximately 1861 to 1895; 3) proletarian, from 1895 to the present” 1.
The course on the history of Russian journalism examines the patterns and facts of the development of periodicals during the noble and raznochinsky, or bourgeois-democratic, stages of the liberation movement in Russia. The initial sections of the course are devoted to the topics of the emergence of the Russian press and its development in the 18th – early 19th centuries, i.e. throughout the one hundred and twenty year journey traveled by journalism in Russia before the advent of the noble stage of the liberation movement.
The press of the proletarian period, starting from 1895, according to the division accepted in Soviet science, is studied in the course on the history of the party-Soviet press and represents an independent discipline in university teaching.
Called to life at the initiative of the government, with the aim of organizing public opinion in the desired spirit, the Russian periodical press at the beginning of the second half of the 18th century. ceases to be a monopoly of power. Magazines appear, published by individual writers and friendly associations; Views in opposition to government policies begin to penetrate the pages of the press. Of course, censorship conditions kept journalists within the strict framework of feudal-serf ideology; truly free speech began to be heard for the first time only in Herzen’s uncensored “Bell,” published in London; but even being under the constant control of the monarchy, the figures of Russian progressive journalism were able to develop before their readers the ideas that inspired them, albeit in a somewhat muted form.
In Russia, where the forms of autocratic tyranny were particularly crude and cruel, where police measures suppressed any attempts at civil unification, it was journalism and literature, due to the historical conditions of development, that were destined to become tribunes of public opinion. In Russian magazines and books, voices of protest were heard against the despotic oppression of the autocracy, in defense of the masses and their interests. All progressive politicians and writers of Russia in the 18th – 19th centuries. - Lomonosov, Fonvizin, Novikov, Radishchev, Krylov, Pushkin, Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Gleb Uspensky, Gorky - actively participated in the Russian press.
The new stage in the development of the press, associated with the proletarian period of the social movement in Russia, is illuminated by the great name of V. I. Lenin. Lenin was the organizer of the Bolshevik press, the first editor of a number of leading party publications, and a militant publicist. The entire history of the workers' press in Russia is connected with the names of Lenin and his comrades, who led the struggle of the masses for a socialist society.
The study of the history of Russian journalism can and is fruitfully conducted by Soviet science from the only correct and methodologically sound position of the doctrine of two cultures put forward by Lenin.
“In every national culture,” says Lenin, “there are, at least not developed, elements of a democratic and socialist culture, for in every nation there is a working and exploited mass, whose living conditions inevitably give rise to a democratic and socialist ideology. But in every nation there is also a bourgeois culture (and in the majority also Black Hundred and clerical) - and not only in the form of “elements”, but in the form of the dominant culture. Therefore, “national culture” in general is the culture of landowners, priests, and bourgeoisie” 2.
The formation and development of the Russian democratic and workers' press took place in a continuous bitter struggle with the reactionary press, with monarchist, noble-bourgeois publications, of which there were always many in tsarist Russia. In polemics with “Northern Bee”, “Moskvityanin”, “Moskovskie Vedomosti” by Katkov and many similar defenders of Orthodoxy and the monarchy, the ideological weapons of revolutionary democratic publicists were forged, their literary skills were strengthened, and their influence and popularity among readers increased. The leading press guided public opinion, which the guardians of the tsarist system could not help but notice. For example, members of a special commission to revise existing regulations on censorship and the press, established in 1869, wrote in one of the documents: “Our press has more than anywhere else influence on the opinions of a certain circle of people who draw thoughts and beliefs from magazines.” and even reason based on the latest article they read in a magazine. The mood of different circles of society, this or that trend of youth is in undoubted connection with one or another organ of the modern press” 3.
Over the many years of its existence, Russian journalism has contained enormous ideological wealth in its columns and pages; it reflects the history of the class struggle in its literary and journalistic coverage. Studying the history of journalism makes a lot of sense when preparing a specialist of any humanitarian profile - a journalist, literary critic, historian, economist, lawyer, philosopher.
Nevertheless, the old, pre-revolutionary Russian science did not leave the beaten path in this area, with the exception of the classic works of N. G. Chernyshevsky (“Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature”) and N. A. Dobrolyubov (“Interlocutor of lovers of the Russian word,” “Russian satire in the age of Catherine"); the history of journalism as a subject of special study was not particularly emphasized and received only partial coverage in works written on related topics.
Among the questions that occupied authors who wrote about the press before 1917, censorship persecution of the Russian press should be placed in one of the first places. These questions were analyzed in detail in the book by Al. Kotovich “Spiritual censorship in Russia. 1799-1855." (St. Petersburg, 1909); they were also staged in the work of Vl. Rosenberg and V. Yakushkin “Russian press and censorship in the past and present” (Moscow, 1905). Making public the facts of censorship repressions by the tsarist government was one of the ways to fight for freedom of the press. In this regard, we should mention the book by A. M. Skabichevsky “Essays on the History of Russian Censorship” (St. Petersburg, 1892), in which information about the censorship ordeals of the Russian press was collected from printed sources, without involving archives. A litany of bureaucratic quibbles with magazines and newspapers and a collection of anecdotes about stupid, ignorant censors were presented by the author in a smart and entertaining, but often inaccurate, manner. Responding in print to fair indications regarding the many errors of his “Essays,” Skabichevsky wrote: “I am not at all a man of science... I am simply a modest hard-working journalist, forced to work recklessly for the sake of my daily bread” (“News”, 1903 , March 25, No. 83).
Archival materials on the history of the Russian press were first systematically presented in the works of M. K. Lemke (“Essays on the history of Russian censorship and journalism,” St. Petersburg, 1904; “The Age of Censorship Reforms,” St. Petersburg, 1904; “Nikolaev gendarmes and literature 1826 -1855", St. Petersburg, 1909). The author managed to gain access to the archive of the former Third Department of his own imperial chancellery and to censorship affairs during the reign of Nicholas I and gleaned abundant materials there. The books of M. K. Lemke, despite the author’s particular mistakes, introduced a huge number of documented facts into scientific circulation and revealed the content of a number of significant episodes in the history of Russian journalism. However, M. K. Lemke limited his role as a researcher only to collecting materials and did not begin to generalize them. The descriptive nature of his books is obvious, but the author cannot be denied the ability to recreate vivid, albeit incomplete, characteristics of many journalists of the 19th century. – Polevoy, Bulgarin, Nadezhdin, Nekrasov and others.
Questions of the history of Russian journalism occupied a prominent place in works devoted to related areas of social sciences. Thus, they were touched upon in the work of I. I. Ivanov, “The History of Russian Criticism” (vol. 1–4, St. Petersburg, 1898-1900), since the literary activity of Russian critics was closely connected with periodicals. But, naturally, the author was interested primarily in the literary and critical positions of various magazines, and not in their activities as press organs. Brief “essays on the history of Russian journalism” are contained in the multi-volume publication “The History of Russian Literature of the 19th Century,” published under the editorship of D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky (St. Petersburg, 1908-1910). Essay on journalism of the first half of the 19th century. belongs to the pen of I. I. Zamotin, about journalism of the second half of the century - to V. E. Cheshikhin-Vetrinsky. Relying on the fact that the literary activities of writers and critics associated with journalism were examined in the chapters devoted to them, the authors of these reviews limited themselves to only brief information about the magazines published at one time or another and outlined the contours of the controversy between them. The small volume of essays determined the fluency and conciseness of their presentation and a purely auxiliary role in the study of the history of the Russian press.
The history of Russian journalism as a science developed only in Soviet times and, through the works of Soviet scientists, turned into one of the important socio-historical disciplines and became the subject of study in universities and party schools of the Soviet Union. During this time, monographs have appeared and continue to be published on individual periods in the history of the Russian press, the most important publications, their leaders and authors, articles and reports on these topics are constantly published, and researchers are being trained.
In the works of Soviet scientists, the boundaries of the object of research are gradually established, because the field of the history of journalism, if desired, can be understood very broadly. It is known that most of the most important works of fiction and journalism were published in magazines and newspapers and only then published as a separate publication. From this point of view, the history of journalism includes the history of literature, criticism, philosophy, aesthetics, political economy, jurisprudence, etc. But with this consideration, it loses its distinctive properties, the boundaries separating the history of journalism from related disciplines are erased, and it ceases to be an independent science.
At the same time, the study of the history of journalism can be fruitfully conducted only on the basis of characteristics of the social, philosophical, literary movement of each era, in close connection with the history of social thought, criticism, journalism, aesthetics and literature. Experience shows that authors do not always know how to do this, but at the same time confirms the advisability of this particular path. For example, the development of Belinsky’s literary and aesthetic views is considered by historians of Russian literature, the development of his socio-political and philosophical views - by historians of Russian philosophy, etc. The study of Belinsky’s journal activities as a publicist and editor of periodicals should be carried out by historians of Russian journalism, who are obliged to take into account in their research, what has been done in the field of mastering Belinsky’s creative heritage by representatives of all related sciences.
The history of Russian journalism as a subject of study and teaching thus primarily includes the following problems:
– Issues of development of periodicals in Russia.
– Study of the socio-political direction of magazines and newspapers as exponents of the ideology and practice of certain social groups, their relationships and polemics between them.
– Development of magazines and newspapers as special types of printed products.
– Organization and composition of publications.
– Study and assessment of the activities of the most prominent editors, publishers and employees of periodicals, analysis of their literary and journalistic skills.
– Distribution of the press and taking into account the reaction of the reading masses to the speeches of magazines and newspapers.
– Study of the activities of censorship and other types of influence of the government and its bodies on the press.
Some of these elements of the study of press organs are descriptive in nature, however, of significant interest for characterizing the publication (for example, information about its organization and distribution), while others require from the researcher great and varied erudition, excellent orientation in the socio-literary struggle of a given era , the ability to analyze literary and journalistic works, remaining within the framework of their subject and not going into the sphere of purely philological observations.
But one way or another, only the implementation of the tasks outlined above or those close in nature can help the researcher present the press organ in its independent form and in connection with other publications as part of the literary and social process.
One of the first works of a generalizing type was the book of prof., published in 1927. V. E. Evgenieva-Maksimova “Essays on the history of socialist journalism in Russia.” This book was the first attempt at a systematic review of the history of a number of the most prominent progressive magazines of the 19th century. and was written on the basis of not only printed, but also numerous archival materials, to attract which the author did a lot of research work. The “Essays” examine “glimpses of socialist thought in journalism of the 1840s”, the state of the press in the “dark seven years” of 1848–1855, and cover in detail the magazines “Sovremennik” and “Otechestvennye zapiski” of the 70–80s. The last chapter is devoted to Marxist journalism of the 90s, in it a significant place is devoted to the analysis of the magazines “New Word” and “Nachalo”. Research devoted to certain little-studied magazines “Vek”, “Women’s Messenger”, “Bibliographer” and the newspapers “Essays”, “People’s Chronicle” were collected in the book “Russian Journalism. I. The sixties” (“Academia”, 1930).
In 1929, Gosizdat undertook the publication of multi-volume “Essays on the History of Russian Criticism” edited by A.V. Lunacharsky and Val. Polyansky. The purpose of these “Essays” was “to make the first attempt at a Marxist linkage of literary-critical thought with the era to which its individual stages belong” (vol. 1, p. 3). The book was an attempt to create a Marxist history of Russian literary criticism; a number of prominent literary scholars took part in it. The second volume came out of print in 1931, and the publication stopped there.
The compilers of the “Essays” did not limit themselves only to the analysis of the literary and aesthetic positions of critics; they inevitably had to touch upon issues of journalism. The book shows the literary and polemical struggle between the magazines, and reproduces individual episodes of their history, but, of course, these issues are in the background and are touched upon incidentally. The appearance of “Essays on the History of Russian Criticism,” which, moreover, was not completed in publication, did not resolve the issue of compiling an integral unified course on the history of Russian journalism, the need for which was felt more and more acutely every year.
This task was undertaken by the staff of the Department of History of Russian Literature at Leningrad University. By 1941, the first volume of essays on the history of Russian journalism and criticism, compiled under the editorship of G. A. Gukovsky, V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov, N. K. Piksanov and I., was prepared and submitted to the Educational and Pedagogical Publishing House. G. Yampolsky. The volume covered the period of the history of Russian journalism from its inception to the 40s of the 19th century. At the same time, preparation was underway for the second volume, which included materials on journalism and criticism of the 50s–90s of the 19th century.
The events of the Great Patriotic War delayed the publication of this work for a long time. Only in 1950, the text of the first volume, re-checked and edited by the editorial board consisting of V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov, N. I. Mordovchenko and I. G. Yampolsky, was published by the Leningrad State University Publishing House. Despite the unevenness of individual chapters and the inaccuracies made by the authors, this book is a valuable guide to the history of Russian journalism.
A break of fifteen years separated the second volume of “Essays on the History of Russian Journalism and Criticism” from the first. This book, prepared by a team of teachers from the Faculty of Journalism of Leningrad University with the involvement of non-member specialists, was published by the Leningrad State University Publishing House in 1965 and covers the history of the Russian press of the second half of the 19th century. The volume is divided into two parts: “The Sixties” and “The Seventies – Nineties.” Essays on the most important publications of the era are preceded by review chapters containing characteristics of periods, typological assessment of publications, etc. The general editorship of the second volume of this large work belongs to V. G. Berezina, N. P. Emelyanov, N. I. Sokolov, N. I. Totubalin .
The Department of Journalism of the Higher Party School under the CPSU Central Committee in 1948 published transcripts of lectures on the history of Russian journalism given by V.D. Kuzmina, B.D. Datsyuk, B.P. Kozmin and D.I. Zaslavsky. For a number of years these lectures have been a necessary aid for students in preparing for exams on the history of Russian journalism, although their quality is uneven.
Also related to the program of the university course on the history of Russian journalism are the books published in recent years by A. V. Zapadov “Russian Journalism of the 18th Century” (Moscow, 1964), V. G. Berezina “Russian Journalism of the First Quarter of the 19th Century” and “Russian Journalism of the Second quarter of the 19th century (1826–1839)” (L., 1965), V. A. Alekseeva “History of Russian journalism (1860–1880s)” (L., 1963), B. I. Esina “Russian journalism of the 70–80s XIX century." (M., 1963).
These are textbooks on the history of Russian journalism of a general type. As for works on individual magazines, Sovremennik has been subjected to scientific study more than other publications. Yu.A. Masanov compiled a chronological index of anonymous and pseudonymous texts published in the magazine, with disclosure of authorship (Literary Heritage, vol. 53–54, 1949), V. E. Bograd published an index of the contents of Sovremennik for 1847–1866. (M.–L., 1959). The fruit of twenty years of work by V.E. Evgeniev-Maksimov had three books dedicated to this press organ: Sovremennik in the 40s and 50s. From Belinsky to Chernyshevsky" with the appendix of an article by D. Maksimov "Sovremennik" Pushkin" (L., 1934), "Sovremennik" under Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov" (L., 1936) and "The last years of "Sovremennik" (L., 1939) . Soviet science has accumulated and interpreted in a new way a number of facts about the activities of Russian revolutionary democrats, and therefore the trilogy of V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov in some of its sections seems outdated, but as a repository of materials on the history of Sovremennik, it retains its significance.
The magazine “Russian Word” and the journalistic activities of D.I. Pisarev were carefully studied by L.E. Varustin, S.S. Konkin, F.F. Kuznetsov, the magazine “Domestic Notes” are dedicated to the book by V. I. Kuleshov “Domestic Notes” and literature of the 40s of the 19th century” (M., 1958) and M. V. Teplinsky “Domestic Notes”. 1868–1884" (Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 1966). A worthy crown of I. G. Yampolsky’s long-term research was his work “Satirical Journalism of the 1860s. Journal of revolutionary satire “Iskra” (1859–1873)” (M., 1964). An example of the study of newspaper periodicals is the work of P. S. Reifman “Democratic newspaper “Modern Word”, etc. Bibliography of books and articles on the history of Russian journalism for 1945–1960. compiled by E.P. Prokhorov 4, and the reader can glean from it more detailed information about the studies mentioned here and about many other studies on the history of the Russian press.
In order to carry out a broad and systematic study of Russian journalism, it was necessary, first of all, to take into account the material to be studied, to obtain a description of all periodical publications published in Russia and in Russian abroad. Through the work of Russian bibliographers, individual parts of this grandiose review were completed, but a lot of work still remains to be done to complete it.
Registration of Russian periodicals was carried out throughout the 19th century. many bibliographers. V. S. Sopikov, V. G. Anastasevich, N. A. Polevoy, I. P. Bystrov, A. N. Neustroev, V. I. Sreznevsky 5 took part in it at various times, but this registration was completed in capital the work of N. M. Lisovsky “Russian periodicals 1703–1900,” published in four editions since 1895 and published in full in 1915. For a quarter of a century, Lisovsky worked on compiling a list of Russian periodicals and included 2394 in it titles that originated before 1895, and 489 titles that continued to be published from 1895 to 1900.
Thus, a very important initial stage of work on compiling a bibliography of Russian periodicals of the 18th–19th centuries was completed. It became known when, where, what magazines and newspapers were published, what supplements they were supplied with, who their editors and publishers were. However, this minimum of information, naturally, could not give any idea about the face of each publication. The next step should be a description of magazines and newspapers of the 19th century. - a task that Lisovsky did not set for himself and, having only his own resources, could not solve, of course.
Periodicals of the 18th century. was described by A. N. Neustroev in his “Historical Research on Russian Timely Publications and Collections for 1703–1802.” (St. Petersburg, 1875), later supplemented by an “Index” to these publications and to the “Historical Research” about them (St. Petersburg, 1898) 6.
In the descriptions of magazines and newspapers, Neustroev, in addition to information about the imprint, included his notes about each publication, in which he covered the conditions of its origin, the composition of the authors, and also completely reprinted the prefaces to the publications and their tables of contents. Thanks to this, Neustroev’s work represents a detailed historical overview of Russian journalism in the 18th century. It turned out to be possible to carry out this work primarily because the material was essentially small in volume - Neustroev needed to describe only 133 publications published in the 18th century.
For periodicals of the 19th century, compiling such a detailed description was extremely difficult due to the increased number of publications and the significant volume of many of them. One or two workers were unable to do this kind of work. An attempt to begin a description of 19th century periodicals. made in 1914 by a group of Moscow bibliographers and literary scholars under the leadership of A.E. Gruzinsky. Having decided at first to describe all the magazines, the group soon saw the impossibility of this task and began to work only on historical and literary magazines, but soon abandoned this work. In 1917, the private Petrograd Historical and Literary Circle took the initiative to organize a collective work that continued the book by A. N. Neustroev. Several young scientists, later prominent Soviet literary critics and historians - S. D. Balukhaty, V. V. Bush, L. K. Ilyinsky, V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov, V. S. Spiridonov, A. G. Fomin, A. A. Shilov and others tried to begin describing magazines and almanacs of the 19th century, but the matter stopped at the first steps. In subsequent years, this work was to some extent carried out by L. K. Ilyinsky in connection with the course on the history of Russian journalism, which he taught at Leningrad University (he compiled “Lists of timely publications for 1917” and the same “Lists” for 1918, published in 1922), and A.G. Fomin, who lectured at the Higher Courses of Library Science in Leningrad. In 1925, these efforts of individual researchers were united in a group for the study of Russian journalism, created at one of the scientific institutions of Leningrad under the leadership of V.S. Spiridonov, but this time the matter was limited to drawing up instructions for describing magazines and reports on methodology and technology bibliography. Thus, despite several attempts, the description of Russian periodicals of the 19th century. has not yet been implemented. This task continues to remain unfulfilled.
Selective annotated bibliography of Russian newspapers, magazines and almanacs of the 18th–19th centuries. contained in the reference book “Russian periodicals. 1702–1894" (M., 1959), prepared by a group of bibliographers edited by A. G. Dementyev, A. V. Zapadov and M. S. Cherepakhov. The book includes about one and a half thousand annotations, covering a fairly wide range of publications, and can help one navigate the two-hundred-year heritage of Russian periodicals.
Journalism of the 1840s. Lecture content General characteristics of the period. The emergence of a new literary movement - the “natural school”. The role of fiction in the social life of Russia, the importance of literary criticism. Trade magazines in the 1840s. Journalism of the Slavophiles in the 40s. “Sinbirsk collection” by D.A. Valuev and “Collection of historical and statistical information about Russia and the peoples of the same faith and tribe” (1845). Magazine "Moskvityanin", its historical concept. Article by S.P. Shevyrev "A look at the modern direction of Russian literature." “Young editorial staff” of “Moskvityanin” (1850s), participation in the magazine A.N. Ostrovsky. Journalism of the period of the “dark seven years” (): the creation of press committees, reprisals against Petrashevites, Herzen’s emigration, Belinsky’s death. Censorship persecution of periodicals. The politics of magazines during the period of the “dark seven years”.
Journalism of the 1840s. Basic literature: textbooks and teaching aids Esin B.I. History of Russian journalism (). M., Esin B.I. History of Russian journalism of the 19th century. M., History of Russian journalism of the 18th-19th centuries. / Ed. prof. A.V. Zapadova. 3rd ed. M., History of Russian journalism of the 18th-19th centuries: Textbook / Ed. L.P. Thunderous. St. Petersburg, Essays on the history of Russian journalism and criticism: In 2 volumes. T.1. L., 1950.
Journalism of the 1840s. Additional literature Annenkov P.V. Literary Memoirs. M., Berezina V.G. Russian journalism of the second quarter of the 19th century (1840s). L., Voroshilov V.V. History of journalism in Russia. St. Petersburg, Esin B.I., Kuznetsov N.V. Three centuries of Moscow journalism. M., Ivlev D.D. History of Russian journalism of the 18th – early 20th centuries. M., Kuleshov V.I. Slavophiles and Russian literature. M., Lemke M. Nikolaev gendarmes and literature of the years. St. Petersburg, Lemke M. Essays on the history of Russian censorship and journalism of the 19th century (“The Age of Censorship Terror”). St. Petersburg, Panaev I.I. Literary Memoirs. M., Pirozhkova T.F. Slavophile journalism. M., Chicherin B.N. Moscow in the forties. M., 1929.
Journalism of the 1840s. Texts Aksakov K.S., Aksakov I.S. Literary criticism. M., Kireevsky I.V. Criticism and aesthetics. M., 1979.
Journalism of the 1840s. General characteristics of the period The ideological struggle between Westerners and Slavophiles Westerners: A.I. Herzen N.P. Ogarev V.G. Belinsky T.N. Granovsky V.P. Botkin E.F. Korsh and others. Slavophiles: A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, D.A. Valuev, Yu. F. Samarin, A.I. Koshelev and others.
Slavophiles Slavophilism is one of the directions of Russian social and philosophical thought of the 19th century. The identity of Russia lies in the absence of class struggle in the Russian land community and artels, in Orthodoxy. Negative attitude towards the revolution. Monarchism. Religious and philosophical concepts opposing the ideas of materialism. They opposed Russia’s assimilation of the forms and methods of Western European political life and order.
Westerners are representatives of one of the directions of Russian social thought of the 1920s. In the 19th century they advocated the abolition of serfdom and recognized the need for Russia to develop along the Western European path.
Historical views of the Slavophiles Idealization of pre-Petrine Rus' Rapprochement with the people Study of the history of the peasantry in Russia Collecting and preserving monuments of Russian culture and language: a collection of folk songs by P. V. Kireevsky, Dahl’s dictionary of the living Great Russian language, etc.
In the 1840s, a sharp ideological struggle was waged in the literary salons of Moscow: A. A. and A. P. Elagin, D. N. and E. A. Sverbeev, N. F. and K. K. Pavlov. Avdotya Petrovna Elagina, niece and friend of V.A. Zhukovsky, mother of I.V. and P.P. Kireevskikh; one of the most educated women of her time, the owner of the famous literary salon “Literary salons and circles. The first half of the 19th century" (edited by N.L. Brodsky). Publishing house "Agraf", 2001. Aronson M. Literary circles and salons. Publishing house "Agraf", 2001.
“Natural school” The term was first used by Bulgarin (“Northern Bee”) as a contemptuous nickname addressed to the literary youth of the 1840s. Rethought by Belinsky: “natural” is “a truthful image of reality.” Writers of the “natural school”: I.S. Turgenev A.I. Herzen N.A. Nekrasov F.M. Dostoevsky I.A. Goncharov M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin
Distinctive features of the “natural school”: deep interest in the life of the common people; a new hero – a native of the “lower classes” of the people; criticism of serfdom; depiction of the social vices of the city; the contradictions of poverty and wealth; the predominance of prose genres: novel, story, “physiological essay”
Publications in the spirit of the official ideology “Moskvitian” “Northern Bee” “Son of the Fatherland” Literary disputes of the 1840s. Dispute about Lermontov Controversy around “Dead Souls” by N.V. Gogol Disputes around the “natural school” “Mayak” “Library for reading” Organs of the democratic direction “Notes of the Fatherland” under Belinsky Contemporary” Nekrasova and Panaeva
1840s: “the magazine period of Russian literature” Publishing becomes a profitable business The duties of the editor are separated from the functions of the publisher High fees are used to attract the right writers The number of professional journalists and writers increases: work in publications becomes the only means of subsistence. Thick monthly magazines are the dominant type of publication and the ideological centers of the country's life.
“Son of the Fatherland” () change of editors. Involving Polevoy in editing the magazine: defense of the official ideology, lack of understanding of new literary trends, defense of the aesthetic principles of romanticism as a consequence - lack of reader interest and a drop in circulation.
"Russian Messenger" () Publishers - N.I. Grech, N.A. Polevoy, N.V. Puppeteer criticizes leading writers and supports the “original Russian worldview.” Circulation – 500 copies, irregular publication.
“Library for Reading” () drop in circulation from 5 to 3 thousand copies Brambeus’ wit lost to Belinsky and Herzen’s rejection of the “natural school”, incorrect assessment of advanced literary phenomena
Magazine "Moskvityanin" () Publishers: Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin Stepan Petrovich Shevyrev
Two periods in the existence of the magazine 1) : the direction and composition of the closest employees remained almost unchanged 2) : the so-called “young editorial staff” began to play a leading role in the magazine, and the appearance of “Moskvityanin” changed
The main sections of “The Moskvitian” “Spiritual eloquence” “Fine literature” “Sciences” “Materials for Russian history and the history of Russian literature” “Criticism and bibliography” “Slavic news” “Mixture (Moscow Chronicle, Internal news, Fashions, etc.)” .
Stepan Petrovich Shevyrev () Russian literary critic, literary historian, poet, leading critic of the “Moscow Observer” since 1837 - professor at Moscow University S, together with M. P. Pogodin, headed the “Moskvityanin”
“Moskvityanin” was published as best he could, by himself! He's already used to it! - he gets ready, he wanders to the printing house, he crawls to the bookbinder, and then he crawls into the shop! The reader waits and waits for him, scolds him, and goes home! And the most respected publisher, However, my good friend, No matter how he gave it away, out of your hands! Dmitriev
“Young Editorial Board” of “Moskvityanin” () “Young Editorial Board”: A.N. Ostrovsky A.F. Pisemsky A. Grigoriev L. A. Mei E. N. Edelson T. Filippov and others “Old edition”: M. P. Pogodin, S. P. Shevyrev, K.S. Aksakov, P.A. Vyazemsky, F.N. Glinka, I.I. Davydov, V.I. Dahl, M.A. Dmitriev, A.A. Fet, N.M. Languages.
“Old trash and old rags cut off all the shoots of life in the Moskvityanin of the 50s. You might write an article about modern literature - well, let's say, at least about lyric poets - and suddenly, to amazement and horror, you see that in it, along with the names of Pushkin, Lermontov, Koltsov, Khomyakov, Ogarev, Fet, Polonsky, Mey in the neighborhood the names of Countess Rostopchina, Mrs. Carolina Pavlova, Mr. M. Dmitriev, Mr. Fedorov... and oh the horror! - Avdotya Glinka! You see and don’t believe your eyes! It seems that I even read the last proofreading and layout - suddenly, as if by the wave of a magic wand, the named guests appeared in print!” A. Grigoriev “The Gloomy Seven Years” (1848 - 1855) in the history of Russia Police measures intensified, the provinces were flooded with troops. The number of students at universities was reduced and philosophy was banned. Inspection of the contents of magazines, establishment of the Buturlinsky Committee.
“Buturlinsky Committee”, or “Committee of April 2” Standing Committee on Press Affairs with exclusive powers: the orders of the committee were considered the personal orders of Nicholas I. The committee was secret. He did not replace, but controlled the censorship department.
Repressions against writers and journalists Saltykov-Shchedrin - exiled to Vyatka for the story “A Confused Affair” In 1849 - reprisal against the Petrashevites was organized, the rite of civil execution of Dostoevsky Slavophile Samarin was exiled to the Simbirsk province Police surveillance was established over Ostrovsky Ogarev, Satin Za were arrested Gogol's obituary was sent to his estate Turgenev
Journalism of the period of the “dark seven years” A number of magazines have been discontinued Magazines have lost the rigor of their direction Fundamental polemics have ceased Significant events are not covered The idea of “art for art’s sake” is being discussed The following appear in large numbers: historical and literary works, feuilletons, scientific publications.
ST. PETERSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY
HISTORY OF RUSSIAN JOURNALISM
18th-19th centuries
Edited by prof. L. 77. Gromovoy
Admitted
Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation
as a textbook for students of higher educational institutions,
students in the direction 520600 “Journalism”,
and specialties 021400 “Journalism”,
350400 “Public Relations”
PUBLISHING HOUSE
ST. PETERSBURG UNIVERSITY 2003
R e d o l l e g n : Dr. Philol. Sci. L. P. Gromova (Ed.), Dr. Phys. Sciences M. M. Kovaleva, Doctor of Philology. Sciences A. I. Stanko
Reviewers: Dr. Philol. Sciences V. D. Takazov (S.-Pegerb. State University), Doctor of Philology. Sciences L. A. Root (Kazan, State University), Department of History of Journalism Rostov, State University university
Printed by decree
Editorial and Publishing Council
St. Petersburg State University
Committee for Press and Public Relations of the Administration of St. Petersburg
ISBN 5-288-03048-0
INTRODUCTION
Russian journalism has gone through three centuries in its development. Originating as a phenomenon of political life in the form of government Gazette, throughout the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. it was part of the literary process, fulfilling an educational, educational and political role in society.
Due to the absence of other institutions of social life in Russia, journalism in the form of literary polemics, criticism and journalism already in the middle of the 19th century. turned into a public platform capable of influencing not only literary, but also political opinions.
Gradually separating from literature and acquiring its own developmental features, in the second half of the 19th century. journalism becomes an independent social and literary activity related to the formation of public opinion. At the same time, the formation of journalism as a profession takes place, awareness of its role in the life of society, which is caused by the professionalization of journalistic work and the commercial approach to organizing the magazine business. The attitude towards journalism as a commodity, which first appeared in the 15th century. in the publishing activities of N. I. Novikov, was established in the 1830s in the journalistic practice of F. V. Bulgarin, O. I. Senkovsky and became a necessary condition for successful publishing activities in subsequent decades. The commercialization of journalism has given rise to controversy about the incompatibility of “trade” relations with the high literary and moral standards of journalism, and the need to develop ethical standards in journalism. The growth of the mass “average” reader in the second half of the 19th century. stimulated the typological development of the “big” and “small” press, its focus on the needs of the reader, and the study of the readership.
The emergence of periodicals, bearing the features of mass culture, throughout the 19th century. was accompanied by the preservation of the tradition of publishing “thick” social and literary magazines, which sought to develop the literary and aesthetic tastes of the reader, discuss significant problems of culture, history and public life, and socially and spiritually educate their contemporaries.
The uniqueness of the formation of journalism in different historical periods is associated with the nature of government and, accordingly, the attitude of the authorities towards the press, which was manifested in censorship-non-policy. At the same time, however, the restriction of the practical freedom of journalists in Russia stimulated the growth of spiritual freedom. This was reflected in the development of a conventional “Aesopian” language, a system of allegorical speech that established a special, trusting connection between publications and readers. In addition, the strengthening of censorship oppression caused the emergence of uncensored press both in Russia and abroad. Publications published in the mid-19th century. abroad in the Free Russian Printing House of A.I. Herzen, marked the beginning of the creation of a system of independent Russian press in emigration. Emigrant journalism, developing in the traditions of the Russian press, experiencing the influence of European journalism, reflected new typological features that manifested themselves in the genre originality, structure, design, and readership of the publication.
The first two centuries of the development of Russian periodicals laid the foundation for a system of publications in the provinces, which by the end of the 19th century was represented by official and private publications varied in typology and direction.
Throughout the entire period of the existence of the domestic press, attempts were made to comprehend, systematize, and recreate its history. M.V. Lomonosov,
A. S. Pushkin, N. A. Polevoy, V. G. Belinsky, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, A. I. Herzen, N. A. Nekrasov, M. N. Katkov and many others writers, editors, publishers who created the periodical press in Russia, participated in it and tried to determine its place and role in the life of society. Collection and description of periodicals, which during the 19th century. conducted by bibliographers
V. S. Sopikov, V. G. Anastasevich, A. N. Neustroev and others, ended with the publication of the fundamental work of N. M. Lisovsky “Bibliography of Russian periodicals. 1703-1900" (Pg., 1915). A significant place in pre-revolutionary studies on the history of literature and journalism belongs to censorship, about which A. M. Skabichevsky, K. K. Arsenyev, A. Kotovich, M. K. Lemks, V. Rosenberg and V. Yakushkin wrote.
The study of the history of domestic journalism in Soviet times has become systematic. Along with studies devoted to individual publications and personalities, general works by V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov, P. N. Berkov, A. V. Zapadov, V. G. Berezina, B. I. Esin appear. “Essays on the history of Russian journalism and criticism” published at Leningrad University in two volumes (L., 1950; 1965) laid the fundamental basis for the development of a university course on the history of Russian journalism, which became an integral part of professional journalistic education.
The first textbook “History of Russian journalism XV11I-X1X centuries”, prepared in the early 1960s by V. G. Berezina, A. G. Dementiev, B. I. Esin, A. V. Zaiadov and N. M. Sikorsky (under edited by Prof. A. V. Zapadov), went through three editions (the last, third, was published in 1973) and still remains the only textbook that most fully represents the history of the Russian press of this period. However, it is largely outdated in methodological terms, which is reflected in the one-sided approach to covering the history of domestic journalism from the point of view of Lenin’s periodization of the liberation movement in Russia. The predominant attention to the revolutionary-democratic press affected the incompleteness and bias of the coverage of liberal and conservative publications that are of significant professional interest.
The need to create a new textbook is due to the demands of the time. The changed socio-political and economic conditions of the development of our country predetermined new methodological and methodological approaches in the study of national history, including the past of the Russian press. When creating this textbook, the authors relied on the research of their predecessors, which remain authoritative sources for the study of Russian journalism, retaining significant historical and scientific value. At the same time, the authors sought to avoid a dogmatic approach, ideological predetermination and didactic edification in assessing the phenomena of the past, tried to show the content and character of Russian journalism at different stages of development in all the diversity of its manifestations: liberal, democratic and conservative; Westernizing and Slavophile; Russian and emigrant; metropolitan and provincial.
The textbook, in chronological order, reveals the process of formation of the domestic periodical press from its origins to the creation of a developed printing system at the end of the 19th century; introduces the most influential publications, outstanding publishers, journalists; filling in the missing links, shows the uniqueness of the formation of the journalistic profession in Russia; examines the evolution of the Russian press in the context and inextricable links with European journalism.
The textbook was prepared at the Department of History of Journalism of St. Petersburg State University with the participation of historians of domestic journalism from the Ural, Rostov State Universities and IRLI (Pushkin House).
St. Petersburg State University: L. P. Gromova, Dr. Philol. sciences, prof.: Introduction; part I, chapter 1; part. Ill, ch.9, § 1-3, 5-8, 11-13,15-16; D. A. Badayayan: part II, ch. 8, § 5; Part Ill, Ch. 9, § 9.14; G. V. Zhirkov, Ph.D. Sciences, prof.: Part III, Ch. 10, § 1-5, 10; O. V. Slyadneva, Ph.D. Philol. Sciences, Associate Professor: Part I, Ch. 2; E. S. Comma, Ph.D. Philol. Sciences: Part Ill, Ch. 10, §6-8.
IRLI (11\ 111KINSKY House): Yu. V. Stenpik, Dr. Philol. Sciences: Part I, Ch. 3-5; B.V. Melgunov, Doctor of Philology. Sciences: Part Ill, Ch. 9, § 4.
Rostov State University: A. I. Stachko, a.-r. sciences, prof.: part II, ch. 6, 7; Part Ill, Ch. 10, § 9.
Ural State University: M. M. Kovaleva, Doctor of Philology. sciences, prof.: part II, ch. 8, § 1-4.6;L. M. Iakushim, Ph.D. ist. Sciences, Associate Professor: Part III, Ch. 9, § 10.
Magazine "Epoch"
Monthly literary and political magazine.
Time and place of release: St. Petersburg, st. M. Meshchanskaya (now Kaznacheyskaya St., 1 and 7), January 1864 - February 1865
Chief editors: M.M. Dostoevsky, F.M. Dostoevsky.
Leading employees:
Averkiev Dmitry Vasilievich
Grigoriev Apollo Alexandrovich
Dostoevsky Mikhail Mikhailovich
Dostoevsky Fyodor Mikhailovich
Krestovsky Vsevolod Vladimirovich
Leskov Nikolay Semenovich
Maikov Apollon Nikolaevich
Polonsky Yakov Petrovich
Poretsky A.U. - official editor since June 1864
Strakhov Nikolay Nikolaevich - leading publicist
Structure: there was no strict sequence of headings in the magazine, but there were constant topics assigned to certain authors. This is the topic of religion, the topic of attitudes towards children and about children, the section “Our household affairs” - about the state of affairs in the provinces, “Notes of a chronicler”, the constant author of which was N.N. Fears, etc. Each article is signed, i.e. the author of the literary work is indicated.
History of the development of the magazine
The magazine "Epoch" was an ideological continuation of the magazine "Time", published by the same editors: M.M. and F.M. Dostoevsky.
"Time" was one of the most prominent periodicals of the 1860s. The official editor of the magazine was M.M. Dostoevsky. Many actual editorial functions were taken over by F.M. Dostoevsky. The core of the editorial circle of Vremya included, in addition to the Dostoevsky brothers, Apollo Aleksandrovich Grigoriev and Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov. Since January 1861, "Time" competed with the most popular periodicals: "Notes of the Fatherland" and "Russian Word" (about 4,000 subscribers), "Sovremennik" N.A. Nekrasov (7,000 subscribers) and “Russian Bulletin” M.N. Katkova (5,700 subscribers). Both “Time” and “Epoch” reflected the point of view of pochvennichestvo - a specific modification of the ideas of Slavophilism.
Pochvenism is a movement of Russian social thought in the 60s. 19th century Soil scientists claimed to create an “organic” worldview, highlighting the importance of artistic creativity in understanding the phenomena of life and downplaying the role of science; adhered to the idea of “national soil” as the basis for the social and spiritual development of Russia, while noting the gap between the educated part of Russian society and the national “soil” and proving the need to overcome it on the basis of the spiritual unity of classes as the only possible way to preserve the country’s identity and the special path of its development ; tried to substantiate the idea of a special mission of the Russian people, called upon, in their opinion, to save humanity. They were critical of revolutionary democrats, Westerners and Slavophiles for their desire to approach life and its phenomena from the standpoint of an artificially created theory. The historiosophical concept of pochvenism was built on the opposition of East and West as civilizations alien to each other, each of which develops from principles opposing one another. Accepting “European culture,” they simultaneously denounced the “rotten West” - its bourgeoisness and lack of spirituality, rejected revolutionary, socialist ideas and materialism, contrasting them with Christian ideals. Pochvennichestvo opposed the feudal nobility and bureaucracy, called for “the merging of education and its representatives with the people” and saw this as the key to progress in Russia. The soil workers spoke out for the development of industry, trade, and freedom of the individual and press.
So F. Dostoevsky believed that the great future of Russia, which can benefit all humanity, is possible only with the unification of all classes led by the monarch and the Orthodox Church. He believed that the path of Western Europe taken after the French Revolution of 1789 was disastrous for Russia. Dostoevsky confirmed this opinion after his trips abroad in 1862 - 1863 and 1867 - 1871.
In London in 1862, he met with Herzen, whose criticism of the Western “philistine” ideal in the work “From the Other Shore” was positively assessed by Dostoevsky and turned out to be consonant with his ideas. Using the same term as Herzen - “Russian socialism”, Fyodor Mikhailovich filled it, however, with a different content. “The socialism of the Russian people lies not in communism, not in mechanical forms: they believe that they will be saved only, in the end, by worldwide unity in the name of Christ. This is our Russian socialism.” Socialism of the atheistic type, which denies Christian values, according to Dostoevsky, is not fundamentally different from bourgeoisism and therefore cannot replace it.
In their journals, the Dostoevsky brothers made an attempt to outline the contours of a “general idea”, tried to find a platform that would reconcile Westerners and Slavophiles, “civilization” and the people’s beginnings. Skeptical about the revolutionary ways of transforming Russia and Europe, Dostoevsky expressed these doubts in works of art, articles in Vremya, and in sharp polemics with publications in Sovremennik. The essence of Dostoevsky's objections is the possibility, after the reform, of a rapprochement between the government and the intelligentsia and the people, their peaceful cooperation. Dostoevsky continues this polemic in the story “Notes from the Underground” (“Epoch”, 1864) - a philosophical and artistic prelude to the writer’s “ideological” novels.
The magazine “Time” existed until 1863, and then was banned after the appearance of an article by N.N. Strakhov's "Fatal Question", which contained a commentary by the Pochvenniks on the Polish uprising, misinterpreted by the authorities as anti-government.
After the closure of Vremya, the editors did not give up attempts to revive the magazine. Permission to continue publishing M.M. Dostoevsky achieved by January 1864 with the condition of changing the name.
Now it was the Epoch magazine. The art department of the magazine was determined by the works of F.M. Dostoevsky. “Notes from the House of the Dead”, “Notes from the Underground”, “Crocodile”, as well as “Winter Notes on Summer Impressions” were published here. The literary program of "Time" was formed by the works of N.A. Nekrasov, Y. Polonsky, A.A. Grigorieva, A.N. Ostrovsky, Ap. Maykova, N.S. Leskov, translations from Edgar Allan Poe, Victor Hugo, as well as a wide range of works by little-known and emerging authors. The first issue opened with a fantasy story by I.S. Turgenev "Ghosts". The critical department of the magazine became the sphere for formulating its “new word” in literature - the “Russian direction,” as the editors called it. The circle of employees has changed greatly compared to the previous magazine: in June 1864 M.M. died. Dostoevsky, in September of the same year - another prominent employee of Vremya - Ap. Grigoriev. The editors failed to attract other famous writers to permanent cooperation.
Dostoevsky's intensive activity combined editorial work on "other people's" manuscripts with the publication of his own articles, polemical notes, notes, and most importantly works of art. After the death of his brother, the worries of maintaining the journal, burdened by a large debt and delayed by 3 months, fell on the shoulders of F.M. Dostoevsky (A.U. Poretsky was officially approved as editor), which could not but reduce the writer’s authorial participation in the new magazine.
The journal intensified the tendencies that brought the Pochvenniks closer to the Slavophiles: an exaggerated assessment of the community and zemstvo, a negative attitude towards Catholicism and Jesuitism. At the same time, unlike the Slavophiles, the Epoch recognized the importance of technological progress and the role of the intelligentsia in public education. M.E. pointed out the inconsistency of the magazine’s political program, the vagueness of the concepts “soil” and “Russian idea,” and the conciliatory tendencies that led “Epoch” into the camp of “Moscow” journalism (Slavophiles and “Russian Messenger”). Saltykov-Shchedrin, M.A. Antonovich (“Contemporary”) and D.I. Pisarev (“Russian Word”). Direct polemics between magazines reached particular intensity in Dostoevsky’s article “Mr. Shchedrin or the split in the nihilists.” If “Vremya” polemicized not only with “Sovremennik” and “Russian Word”, but also with the Slavophile “Day” and Katkov’s “Russian Messenger,” then in “Epoch” the direction of the magazine was determined by the fight against revolutionary democratic ideology. The editors of the magazine considered philosophical materialism and the ideas of socialism to be the product of Western philosophical thought and unacceptable for Russia, which was declared a country of the class world.
The aesthetic position of the “Epoch” is characterized by the affirmation of the specificity of art as a phenomenon that is synthetic in nature (in contrast to the analytical principle in science), which was expressed in the so-called “organic criticism” of Grigoriev. Hence the struggle of the critical department of the magazine against the “utilitarian” approach to art, to which high moral and artistic demands were made. But hence the accusations of the Sovremennik writers that, allegedly not knowing the life of the people, they distorted the essence of the Russian national character and deliberately sacrificed artistry for the sake of an accusatory idea. The Epoch considered A.S. to be the ideal exponent of Russian national identity. Pushkin and highly appreciated the work of A.N. Ostrovsky, interpreting him in the spirit of pochvennichestvo.
The magazine began to appear more regularly, but the uncertainty of its ideological and political position, problems with censorship, the mood of the audience, the weakness of the literary and artistic department, financial and organizational difficulties caused a sharp drop in subscriptions to 1,300 copies, did not cover the editorial expenses and did not allow this magazine to repeat its success." Time". In March 1865, the editors stopped publishing the magazine.
We will look at one of the last issues of the magazine, made two months before the magazine closed. This is issue No. 1 for 1865. It did not differ from the other issues of last year in terms of the basic concept of the magazine and continued the development of the ideas of the soil scientists. The authors of the issue were: N.I. Soloviev, O.A. Filippov, V.I. Kalatuzov, M.I. Vladislavlev, N.N. Strakh.
The history of Russian journalism is part of the history of society and the development of culture. It, like a mirror, reflected all the significant changes that took place in various areas of the country's social and political life. The democratic press was especially close to life, to the urgent needs of the Russian people, which never, despite the cruel repressions of tsarism. Progressive printing of the 70-80s of the last century was no exception here.
The second half of the 19th century in Russia is characterized by the rapid development of capitalism. The peasant reform of 1861, despite its semi-serf nature, created a certain scope for the development of the productive forces of society. With the abolition of serfdom, industry began to develop successfully in the country, railway construction began, trade turnover increased, capital concentration began, and cities began to grow. Under the pressure of commodity-money relations, subsistence peasant farming turned into small-scale farming. “The old foundations of peasant farming and peasant life, foundations that had really held out for centuries, were broken down with extraordinary speed.” The peasantry ceased to be a single “class-estate” of serf society. It became stratified, separating out, on the one hand, the rural proletarians, and on the other, the rural bourgeoisie. The entire economy became capitalist. Russia was entering a bourgeois period. However, the new production relations, progressive compared to feudal ones, did not improve the situation of workers and peasants. Masking the essence of capitalist exploitation with free hiring relations and the appearance of full payment for labor, the capitalists mercilessly exploited the workers. Monopoly ownership of tools and means of production made the wage worker completely dependent on the entrepreneurs. For working people, the new orders turned out to be no better than the old ones. The contradictions of the capitalist mode of production made themselves felt in Russia quite noticeably already in the late 60s and early 70s. The number of industrial workers is growing steadily. The strike movement is taking on a serious scale. In this regard, the Russian press faces a host of new questions.
But direct producers in Russia in the 70s and 80s suffered not only and not so much from capitalism, but from the insufficient development of capitalism, from serious and numerous remnants of serfdom. This was another, no less important, feature of Russian post-reform development.
In 1861-1863, the tsarist government managed to suppress scattered protests by peasants and strangle the national liberation movement in Poland. Part of the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia, without waiting for the people's revolution, switched to the tactics of individual terror. In 1866, a member of one of the revolutionary circles, Karakozov, attempted to assassinate the Tsar. This gave the tsarist government a reason to further intensify its reaction. There was a new wave of arrests. The best magazines of that time, Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo, which played an important role in the history of the Russian liberation movement, were closed.
But revolutionary democracy did not lay down its arms and did not give up the fight. The reasons for the popular anger that fueled the democratic movement of the 19th century were not eliminated by the reforms of the 60s. The revolutionary movement did not die out. The entire era of 1861-1905 was full of struggle and protest of the broad masses against the remnants of serfdom and capitalist exploitation.
An important role in the liberation movement of the 70s was played by populism, which as the dominant movement in Russian social thought took shape much later than the emergence of populist ideas. The founders of populist ideology are Herzen and Chernyshevsky. But only at the turn of the 70s, after the abolition of serfdom, in new historical conditions, when new questions arose before the Russian public consciousness in comparison with the era of the 40s-60s, did populism take shape and become the dominant trend, the “dominant direction” in Russian social thought.
The influence of populist ideology on all aspects of public life, including the press, was very significant. But, having become dominant in the 70s, populist views were by no means the only ones in the democratic literature and journalism of the common stage of the liberation movement. Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Blagosvetlov and others did not share the theoretical views of the populists. It was they who remained the most faithful guardians of the revolutionary-democratic legacy of the 60s.
The period of revolutionary calm in Russia after the 60s is gradually replaced by a new growth of the revolutionary movement, and by the mid-70s it becomes very noticeable. By the end of the 70s, a second revolutionary situation was emerging. The war with Turkey, unleashed by the tsarist government in 1877-1878, did not prevent the revolution from brewing. But the performance of the populists on March 1, 1881, when a terrorist attack was committed against Alexander II, played the role of such a premature performance. Once again Russia was plunged into the period of gloomy political reaction of the 80s.
But the 80s in Russia, despite the brutal political reaction, were characterized by a number of significant social events and phenomena. The labor movement is expanding more and more widely, and the “Emancipation of Labor” group is being created abroad. The best representatives of the democratic intelligentsia overcome populist illusions, some of them take the position of Marxism (Plekhanov). In the mid-80s, the first Marxist circles appeared in Russia. One of these circles was Blagosvetlov’s group, which published the newspaper “Worker” in 1885. In 1888, the “Emancipation of Labor” group, with the aim of promoting the ideas of Marxism in Russia, began publishing the periodical collection “Social Democrat. In the 80s, progressive journalism was replenished with new forces in the person of such outstanding writers and publicists as A.P. Chekhov, V.G. Korolenko. In the 90s, the journalistic activity of A. M. Gorky began.
Throughout the 70s and 80s, the Russian press remained in an extremely difficult situation. The changes that have taken place in the country have essentially not changed it at all. As before, any manifestation of free thought in the press was mercilessly suppressed by the autocracy. Legally, the position of the press by the beginning of the 70s was determined by the “Temporary Rules on the Press of 18.66,” which replaced all previous orders and laws on the press. According to these rules, metropolitan daily newspapers and magazines were exempt from preliminary censorship (supervisory censorship was retained), as well as books with a volume of more than 10 printed pages. Illustrated and satirical publications and the entire provincial press remained under preliminary censorship.
If a newspaper or magazine violated any laws, including laws on the press, the Minister of Internal Affairs had the right to issue warnings to publishers of press outlets exempt from preliminary censorship and, on the third violation, to suspend publication for up to six months. He had the right to initiate legal proceedings against periodicals. Cases regarding the complete cessation of publication were to be decided only in court. However, this did not prevent the government from closing the magazines Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo in 1866, without complying with the law of 1865.
The position of the press, despite the enthusiasm of liberals about press reform, not only did not improve, but, on the contrary, worsened, especially for democratic publications. Firstly, not all magazines and newspapers were exempt from preliminary censorship, as promised in the “Temporary Rules on the Press of 1865.” In St. Petersburg, for example, in 1879, out of 149 publications, 79 remained under preliminary censorship. Secondly, in the late 60s and 70s, many general laws and private censorship orders were issued, prohibiting the press from covering the most important political issues, placing the press under the authority of tsarist administrators of all ranks, from the Minister of Internal Affairs to the governor. Even liberal publications soon began to express dissatisfaction with the state of the press in Russia. The logical conclusion of this policy was the press law of 1882, which approved complete administrative arbitrariness over the press. The Conference of Four Ministers was given the right to terminate the publication of any periodical and deprive publishers and editors of the rights to continue their activities if harmful trends were detected.
The government treated with great caution and attentiveness all critical materials addressed to itself and on the pages of the foreign press. More than once the Russian legal press, for example, in cautious terms, and the illegal press in the harshest, pointed to facts of cruel treatment of political prisoners in Siberia. The government remained completely deaf to all these messages. But on the pages of the New York magazine “The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazin” a series of articles by the American journalist George Kennan “Siberia and the Exile System” appeared, written after his visit to Siberia in 1885-1886, and the government immediately became concerned about its prestige and showed obvious nervousness, trying to refute irrefutable facts. In 1894, the tsarist government banned the distribution of Kennan's essays, which were published as a separate book. “Strange as it may seem, it is true that Russian ruling circles are more impressed by European rumors than by the cries of all of Russia from the White to the Black Sea,” Stepnyak-Kravchinsky was rightly indignant in connection with such cases.
By persecuting and expelling criticism from the periodical press, the tsarist government, thus, objectively contributed to the accumulation of that explosive revolutionary material, on the destruction of which it subjectively spent all its efforts. The government's objective activities, however, produced more tangible results than its subjective efforts. Under the pressure of a rapid concentration of contradictions, Russia was approaching its first revolution by 1905. That year, remembering the 80s, the cadet chronicler of the press V. Rosenberg wrote with a bitter reproach to the government: “Much of what worries and occupies Russian society, which for it constitutes the true topic of the day, even if it appears in the Russian press , then nothing less than having lost interest in novelty and even modernity. The Russian press usually gives an account of many events in Russian life, not those that constitute diplomatic or only clerical secrets, but those that take place in front of everyone, on the streets, in public meetings and other places accessible to the public, only from the recollections of contemporaries " Yes, if the government had listened to liberal advisers at one time, it probably would have been able to “postpone” this “unpleasant” year for some time. But the government, which expressed the interests of the noble class, due to its class nature, was not able to adopt the “smart” advice of Russian liberals. By its actions it increasingly confirmed the view of the Marxist press that salvation does not lie in the weapon of criticism, but in criticism with a weapon.
The reactionary policy of Alexander III and his satrap, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Pobedonostsev, led, after the closure of Otechestvennye Zapiski in 1884 and the actual cessation of publication of the magazine Delo as democratic, to a serious change in the nature of the entire legal press. In Russia, only liberal-bourgeois, liberal-populist magazines and newspapers and the reactionary press of the Suvorins and Katkovs continued to be published. Democratic journalists, who remained free and true to the traditions of the 60s and 70s, had to collaborate in these liberal publications in the 80s.
The nature of the liberation movement and the extremely difficult situation of the legal press in Russia forced revolutionaries in the 70-80s to establish the publication of a number of illegal newspapers and magazines, first abroad (following the example of Herzen and Ogarev’s “Bell”), and then in Russia itself. This press, free from censorship, stands apart in the history of Russian journalism, but without it the picture of the development of our press in the 70-80s would be incomplete. But the existence of this press once again illustrates the unbearable situation of journalism in Russia, the lack of freedom of speech, for which A. I. Herzen so ardently advocated in “The Polar Star” and “The Bell”.
“The press has existed in Russia for two hundred years and to this day it is under the shameful yoke of censorship,” wrote the St. Petersburg Bolsheviks in the leaflet “On the 200th anniversary of the Russian press” on January 3, 1903. To this day, the honest written word is persecuted as the most dangerous enemy!”
Telling the truth, even hinting at it, has always been considered a state crime in our country. The tsarist government always looked upon writers who were capable of speaking the truth as their personal enemies. There is almost not a single more or less outstanding writer who has not been subjected to royal disfavor, and all the best of them have been in exile, in hard labor, in prison. Others were saved only by fleeing abroad. The entire history of Russian literature is the history of the constant struggle of the tsarist autocracy against truthful and free speech.” These words are an accurate description of the state of the press in Tsarist Russia and can be entirely attributed to the 70-80s of the 19th century.
In the 1960s, Russian revolutionary democracy created print media that were remarkable in their political content: Sovremennik, Russkoe Slovo, Iskra. These were the best magazines of the 19th century. They played an outstanding role in the development of the liberation struggle against serfdom. Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo were true leaders of progressive public opinion, educators of brave fighters against autocracy. Their example and traditions largely determined the development of the democratic press in the 70s and 80s, primarily the nature and direction of the journal Otechestvennye Zapiski by Nekrasov and Saltykov-Shchedrin.
Loading...
