In 1861-1864, the most influential secret society in St. Petersburg was the first “Land and Freedom”. Its members, inspired by the ideas of A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky, dreamed of creating “conditions for revolution.” They expected it by 1863 - after the completion of the signing of charter documents for the peasants for the land. The society, which had a semi-legal center for the distribution of printed materials, developed its own program. It declared the transfer of land to peasants for ransom, the replacement of government officials with elected officials, and a reduction in spending on the army and the royal court. These program provisions did not receive widespread support among the people, and the organization dissolved itself, remaining undiscovered by the tsarist security authorities.
From a circle adjacent to “Land and Freedom,” the secret revolutionary society of N.A. grew up in Moscow in 1863-1866. Ishutin, whose goal was to prepare a peasant revolution through a conspiracy of intellectual groups. In 1865, members of it P.D. Ermolov, M.N. Zagibalov, N.P. Stranden, D.A. Yurasov, D.V. Karakozov, P.F. Nikolaev, V.N. Shaganov, O.A. Motkov established connections with the St. Petersburg underground through I.A. Khudyakov, as well as with Polish revolutionaries, Russian political emigration and provincial circles in Saratov, Nizhny Novgorod, Kaluga province, etc., attracting semi-liberal elements to their activities. Trying to implement Chernyshevsky’s ideas on creating artels and workshops, making them the first step in the future socialist transformation of society, they created in 1865 in Moscow a free school, bookbinding and sewing workshops, a cotton factory in Mozhaisk district on the basis of an association, and negotiated the creation of a commune with workers of the Lyudinovsky ironworks in Kaluga province. Group G.A. Lopatin and the “Ruble Society” he created most clearly embodied the direction of propaganda and educational work in their programs. By the beginning of 1866, a rigid structure already existed in the circle - a small but united central leadership, the secret society itself and the legal “Mutual Aid Societies” adjacent to it. The “Ishutintsy” were preparing Chernyshevsky’s escape from hard labor, but their successful activities were interrupted on April 4, 1866 by an unannounced and uncoordinated assassination attempt by one of the circle members, D.V. Karakozov, on Emperor Alexander II. More than 2 thousand populists came under investigation in the “regicide case”; of these, 36 were sentenced to various penalties.
In 1869, the organization “People's Retribution” began its activities in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Its goal was also to prepare a “people's peasant revolution.” The people involved in the “People's Massacre” turned out to be victims of blackmail and intrigue of its organizer, Sergei Nechaev, who personified fanaticism, dictatorship, unprincipledness and deceit. P.L. publicly opposed his methods of struggle. Lavrov, arguing that “unless absolutely necessary, no one has the right to risk the moral purity of the socialist struggle, that not one extra drop of blood, not one stain of predatory property should fall on the banner of the fighters of socialism.” When a student I.I. Ivanov, himself a former member of the “People’s Retribution”, spoke out against its leader, who called for terror and provocations to undermine the regime and bring about a brighter future; he was accused by Nechaev of treason and killed. The criminal offense was discovered by the police, the organization was destroyed, Nechaev himself fled abroad, but was arrested there, extradited to the Russian authorities and tried as a criminal.
Although after the “Nechaev trial” some supporters of “extreme methods” remained among the participants in the movement, the majority of the populists dissociated themselves from the adventurers. In contrast to the unprincipled nature of “Nechaevism,” circles and societies arose in which the issue of revolutionary ethics became one of the main ones. Since the late 1860s, several dozen such circles have operated in large Russian cities. One of them, created by S.L. Perovskaya, joined the “Big Propaganda Society”, headed by N.V. Tchaikovsky. Such prominent figures as M.A. first announced themselves in the Tchaikovsky circle. Nathanson, S.M. Kravchinsky, P.A. Kropotkin, F.V. Volkhovsky, S.S. Sinegub, N.A. Charushin et al.
Having read and discussed the works of Bakunin a lot, the “Chaikovites” considered the peasants to be “spontaneous socialists” who only had to be “awakened” - to awaken their “socialist instincts”, for which it was proposed to conduct propaganda. Its listeners were supposed to be the capital's otkhodnik workers, who at times returned from the city to their villages.
In 1872, a circle of “Dolgushinites” was formed. In the underground printing house, the “Dolgushins” issued several proclamations.
The proclamation “To the Russian People” demanded the abolition of redemption payments, the division of all land equally, the destruction of conscription and passports, and the establishment “that the government should consist not only of nobles... but of people elected by the people themselves; the people will watch them and ask them to account and replace them when necessary.”
The proclamation called: “Arise, brothers! And your uprising will be righteous, and it will be good for you if you rise up together and boldly stand for your right, holy cause, conceding nothing to anyone.”
In 1873, the Dolgushins began distributing their proclamations among the peasants of the Moscow province. They did this completely openly, without any precautions. Historians even suggest that they deliberately sought to sacrifice themselves. Arrests followed almost immediately. Most of the members of the circle were sent to hard labor, and Dolgushin himself was sent to 10 years. In 1884 he died in Shlisselburg. Activities of the “Chaikovites”, “Dolgushinites” and some other circles in the early 70s. prepared the ground for a wide “going to the people.”
In 1877, the populists Ya.V. Stefanovich and L.G. Deitch created a secret organization of peasants in the Chigirinsky district of the Kyiv province. They tried to rouse the peasants to revolt, using a forged royal charter.
About 3 thousand peasants joined the “Secret Squad”. The uprising was planned for October 1, 1877, but the police discovered the organization already in June. 336 peasants were put on trial, 226 were acquitted, 74 received sentences of varying severity; including four who ended up in hard labor. The organizers of the conspiracy managed to escape from prison and hide. “The principle of Stefan’s plan - deceiving the people, at least for their own good, and maintaining the vile royal legend, at least for revolutionary purposes - was unconditionally rejected by the party and did not have a single imitator,” wrote S.M. Kravchinsky.
Walking among the people
Propaganda among urban workers seemed insufficient to many populists. The youth were inspired by the calls of Herzen, Bakunin, Lavrov - “To the people!”
Already the Dolgushins were moving from propaganda to direct attempts to revolt the peasants. Several similar attempts were made in 1872-1873. members of other circles, incl. "Tchaikovsky" In 1873, propaganda among the peasants of the Tver province was carried out by the “Chaikovites” S.M. Kravchinsky and D.M. Rogachev. When they returned, they convinced like-minded people that the peasantry was ready for revolution. In the spring and summer of 1874, the “Chaikovites”, and after them members of other circles, not limiting themselves to agitation among otkhodniks, went themselves to the villages of the Moscow, Tver, Kursk and Voronezh provinces. This movement was called the “flying action”, and later - the “first walk among the people”.
Moving from village to village, hundreds of students, high school students, young intellectuals, dressed in peasant clothes and trying to talk like peasants, handed out literature and convinced people that tsarism “can no longer be tolerated.” At the same time, they expressed the hope that the government, “without waiting for an uprising, will decide to make the broadest concessions to the people,” that the rebellion “will turn out to be unnecessary,” and therefore now it is necessary to supposedly gather strength, unite in order to begin “peaceful work.” But the propagandists were met by a completely different people than they represented after reading books and brochures. The peasants were wary of strangers; their calls were regarded as strange and dangerous. According to the recollections of the populists themselves, they treated stories about a “bright future” as fairy tales. ON THE. Morozov, in particular, recalled that he asked the peasants: “Isn’t it God’s land? General?" - and heard in response: “God’s place where no one lives. And where there are people, there it is human.”
“Walking among the people” covered 37 provinces. The populists were especially active in the Volga region, which had recently experienced crop failure and famine.
Among the participants in the “going to the people”, Bakunin’s followers predominated, counting on an immediate rebellion, but there were also Lavrov’s supporters. However, it is impossible to draw a clear line between the two: often the same people combined propaganda and rebellious views in their minds.
The populists' expectations were not met. By their appearance, by their speech, by their manners, the peasants easily guessed not real artisans, but masters in disguise. Why a man tries to dress like a gentleman is understandable. But the master, dressed as a man, aroused suspicion. Peasants, as a rule, listened willingly to discussions about land. But as soon as the conversation turned to rebellion against the tsarist government, their mood changed. After all, the peasant expected a fair land redistribution from the tsar. Since the gentlemen are rebelling against the tsar, it means that the tsar wants to give the land to the peasants,” the peasant thought. Neither the populists' calls for rebellion nor their propaganda efforts were successful. Most of the participants in the “going to the people” were captured by the peasants themselves.
As a result of the “going to the people” in 1877, the largest political process in Russian history was organized - the “process of 193”.
During the entire investigation, those arrested were kept in solitary confinement. 28 people were sentenced to hard labor for a term of 3 to 10 years, 32 to imprisonment, 39 to exile. The court acquitted 90 defendants, but 80 of them were expelled administratively. Most participants in the “going to the people” explained its failure by the insufficient level of organization, the short duration of “flying propaganda” and police persecution.
In 1875, the populist circle of “Muscovites” tried to conduct propaganda among the workers of Moscow, Tula, and Ivanovo-Voznesensk. “Muscovites” got a job in factories in order to better know the life of the workers and get closer to them. The circle’s charter stated: “The management should always include members from both the intelligentsia and the workers.” In the summer of 1875, the “Muscovites” were arrested. They were tried at the “trial of 50” in 1877.
At the trial, the weaver Pyotr Alekseev said: “The Russian working people can only rely on themselves and expect help from no one except our intelligent youth... She alone extended her hand to us fraternally... And she alone will inseparably go with us until the muscular arm of millions of working people will rise and the yoke of despotism, fenced by soldiers’ bayonets, will crumble to dust!”
In 1874-1876. The populists made several attempts to settle in the village. They created unique communes, worked and ate together, hoping by their example to convince the peasants of the advantage of collective labor.
But intelligent youth were unaccustomed to hard peasant labor and village life. Among the members of the populist communes, discord and resentment soon began, caused by calculations of each person's contribution to the common cause. All settlements soon collapsed, most of them did not last more than a year.
Greater success befell those populists who, like the sisters Eugenia and Vera Figner, settled in the village as teachers and paramedics. But in this case, they found themselves so overwhelmed with work that there was almost no time left for actual propaganda.
It was not by chance that revolutionary circles arose at this time. “The very appearance of circles,” wrote Herzen, “was a natural response to the internal need of Russian life.” The circles that emerged united, on the one hand, the advanced noble youth, and on the other, commoners.
At this time, circles were formed: the Kritsky brothers, Sungurov, Herzen and Ogarev, the Ponosov circle, the Belinsky and Stankevich circle.
The earliest was the circle of the Cretan brothers(Mikhail, Vasily and Peter), which arose in 1827 among students of Moscow University. The Kritsky brothers, together with other members of the circle (about a dozen people in total), declared themselves to be continuers of the Decembrist struggle. The circle of the Cretan brothers was political in nature. Mikhail of Crete called the Decembrists great, and considered the people unfortunate who were under monarchical rule. Members of the circle created a seal with the inscription “Liberty and death to the tyrant,” the imprint of which was found on one of the papers. The members of the circle stood for the constitutional order. In the field of tactics of revolutionary struggle, the members of the circle of the Cretan brothers made a big step forward compared to the Decembrists. They were not talking about a military coup, but about the need to raise a mass uprising, to make a revolution. The circle was discovered and destroyed in 1827. Vasily and Mikhail of Crete were imprisoned in the Solovetsky Monastery, where Vasily died. Mikhail and Peter were later demoted to the ranks of soldiers.
The circle of N.P. Sungurov, who came from the small landed nobility, arose in 1831. According to Herzen, the direction of this circle was also political. The members of the circle set their task to prepare an armed uprising. The participants of this organization hoped to outrage the “rabble”, seize the arsenal and distribute weapons to the people. An uprising was planned in Moscow. They believed it was necessary to introduce a constitutional system in Russia and kill the Tsar. The circle did not last long, and in the same 1831 the arrest of its members followed. Sungurov himself was sentenced to exile in Siberia. From the first stage on Vorobyovy Gory he tried to escape, but he failed. He died at the Nerchinsk mines.
The circle of Herzen and Ogarev was formed in 1831, almost simultaneously with the circle of Sungurov. This circle was also secret and political in nature. The members of Herzen and Ogarev's circle were mostly students of Moscow University. It included Sokolovsky, Utkin, Ketcher, Sazonov, V. Passek, Maslov, Satin and some other persons. They gathered at parties, sang revolutionary songs at them, made speeches and read poems with revolutionary content, and talked about the constitution. revolutionary political circle stankevich
The views of the members of the circle of Herzen and Ogarev expressed protest against the reactionary, brutal regime created in the country by Nicholas I.
“The ideas were vague,” Herzen writes in “Past and Thoughts,” “we preached the French revolution, we preached Saint-Simonism and the same revolution. We preached a constitution and a republic, reading political books and concentrating forces in one society. But most of all we preached hatred of all violence, all tyranny.”
Through an agent provocateur, Section III learned of the existence of Herzen's circle, and soon, in 1834, its members were arrested. Two of them, Sokolovsky and Utkin, were imprisoned in the Shlisselburg fortress. Utkin died two years later in a dungeon, and Sokolovsky died in exile in Pyatigorsk. Herzen was exiled to Perm, Ogarev and Obolensky to Penza.
In 1830, Belinsky’s circle, called the “Literary Society of the 11th Number,” was formed and existed until 1832. It consisted of students Petrov, Grigoriev, Chistyakov, Protopopov, Prozorov and others. In this circle, Belinsky’s drama “Dmitry Kalinin” was discussed, in which he sharply condemns serfdom. Belinsky and the members of his circle were interested in questions of philosophy, and, therefore, when Belinsky later entered Stankevich’s circle, he was far from a novice in matters of philosophy, as many authors incorrectly asserted in relation to Belinsky.
Stankevich’s circle had a “speculative”, scientific and philosophical direction. Stankevich had little interest in politics; his circle had the main task of studying the philosophical views of that time. The circle studied the philosophy of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. The positions taken by Stankevich were moderate and liberal.
Stankevich’s circle included: Belinsky, Granovsky, Bakunin, Herzen, the Aksakov brothers, the Kireevsky brothers and other persons. Stankevich’s circle included revolutionary democrats, as well as Westerners and Slavophiles; the views of representatives of these three directions sharply diverged from each other, which subsequently led to their struggle among themselves.
The role of Stankevich’s circle was that in his circle he aroused among his most prominent contemporaries an interest in the study of philosophy and united around him for some time many leading people of his era. For a short time, Bakunin played a major role in the circle. After Bakunin left abroad in the early 40s, the activities of Stankevich's former circle revived in connection with Herzen's return from exile. Herzen and a number of people close to him began studying philosophy. But Herzen approached the study of philosophical issues differently than Stankevich. Herzen connected the study of philosophy with the tasks of the revolutionary struggle.
Attention should be paid to trying the creation of a revolutionary circle of employees, carried out in 1836 by Pyotr Ponosov at the Chermes Lazarev plant in the Urals; The circle included six young people: Ponosov, Michurin, Desyatov, Romanov, Nagulny and Mikhalev. They secretly drew up a “paper”, which was a kind of charter on the creation of a “Secret Society to destroy the power of the landowners over the peasants.” In it they wrote: “The yoke of slavery in Russia is becoming more unbearable from time to time, and we must assume that in the future it will be even more unbearable.”
They set the task of the society: “... to gather well-meaning citizens into one society, which would try in every possible way to overthrow the power that appropriated it unjustly, and to accelerate freedom. For this reason, noble citizens, let us overthrow slavery with united forces, restore freedom, and through this we will earn the gratitude of posterity!!!” This document was published in full in the collection “Labor Movements in Russia in the 19th Century” (vol. I, edited by A. M. Pankratova). Soon after the signing of this document, six participants in the attempt to create a secret circle at the plant were arrested and, by order of Benckendorff, were transferred to the rank and file of the Finnish battalions. There were other attempts to create secret anti-serfdom organizations - from Zherebtsov, Romashev, Appelrod and some other individuals.
Thus, we see that all attempts to create secret revolutionary organizations were suppressed by the tsarism with the most brutal measures. But Nicholas I pursued not only the creation of secret circles and organizations, but also any attempt at free thinking.
The victims of his repressions were the brilliant Russian poets A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov, talented poets Polezhaev, Pecherin and others. Landowner Lvov, Brizgda, Raevsky, high school student Orlov and some other persons were arrested for anti-government statements. P. Ya. Chaadaev, who was close to the Decembrists, was also a victim of Nicholas despotism.
The era of political reaction under Nicholas I was not, however, an era of spiritual hibernation and stagnation for Russian society 24 . Although even after December 14, 1825, the position of an independently thinking society was greatly weakened. “Thirty years ago,” wrote A.I. Herzen in the late 50s of the 19th century, “the Russia of the future existed exclusively between several boys who had just emerged from childhood, and in them there was a legacy of universal science and purely folk Russia. New Russia This life vegetated like grass trying to grow on the lips of a crater that hasn’t caught cold.” Such “boys... emerging from childhood” were A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev, who, under the direct influence of the Decembrist uprising, took an oath on the Sparrow Hills in Moscow (in 1826) to fight the autocracy for freedom, for the liberation of the people (later A.I. Herzen wrote that “the Decembrists on Senate Square did not have enough people”). Having left Russia and settled in England, Herzen and Ogarev became the first political emigrants. In the early 50s. In the 19th century they founded the Free Russian Printing House in London. The newspaper "Bell" they published and the magazine "Polar Star" were read with great interest by leading people in Russia.
Despite government repressions, already in the late 20s of the 19th century there were attempts to continue the revolutionary traditions of the Decembrists, expressed in the dissemination of freedom-loving poems, in the creation of illegal revolutionary circles, and in anti-government conversations. It is characteristic that these attempts did not take place in St. Petersburg, where the government pressure exerted the greatest pressure, but in Moscow or in the distant periphery. Along with the poems of A. S. Pushkin, the poems of K. F. Ryleev, his poem “Nalivaiko” and a letter to his wife from the Petropavlovsk casemate 25 were distributed illegally.
The illegal distribution of poems by student A. Polezhaev in Moscow acquired public significance. The hero of his comic poem "Sashka" was a freedom-loving student who loved freedom, condemned flattery and hypocrisy and dreamed of the time when the power of the "despicable executioners" would be overthrown.
His poems “Evening Dawn” were perceived as a response to the Decembrist uprising:
A. Polezhaev was expelled from the university and sent to the soldiers, where he soon died of consumption.
The most famous of the circles of the late 20s of the 19th century. was a circle or secret society of the Kritsky brothers, which formed in Moscow at the end of 1826 - beginning of 1827 and united 6 members. All were children of commoners, university students. The organization's participants saw a future Russia free from serfdom and autocracy. On the day of the coronation of Nicholas I, they scattered proclamations on Red Square, which condemned the monarchical government and called for its overthrow. The group was discovered by the police. All its participants, without trial, by personal order of the tsar, were imprisoned in the casemates of the Solovetsky Monastery, and after 10 years they were given up as soldiers.
Leading place in the revolutionary movement of the early 30s [XIX century. belonged to Moscow University, among whose students or with their participation numerous circles associated with the names of N. P. Sungurov, V. G. Belinsky, N. V. Stankevich, A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev arose.
A graduate of Moscow University, N.P. Sungurov, organized a secret society in 1831, which considered its main goal to introduce a constitutional system in Russia that would limit despotism; monarchs and give freedom to citizens. It included 26 young students. There was a lot that was naive and immature in the Sungur plan. This illegal society was destroyed at the very beginning.
At the very beginning of the 30s, the “literary society of number 11” was formed at Moscow University (the name came from the number of the room where its participants lived and gathered). It was a friendly literary circle, at the center of which stood the future critic V. G. Belinsky. Real Russian life, the fate of the country, the horror of serfdom, protest against the “vile Russian reality” - these were the main issues that worried the gathered like-minded people. Here students read and discussed the works of Pushkin, Griboedov’s then-unpublished comedy “Woe from Wit,” Polezhaev’s poems, discussed problems of philosophy and aesthetics, but most of all they were worried about real life. Belinsky read here his youth drama "Dmitry Kalinin", which expressed a sharp protest against serfdom, the suppression of some people by others 26.
Belinsky was expelled from the university with hypocritical with the formulation “due to poor health and limited abilities” (the pretext was the duration of Belinsky’s illness - from January to May 1832) 27. Belinsky was forced to do proofreading work, rewrite papers, take private lessons, and at the same time engage in self-education. At this time, he entered a new circle of university students and graduates, grouped around N.V. Stankevich (183N839). Stankevich’s circle consisted of people interested mainly in issues of philosophy and ethics, and developed under the influence of the ideas of the German philosopher Schelling, preached by professors V. Pavlov, with whom Stankevich lived, and Nadezhdin.
Stankevich's circle had a noticeable influence on the ideological life of society. From it came future Slavophiles (K. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin), Westerners (T. N. Granovsky, V. P. Botkin), revolutionaries (V. G. Belinsky, M. A. Bakunin), D. Kavelin. The views of the members of the circle were moderate: the spread of education, which in itself supposedly should lead to a change in “social life.”
In 1831, the circle of A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev was formed, which had a keen political orientation. The goal of the circle, which included N. I. Sazonov, N. M. Satin, N. X. Ketcher, V. V. Passek and others, was the revolutionary transformation of Russia. “We shook hands with each other,” Herzen recalled, “and went to preach freedom and struggle in all four directions of our young Universe.” The ideology of the circle was vague and politically immature 28 . “The ideas were vague,” Herzen wrote, “we preached the Decembrists and the French revolution, a constitutional monarchy and a republic; reading political books and concentrating forces in one society, but most of all we preached hatred of all violence, of all government arbitrariness...” Later, Herzen and his friends turned to utopian socialism, and above all, to Saint-Simonism. Herzen and Ogarev also did not abandon the political struggle and remained “children of the Decembrists.”
In 1834, Herzen and Ogarev were arrested for singing songs filled with “vile and malicious” expressions addressed to the Tsar, and after a long prison investigation they were exiled without trial: Herzen - to serve in Perm, Vyatka, and then to Vladimir, Ogarev - to Penza .
Revolutionary upsurge of the early 30s of the 19th century. in Western Europe was replaced by a period of decline and the triumph of reactionary forces. This time is especially characterized by moods of pessimism, despair, and disbelief in the possibility of fighting for a better future. These sentiments were clearly reflected in the first “Philosophical Letter” of P. Ya. Chaadaev, published in 1836 in the journal “Telescope”.
A friend of A. S. Pushkin and the Decembrists, an officer during the reign of Alexander I, P. Ya. Chaadaev was very upset by the defeat of the Decembrist uprising and resigned 29. Chaadaev’s works indicated that their author had come to the most pessimistic conclusions, which included passionate attacks on Russia, its backwardness, lack of culture, the insignificance of its history, and the wretchedness of its present. Having lost hope for the possibility of social progress in Russia, he wrote: “Look at all the centuries we have experienced... you will not find a single arresting memory... We live only in the most limited present, without a past and without a future, among the flat stagnation... Alone in the world, we gave nothing to the world, took nothing from the world...".
Chaadaev wrote about the different historical paths of Russia and other European countries. He emphasized that all the peoples of Europe had a “common physiognomy” and a “continuous ideological heritage.” Comparing this with the historical traditions of Russia, Chaadaev comes to the conclusion that its past was different: “First wild barbarism, then crude superstition, then foreign rule, cruel, humiliating, the spirit of which the national government subsequently inherited - this is the sad story of our youth.” .
Chaadaev believed that all of Russia’s troubles stem from its separation from the “worldwide education of the human race,” from national complacency and the spiritual stagnation associated with it 30 . He considered the main problem to be separation from the Catholic world.
“By the will of fate, we turned for moral teaching, which was supposed to educate us, to the corrupted Byzantium, to the object of deep contempt of all peoples... then, freed from the foreign yoke, we could take advantage of the ideas that blossomed during this time among our brothers in the West, if only we had not been torn away from the common family, we would have fallen into even more severe slavery..."
The reason for the lag, P. Ya. Chaadaev believed, was Russia’s separation from Europe and, in particular, the Orthodox worldview. Chaadaev argued that “Russia has nothing to be proud of in front of the West; on the contrary, it has not made any contribution to world culture and has remained uninvolved in the most important processes in the history of mankind.” v Chaadaev’s letter is “a merciless cry of pain and despair,” “it was a shot that rang out in a dark night,” “a gloomy indictment against Russia.” (A.I. Herzen). Chaadaev’s letter, as Herzen noted, “shocked all thinking Russia.” In the famous letter to P. Ya. Chaadaev dated October 19, 1836, A. S. Pushkin wrote: “Although I personally am heartily attached to the sovereign (to Nicholas I - L.P.), I am far from admiring everything that I see around me ; as a writer - I am irritated, as a person with prejudices - I am offended, but I swear on my honor that for nothing in the world I would not want to change my fatherland, or have another history other than the history of our ancestors, the way God gave it to us." 31.
The government dealt harshly with both Chaadaev and the publishers of this letter: the Telescope magazine was closed, its editor N.I. Nadezhdin was expelled from Moscow and deprived of the right to engage in publishing and teaching activities. Chaadaev was declared crazy and placed under police control.
In the capital, under the influence of the Chaikovites and anarchists, revolutionary circles of student youth were formed. In addition, some fraternity and self-education groups were reoriented towards revolutionary activities.
For example, the circle of so-called artillerymen consisted mainly of former students of the Mikhailovsky Artillery School. They were influenced by the Chaikovites after Kravchinsky, Rogachev and Shishko held conversations in their self-education group in 1872. In this group were David Aleksandrovich Aitov, Nikolai Nikitich Teplov, Vladimir Andreevich Usachev and Mikhail Dmitrievich Nefedov. All of them left school and entered higher education institutions. Alexander Osipovich Lukashevich, who was later sentenced to hard labor in another case, was friends with them.
The members of the circle were united and purposeful. In preparation for work among the people, the artillerymen set up the first reputable workshop in St. Petersburg, in which intelligent youth were trained in plumbing, and partly in revolutionary propaganda. A lot of people visited this workshop, and it became a kind of revolutionary club.
However, not everything was easy and simple. Members of the circle, Aitov and Teplov, soon abandoned purely revolutionary activities (the second, partly under the impression of his first appearance “with the people,” which we will discuss). Under the influence of the inspired sermon of Malikov, the founder of the divine-human religion, they believed that a happy future for the people could not be achieved through revolutionary upheavals. Only the propaganda of Christian socialism, based on non-resistance to evil through violence, can help here.
It would seem, what is seditious about this? And yet they were arrested and tried as revolutionaries, although they did not suffer serious punishment.
The Orenburg residents, or Goloushevites, were close to the artillerymen (named after one of the founders of the circle, Sergei Sergeevich Goloushev, whose father was a gendarme colonel, and whose mother sympathized with her revolutionary son). Taking part in this circle were Maria Ivanovna Verevochkina, Goloushev’s fiancée, who propagandized among the peasants of the Orenburg district, Leonid Mikhailovich Shchigolev, Solomon Lvovich Aronzon, Leonid Reingoldovich Traubenberg, Pyotr Petrovich Voskresensky and Dimitry Vasilyevich Fedorovich. Almost all members of the circle were arrested and appeared at trial 193.
A circle was formed from the Saratov community, in which the most notable personalities were medical students A. Vorontsov and Y. Lomonosov. The members of the circle, as Kovalik wrote, with their healthy appearance and excellent growth gave the impression of free sons of the steppes. However, their group broke up relatively quickly. Vorontsov, who was wanted by the police, disappeared, and Lomonosov withdrew from revolutionary activities. Their work was continued by a local circle in Saratov, consisting of seminarians and high school students. The most active member of this last circle was Lomonosov's brother, seminarian Pyotr Andreevich Lomonosov.
A circle of fellow countrymen from Samara was organized by Lev Semenovich Gorodetsky. He attended several gatherings of Chaikovites, absorbing the guiding ideas of the movement, and soon began to speak out against extreme anarchists and terrorists, who were called “flash-releasers.” Nevertheless, he also carried out an anarchist program in his circle. He reasoned skillfully, held discussions, enjoyed considerable popularity and could have taken a more or less prominent place in the movement. But when he was arrested, he soon began to cooperate with the investigator, betraying some of his comrades. Samara residents maintained ties with their hometown and contributed to the formation and rapid growth of the local circle.
In the capital there were several more compatriot circles of self-education, which to a greater or lesser extent assimilated revolutionary ideas: Poltava, Perm... One of the Poltava residents, student Pavel Dmitrievich Maksimov, propagandized among the peasants of the Poltava province and was tried in the “trial of 193.” But the Permians were extremely slow to assimilate the ideas circulating among radical youth and did not take part in revolutionary work.
Lavrov's circles also discussed the problems of the revolutionary movement, but extreme measures, and especially terrorism, were not popular. Only the ethical side of the populist-anarchist teaching was recognized, they talked about paying the people a debt for their privileged position. They recognized the movement to the people, but only in the form of engaging in professions useful to the people: medicine, the bar, teaching. Walking through villages propagating revolutionary ideas was completely denied. Lavrovites believed that they must first complete their own education and obtain a specialty. Only after this will it be possible to bring real benefits to the masses.
A similar opinion was held in some other circles, where science was considered the main immediate task for intelligent youth. “These mugs,” wrote Kovalik, “had no meaning. The very passion with which they defended science, which was not denied by anyone, made us suspect that they were also afraid of being carried away towards practical activity and thought with loud phrases to drown out the doubts that had crept into their souls.”
In the first half of the 1870s, the most ideological and united secret revolutionary society in the capital took shape on the basis of a circle of so-called Tchaikovites. The name is not entirely correct, because one of its organizers, N. Tchaikovsky, was only an activist, but not a leader (he was not in this circle at all). In fact, it all started back in 1869 with a small group of self-education and self-development, initiated by M. Nathanson (we have already mentioned this group). A year later, a circle united with them, which included, in particular, Nikolai Klements and Sofya Perovskaya.
At first they did not have any revolutionary goals. Through their acquaintances, they distributed mainly legal literature, including the works of Lassalle, Marx, Bervy-Flerovsky “On the Condition of the Working Class in Russia,” and works on Russian history. However, the circle soon turned into a center of socialist propaganda and agitation, extending its activities to workers. In the spring of 1872, Peter Kropotkin joined them.
“Acceptance into a secret society,” he testified, “was not accompanied by any oaths or rituals... Even the thought of an admission ritual would make us laugh... The circle did not even have a charter. Only well-known people, tested many times, were accepted as members, so they could be unconditionally trusted...
Our circle remained a close family of friends. Never subsequently have I met such a group of ideally pure and morally outstanding people as the twenty people I met at the first meeting of Tchaikovsky’s circle. To this day, I am proud to have been accepted into such a family.”
This is what the prince wrote not only because of his origin, but - what is incomparably more important - because of his spiritual nobility and courage. His opinion should be kept in mind by those who are now trying to present all revolutionaries as villains, “demons” (in such cases I would like to ask: who are you, cowardly and mediocre gentlemen?!).
It was Kropotkin, as the most educated member of society, who was entrusted with drawing up his program. He presented a note “Should we begin to consider the ideal of the future system?” The note was discussed in the fall of 1873 and adopted as the basis of the program.
“I set the goal of the movement,” recalled Pyotr Alekseevich, “peasant uprisings and planned the seizure of land and all property; on my side there were only Perovskaya, Kravchinsky, Charushin and Tikhomirov. But we were all socialists."
It turns out that even in this society there were few supporters of decisive revolutionary actions. They considered their primary goal to be action for the introduction of a constitution. Kropotkin, who had connections at court, was going to unite supporters of liberal reforms in the upper strata of society in order to present these demands to Alexander II at a favorable moment. They had no talk of any terrorist acts.
The physically strong Sergei Kravchinsky and Dmitry Rogachev, both former officers, walked through the villages in the summer like woodcutters, simultaneously conducting revolutionary propaganda.
One day, when they were walking along the road, a man on a log caught up with them. Kravchinsky began to explain to him that officials were robbing the people, that taxes should not be paid and that it was necessary to rebel. The man was silent, urging his horse to jog. Kravchinsky did not lag behind, convincing that the rich do not live according to the Gospel and the land must be taken away from them. The man started his horse at a gallop, so the propagandist was forced to fall behind.
They were received well, but rumors of extraordinary workers reached the police. An order was received to arrest them and take them to the station. They had to be led 20 kilometers away. They stayed overnight in the village where the temple festival was taking place. The drunken guards went to bed, but one of them helped the prisoners escape.
However, the propaganda of the Chaikovites was most successful among the St. Petersburg workers. To do this, they had to dress like peasants. Sometimes Kropotkin, having dined with friends in the Winter Palace, drove to the outskirts of the capital, changed clothes in a safe house and went to talk over a samovar to weavers under the name of Borodin. He spoke mainly about the labor movement in Western Europe and the struggle of the proletariat for their rights.
“The majority of people at the meeting were middle-aged,” he wrote. “My story interested them extremely, and they asked me a number of questions, quite to the point: about the smallest details of workers’ unions, about the goals of the International and about its chances of success. Then there were questions about what could be done in Russia and about the consequences of our propaganda. I never reduced the dangers of our agitation and frankly said what I thought. “We will probably soon be exiled to Siberia, and you, that is, some of you, will be kept in prison for a long time because you listened to us.” The gloomy prospect did not chill or frighten them. “Well, bears are not the only ones living in Siberia... Where people live, we won’t be lost.” “The devil is not as terrible as he is painted.” “If you are afraid of wolves, do not go into the forest.” “Don’t renounce money or prison.”
And when some of them were later arrested, almost all of them behaved perfectly and did not betray anyone.”
However, one of the weavers told the factory owner that “international ideas” were being spread among the workers. He brought this to the attention of the St. Petersburg mayor Trepov. The workers were placed under surveillance. As a result, they managed to capture some members of the Tchaikovsky circle. Among them was student Nizovkin; As if justifying his last name, he betrayed everyone he knew in this organization. Even earlier, Perovskaya, Sinegub and some other revolutionaries were arrested.
Kropotkin should have left the capital. But he stayed: on March 21, 1874, his report on the Ice Age was scheduled at the Imperial Russian Geographical Society - truly revolutionary, but in a purely scientific aspect. The remaining two weeks before the report, Kropotkin, together with another member of the circle, Serdyukov, devoted mainly to underground activities.
“We had on our hands,” he recalled, “a huge organization both inside Russia and abroad for printing publications there and smuggling them in. How can we abandon, without finding replacements, our entire network of circles and colonies in forty provinces, which we created with such difficulty during these years and with which we maintained regular correspondence? How, finally, can we leave our workers’ circles in St. Petersburg and our four centers for propaganda among the capital’s workers?..
Serdyukov and I decided to accept two new members into our circle and transfer all matters to them. Every evening we met in different parts of the city and worked hard. We never wrote down names and addresses. We only encrypted and stored in a safe place the addresses for transporting books. So we needed new members to learn hundreds of addresses and dozens of codes.”
As we can see, the Chaikovites’ conspiracy was carried out professionally. And if the police managed to arrest Kropotkin, it was only because he made his scientific report (triumphantly; he was even offered the position of secretary of the Geographical Society, but he was forced to refuse). The next day he was detained and taken to the Peter and Paul Fortress.
The defeat of the Tchaikovsky circle did not cool the revolutionary sentiments among students. By that time, under the influence not so much of the underground organization as of works of fiction and journalism, the populist movement began. Hundreds of young enthusiasts took part in it.
| |
In the mid 40s XIXV. under the influence of Belinsky and Herzen, a circle of Petrashevites arose in St. Petersburg. It was founded by M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky (1821 - 1866), who served as a translator in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Beginning in 1845, representatives of the leading intelligentsia began to gather on Fridays at the apartment of Petrashevsky, who was interested in issues of philosophy and politics. Among them were N. A. Speshnev, A. V. Khanykov, I. A. Mambelli, N. P. Grigoriev, P. N. Filippov, f. M. Dostoevsky, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin and others. The circle participants discussed the peasant question, the political structure of Russia, the teachings of the Frenchutopian socialist Charles Fourier and others. The circle included people of different views. Gradually, two directions emerged in it: revolutionary-democratic and liberal. However, the development of the views of the Petrashevites was not completed, since their organization was soon destroyed.
The Petrashevites paid great attention to the issue of the abolition of serfdom. Petrashevsky and Speshnev developed projects for the liberation of peasants from serfdom. Speshnev advocated the complete abolition of landownership, the provision of land to peasants without ransom, and the nationalization of land and large-scale industry. The Petrashevites were supporters of the elimination of autocracy and the introduction of democratic freedoms. The most radical of them stood for a revolutionary way of transforming society. The Petrashevites deeply studied various socialist systems and sought to apply them to Russian conditions.
The active core of the circle attempted to begin widespread propaganda of advanced political ideas. One of them was the participation of Petrashevsky and his comrades in the compilation of the “Pocket Dictionary of Foreign Words included in the Russian Language” (published in 1845 - 1846). The authors of the dictionary, explaining words of foreign origin, propagated the latest philosophical systems, the ideas of utopian socialism and criticized the autocratic serfdom system of Russia. Another major event of the Petrashevites was the creation, on a cooperative basis, of a library of revolutionary books in order to propagate advanced, revolutionary ideas with their help. The library was widely represented with the latest socio-political literature ordered from abroad.
The Petrashevites greeted the news of the revolution of 1848 with delight. In St. Petersburg, along with the central circle grouped around Petrashevsky, other circles were taking shape. They also emerged on the periphery. In the fall of 1848, the active core of Petrashevites was already discussing the issue of creating a secret revolutionary society in Russia. N.A. Speshnev and P.N. Filippov tried to organize an illegal printing house. For the purpose of anti-government agitation, the Petrashevites intended to widely disseminate Belinsky’s letter to Gogol.
However, the Petrashevites did not have time to carry out their plans. Tsarist agents tracked them down. In April 1849, the most active members of the circles were arrested. Nikolai Ibrutally dealt with the Petrashevites: some of them were sent to hard labor, others were handed over to prison companies, and others were exiled to settle in remote areas of the country. 21 people were sentenced to death, which was later replaced by hard labor and exile.
Under the influence of advanced Russian social thought, the formation of a progressive ideology of the peoples of Russia begins. In Kyiv in 1846, a secret political organization arose - the Cyril and Methodius Society. Its founders were professor N.I. Kostomarov, official N.I. Gulak and teacher V.M. Belozersky. The society included several dozen people. Among them was the great Ukrainian poet and democratic revolutionary T. G. Shevchenko (1814 - 1861).
Members of the Cyril and Methodius Society advocated for the national and social liberation of Ukraine. They also put forward the idea of the political unification of all Slavic lands into a federal republic with the granting of broad autonomy to each Slavic people. There was not complete unanimity among the participants of the society. Most of its members adhered to liberal views and hoped to achieve the implementation of their ideals through reforms. T. G. Shevchenko and his supporters, who stood on revolutionary democratic positions, expressed the interests of the oppressed peasantry and advocated the path of decisive revolutionary struggle.
The Cyril and Methodius Society existed for about 14 months. His practical activities consisted mainly of recruiting new members and spreading literacy among the people. In the spring of 1847 the society was discovered and its members were arrested. Shevchenko was exiled as an ordinary soldier to a separate Orenburg corps “with a ban on writing and drawing.” He returned from exile only in 1857 and again established close ties with the revolutionary democratic circles of Russia.
Thus, despite the cruel terror of tsarism, the socio-political movement grew in Russia, advanced social thought intensively developed, and a new revolutionary democratic ideology gradually took shape, reflecting the moods and interests of the oppressed peasant masses. In the 30s and 40s, the revolutionary-democratic direction of Russian social thought had not yet separated from the liberal one. Belinsky and Herzen opposed Slavophilism together with the “Westernizing” liberals. But already in the socio-political struggle of the 40s, revolutionary democrats opposed not only Slavophiles, but also Westerners. They were determined opponents of serfdom and autocracy, and developed the ideas of revolution and socialism. “We must not forget,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “that at that time... all social issues came down to the fight against serfdom...” The demarcation between the revolutionary-democratic and liberal trends deepened more and more.
Source---
Artemov, N.E. History of the USSR: Textbook for students of the I90 Institute of Culture. In 2 parts. Part 1/ N.E. Artemov [and others]. – M.: Higher School, 1982.- 512 p.