Introduction
1. Political activity of P.N. Milyukova
2. "Memories"
Conclusion
List of sources used
Introduction
The history of Russia is full of contradictory events and historical situations. Particularly interesting in this regard is the period of history from 1905 to 1917. This period is dedicated to a huge number of memoirs of contemporaries, historical monographs by Russian and foreign historians. It is very difficult to judge this time almost a hundred years later, since views on history were redrawn several times during this time. Historians of the Soviet Union offered their views, emigrants offered theirs, but finding out the authenticity and reality of the events taking place at that time remains difficult in our days. To date, the history of Russian revolutions has not been written, although there is now absolutely enough material for this.
The book “Memoirs” by Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov is one of those historical documents that allows us to form our own idea of the events of 1905 - 1917.
The purpose of this work is to examine the memoirs of one of the outstanding political figures and Russian scientists beginning of the twentieth century
Before reading Miliukov’s work, it is necessary to dwell on his biography, since the memoirs themselves are biographical; it will be interesting to compare the views of historians on the author’s life with his own views given in his memoirs.
Miliukov revolutionary historian political russia
1. Political activity of P.N. Milyukova
Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov was born on January 15 (27), 1859 in Moscow, in the family of a poor architect, a native of the nobility, Nikolai Pavlovich Milyukov, and his wife Maria Arkadyevna, who came from the noble Sultanov family. He was the eldest of two children born in the marriage. His early education was handled by his mother.
He received his education at the 1st Moscow Gymnasium, located on Sivtsev Vrazhek. Even then, his sphere of interests lay in the humanitarian field: he was attracted to ancient authors, classical music, he began to write poetry.
After graduating from the gymnasium, in the summer of 1877, together with P.D. Dolgorukov P.N. Miliukov volunteered to participate in the Russian-Turkish War of 1877 - 1978. as treasurer of the military economy, and then authorized by the Moscow sanitary detachment in Transcaucasia.
In 1877 he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. In 1879, after the death of their father, the Miliukov family found themselves on the verge of ruin. To ensure a decent living for his mother (his younger brother Alexey did not live with his family by that time), he was forced to give private lessons.
At the university, P.N.’s first interest manifested itself. Miliukov to political activity. He began to take part in student gatherings. In 1881, for participating in one of them, he ended up in a cell in the Butyrka prison for several hours and was expelled from the university, to which he was able to return only a year later.
Although upon entering the university P.N. Miliukov chose the Faculty of History and Philology; interest in history came only thanks to the influence of outstanding professors P.G. Vinogradov and V.O. Klyuchevsky, who appeared in his life as “real luminaries of learning and talent.” Lectures and seminars by V.O. Klyuchevsky instilled in him and Miliukov a love for the history of his native country, which he decided to study after graduating from university in 1882. For this purpose, he remained at the department to work on his master’s thesis. In 1892, the dissertation was submitted for defense, and in 1896 it was published under the title “ State economy Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century and the reforms of Peter the Great.”
At the end of the 80s. there have been changes in personal life P.N. Milyukova: he married Anna Sergeevna Smirnova, daughter of the rector of the Trinity-Sergius Academy S.K. Smirnova, whom he met in the house of V.O. Klyuchevsky. Like her husband, who was fond of playing the violin all his life, Anna Sergeevna loved music: according to the reviews of those around her, she was a talented pianist. They had three children: in 1889 - son Nikolai, in 1895 - son Sergei, the youngest child in the family was the only daughter Natalya. P.N. Miliukov taught at Moscow University for two years, but was fired in 1895. Taking part in giving educational lectures in the provinces, in one of them he pointed out the need to develop Russian citizenship, which is why he was exiled to Ryazan.
The link was given by P.N. Miliukov had the opportunity to study archeology in depth, and also to begin writing his main historical work, “Essays on the History of Russian Culture.” In it, he pointed to the large role of the state in the formation of Russian society, arguing that Russia, despite its characteristics, followed the European path of development, and also gave his arguments regarding the adaptability of the Russian “national type” to borrowed social institutions.
In the spring of 1897, having received an invitation from Sofia, P.N. Miliukov left for Bulgaria. For two years spent in Bulgaria and Macedonia, he was engaged in teaching. During this time, he managed to study the history and culture of the southern Slavs so much that he was subsequently rightly considered the largest specialist in Russia on the Balkan issue.
Returning to Russia in 1900, P.N. At one of the public meetings, Miliukov expressed opinions opposing the government, which is why he spent about six months in prison. Upon his release in the summer of 1901, he, having earned a reputation as an oppositionist, received an offer to edit the liberal publication Osvobozhdenie, which he refused. But when the magazine started publishing, he began to collaborate in it. For “Liberation” he wrote the first programmatic article - “From Russian Constitutionalists” (1902). Collaboration in the magazine continued until 1905.
In 1903 P.N. Miliukov went to the United States of America to give lectures, and returned to his homeland in 1905, having learned about the revolution in Russia. From April 1905 he was in Moscow. Gradually getting used to the new political situation, he realized the need for social change. Implementing change P.N. Miliukov considered it possible only under the condition of a “peaceful agreement between liberals and revolutionaries,” the implementation of which he sought in the “Union of Unions,” where he served as chairman in May - August 1905. His political views attracted public attention and united a significant number of supporters around him: after all, by 1905 he had acquired a reputation as an “inveterate revolutionary.” Like-minded people created the People's Freedom Party (Constitutional Democratic), in the drafting of whose program he took an active part.
P.N. Miliukov went down in history as the permanent leader of the party, becoming chairman of its Central Committee in March 1907. He developed the tactical line of the cadets at all stages of the party’s existence, and was one of the best party publicists and speakers. In his views within the party, he always took a centrist position.
All the years of functioning of the State Duma P.N. Miliukov remained the ideological inspirer and head of the cadet faction, despite the fact that he was not included in the First and Second Dumas due to property qualifications.
In 1906, the official printed organ of the Constitutional Democratic Party began publishing - the newspaper “Rech”, one of the editors of which was P.N. Miliukov. On its pages he published his numerous journalistic notes, and also wrote editorials for almost all issues, in which he covered various issues of Russian domestic and foreign policy.
On June 1907, the government dissolved the Second Duma, and a new electoral law was issued. As a result of the elections to the Third Duma, P.N. Miliukov finally joined it. Despite the new working conditions, the tactics of the cadet faction boiled down to becoming more actively involved in government activities through participation in the work of the Duma.
In the III Duma P.N. Miliukov became the main expert on foreign policy issues, which he dealt with in the Fourth Duma, and also spoke on various problems on behalf of the faction. It is interesting that in one of his speeches he used in relation to A.I. Guchkov, according to in my own words, “a rather strong expression”, “albeit quite parliamentary”, for which the leader of the Octobrists was called to a duel (which, however, never took place).
During the first period of the IV Duma, which lasted from the day of its opening on November 15, 1912 until the outbreak of the First World War, the cadet faction led by P.N. Miliukov focused attention on issues of general political significance, as well as on “criticism of the government’s behavior in inner life Russia, carried out in the form of requests."
At the end of 1915 P.N. Miliukov experienced a deep personal tragedy: during the retreat from Brest, his second son Sergei, who volunteered for the war in 1914, was killed.
After the February Revolution P.N. Miliukov took part in the formation of the Provisional Government, which he joined as Minister of Foreign Affairs. After the abdication of Nicholas II, he tried to achieve the preservation of the monarchy in Russia until the convening of the Constituent Assembly.
At the ministerial post, the decline of P.N.’s political career began. Milyukov: the war was unpopular among the people, and on April 18, 1917, he sent a note to the allies in which he outlined his foreign policy doctrine: war to a victorious end. This revealed the main shortcoming of P.N. Miliukov-politician, who cost him his career: convinced of the correctness of his views and firmly convinced of the need to implement the program guidelines of his party, he calmly walked towards his goals, not paying attention to external influences, to the real situation in the country, to the mentality of the population. Manifestation of discontent and demonstrations in the capital after P.N.’s note. Miliukov caused the resignation of the minister on May 2, 1917.
In the spring - autumn of 1917 P.N. Miliukov participated in political life Russia as Chairman of the Central Committee of the Constitutional Democratic Party, member of the permanent bureau of the State Conference and the Pre-Parliament. In August 1917, at the State Conference in Moscow, according to V.A. Obolensky, P.N. Miliukov “made it clear that in the phase into which the revolution had entered, the Provisional Government was doomed and that only a military dictatorship could save Russia from anarchy.” Thus, he supported the proposals of General L.G. Kornilov. At the same time, he actively made calls to the Russian public about the need to fight Bolshevism.
Bolshevik coup P.N. Miliukov did not accept and began to use all his influence to fight the Soviet regime. He advocated armed struggle, for which he sought to create a united front. After October 1917, he left for Moscow to organize resistance to the Bolsheviks. In November 1917, he participated in a meeting of Entente representatives on the fight against Bolshevism. Having gone to Novocherkassk, he joined the volunteer military organization of General M.V. Alekseeva. In January 1918 he was a member of the “Don Civil Council”, created under Volunteer Army General L.G. Kornilov, for whom he wrote the declaration. He was elected to the Constituent Assembly from the city of Petrograd.
In May 1918, in Kyiv, on behalf of the conference of the Cadet Party P.N. Miliukov began negotiations with German command about the need to finance the anti-Bolshevik movement. The staunch supporter of the Entente decided to take this step only because he saw in Germany the only real force at that time capable of resisting the Bolsheviks. Since the negotiations were not supported by the majority of the Cadets, he resigned as chairman of the party's Central Committee (he later recognized the negotiations as erroneous).
In the winter - spring of 1918 he participated in the organization of an underground organization operating in Moscow " National Center", was a friend of its chairman. At the same time, P.N. Miliukov resumed his activities as a historian: in 1919, “The History of the Second Russian Revolution” was published in Kyiv, republished in 1921 in Sofia. In this work, the author offered an in-depth analysis of the causes and significance of the 1917 revolution.
In November 1918 P.N. Miliukov went to Western Europe to obtain support from the allies for anti-Bolshevik forces. He lived for some time in England, where he edited the weekly The New Russia, published in English by the Russian emigrant Liberation Committee. He appeared in the press and in journalism on behalf of the White movement. In 1920 he published the book “Bolshevism: An International Danger” in London. However, the defeats of the White armies at the front and the conservative policies of the White leaders, who failed to provide the White movement with broad popular support, changed his views on ways to rid Russia of Bolshevism. After the evacuation of the troops of General P.N. Wrangel from Crimea in November 1920, he admitted that “Russia cannot be liberated against the will of the people.”
During these same years, P.N. Miliukov received tragic news from Soviet Russia about the death of his daughter Natalya from dysentery.
In 1920 P.N. Miliukov moved to Paris, where he headed the Union of Russian Writers and Journalists in Paris and the council of professors at the Franco-Russian Institute. In exile P.N. Miliukov wrote and published a lot: his works “Russia at the Turning Point”, “Emigration at the Crossroads” were published, “Memoirs” were begun, and remained unfinished.
In the period from April 27, 1921 to June 11, 1940 P.N. Miliukov edited the newspaper Latest News, published in Paris. It devoted a lot of space to news from Soviet Russia. Since 1921 P.N. Miliukov found signs of revival and democratization in Russia, which, in his opinion, were contrary to the policies of the Soviet government. A.S. died in 1935. Milyukova. In the same year P.N. Miliukov married N.V. Lavrova.
In the conditions of World War II, P.N. Miliukov unconditionally sided with the USSR, viewing Germany as an aggressor. He sincerely rejoiced at the Stalingrad victory, assessing it as a turning point in favor of the USSR. March 31, 1943, at the age of 84, P.N. Miliukov died in Aix-les-Bains, not living to see victory, but until the last minutes of his life, remaining a true patriot of his native country. He was buried in a temporary plot in the cemetery at Aix-les-Bains. Soon after the end of the war, the only surviving child of P.N. Milyukova, his eldest son Nikolai, transported his father’s coffin to Paris, to the family crypt at the Batillion cemetery, where A.S. had previously been buried. Milyukova.
2. "Memories"
Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov began writing his “Memoirs” at the beginning of World War II. In his book, the author talks about his long life. But since he happened to be a participant in the most important events for the history of Russia, such as the surge of the liberation movement at the turn of the century, the revolution of 1905 - 1917, the formation of Russian parliamentarism, the fall of autocracy and the creation of a provisional government, Miliukov’s memoirs acquire the significance of a document of the era, reflected in the consciousness of one of its heroes.
It is known that memoirs always represent a historical source of a specific kind: they inevitably bear the imprint of subjectivity in the author’s perception of certain facts or phenomena and in their selection for his story. With Miliukov’s “Memoirs” the situation is even more complicated, since when writing them he was deprived of the opportunity to use documents, literature, or any materials that would clarify and supplement the evidence of his exceptional memory.
“Memoirs” were first published in 1955 by the Chekhov emigrant publishing house in New York, edited by professors M.M. Karpovich and B.I. Elkin, belonging to Pavel Nikolaevich’s close circle. In the preface from the editors it was stated that, as is clear from the detailed table of contents compiled by the author, he set himself the goal of bringing the memoirs to the Bolshevik revolution, but death prevented the implementation of this plan. In its final form, the presentation only reaches the chapter devoted to the July uprising of 1917 and its consequences.
The editors also reported that when preparing the book for publication, they filled in the gaps left by the author in the manuscript due to a lack of reference materials, corrected existing errors in dates and names, and omitted some harsh judgments of a “purely personal nature.”
Miliukov also wrote about his political activities in his other memoirs, published during his lifetime. But there the reader will not find many significant details introduced into the memoirs, or the elements of political confession that are not present in them. As for the sections on Miliukov’s childhood, youth and initial steps in the scientific and political field, for the first time they give a fairly complete picture of internal development and the growth of an outstanding Russian scientist and politician.
The attitude of his contemporaries towards Miliukov throughout his life remained complex and contradictory, assessments of his personality were often polar opposite. He always had many enemies, and at the same time quite a few friends. Sometimes friends became enemies, but it was also true the other way around. In the memoir literature it is difficult to find impartial judgments about this extraordinary person, not colored by personal attitudes.
The ability to flexibly maneuver between political extremes and the desire to find mutually acceptable solutions coexisted in Miliukov with extraordinary personal courage, which he repeatedly demonstrated at decisive moments in his life. As Prince V.A., who knew Pavel Nikolaevich closely, testified. Obolensky had no fear reflex at all.
There were legends about Miliukov's ability to work. He managed to do a huge number of things in a day, throughout his life, he wrote serious analytical articles every day, and worked on books. The bibliographic list of his scientific works compiled in 1930 consisted of 38 typewritten sheets.
“Memoirs” tells in detail the life of the author until the summer of 1917; we can learn how the situation developed further from other memoirs: Miliukov P.N. History of the Second Russian Revolution., issue 2. - Sofia 1921.
“The author divides the memoirs into 9 parts, and, as is typical for a historian, they have a clear periodization. In the first part, “From Childhood to Youth” (1859 - 1873), the author talks about the first years of his life; from the narrative we can learn not only about his life, but also about the life and way of life of people of that time. The second part of the book tells about the last gymnasium years of Pavel Nikolaevich 1873 - 1877 about his first musical, literary and other hobbies, as in other parts of the book they amaze and surprise in detail transmitted by the author impressions of what was seen, felt and meaningful. In the third part, the author shares his impressions of his life during his university years. Here, for example, we can see detailed psychological portraits of such outstanding historians of the time as Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. “From Student to Teacher and Scientist” covers the years 1882 - 1894, as in other parts the author writes not only about his work, but also about his personal life, his incredible energy was enough not only for work, but he also had the strength to visit the theater , concerts, collecting a personal library, which he started from scratch three or four times throughout his life.
Since 1895, P.N. Miliukov traveled a lot. First he talks about his exile in Ryazan, then about his travels to Bulgaria and Macedonia, about the first period of his life in St. Petersburg, about trips to America and England. The fifth part of the book, covering the years 1895 - 1905 of the author’s life, is devoted to all these wanderings.
The last parts of the book - from the sixth to the ninth, talk about the political life of Miliukov during the years of the Russian revolutions, from here we can learn about the course of the first and second revolutions in Russia, about the creation of the Cadet Party and its activities. This part of the Memoirs is of great interest to learned historians and lovers of Russian history of this period. As mentioned above, the author did not have time to bring the memoirs to the planned moment of his life, that is, October - November 1917, but what Miliukov told greatly helped historians in studying this period of Russian history.
Conclusion
Like all memoir literature, this book is full of subjective opinions and views of the author, but at the same time it fully conveys the views of educated people of that time, both Miliukov himself and his like-minded people.
In the memoirs, the author talks about a large period of his life; over 58 years, many events happen in life; for example, the interesting thing is that the author’s views on the same phenomena change over the course of his life and they are described in detail in this book. This indicator helps to fairly fully represent the interests, views, and character of the author.
The fact that the author was deprived of access to various kinds of documentary sources somewhat reduces the value of this book from the point of view of historians, since undocumented facts, as we know, constantly cause controversy among historians. However, this does not reduce the value of the book for fans intelligent reading.
The book of Miliukov's Memoirs was published several times over the course of fifty years; it earned popularity outside of Russia, and after the collapse of the USSR, people in Russia were able to familiarize themselves with it. It has also been published several times in Russia over the past 15 years.
Like any memoir literature, it is very difficult to read “in one fell swoop”, since a huge number of events and opinions of one person very often contradictory friends difficult for a friend to understand. But this book of memoirs is very clearly divided into periods, which indicates not only that the author was a strict and very organized person, but also allows you to read it selectively, for example, to get acquainted only with the political aspects of the life of P.N. Milyukova.
List of sources used
1. Works by P.N. Milyukova
Milyukov P.N. History of the second Russian revolution. Issue 1 - 3. Paris, 1921 - 1924.
Milyukov P.N. History of the Second Russian Revolution., issue 2. - Sofia 1921.
Miliukov P. Emigration at a crossroads. Paris, 1926.
Milyukov P.N. Russia at the turning point: the Bolshevik period of the Russian revolution. T.1 - 2. Paris, 1927.
Milyukov P.N. Essays on the history of Russian culture. Paris, 1937.
Milyukov P.N. "Memories. - New York: Chekhov Publishing House, 1955.
Milyukov P.N. Memoirs (1859 - 1917). In 2 vols. M., 1990.
Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich. “Memories” - M.: Vagrius., 2001.,
Milyukov P.N. Living Pushkin. M., 1997.
Bibliography of publications about P.N. Milyukov.
12. Alexandrov, Sergei Alexandrovich (1960-). The leader of the Russian cadets P.N. Miliukov in exile / Afterword. M.G. Vandalkovskaya; [Assoc. researchers grew up islands of the XX century]. - M.: AIRO-XX, 1996. - 151 p. : silt
13. Vaqar N.P. N. Milyukov in exile // New Journal 1943 No. 6, p. 375.
14. Vandalkovskaya, Margarita Georgievna. P.N. Milyukov, A, A. Kizewetter: history and politics / Ros. acad. Sci. Institute grew. stories. - M.: Nauka, 1992. - 285, p.
15. Vernadsky G.V. P.N. Miliukov and the place of development of the Russian people // New Journal., 1964. No. 74., p. 255.
Gessen I.V. Years of exile: A life account. Paris, 1979.
Dumova N.G. Cadet counter-revolution and its defeat - M., 1982.
18. Dumova, Natalya Georgievna. Churchill and Miliukov against Soviet Russia / USSR Academy of Sciences. - M.: Nauka, 1989. - 202,
19. Karpovich M.M. P.N. Miliukov as a historian // New Journal. 1943. No. 6. sire. 366.
Kizevetter A.A. At the turn of two centuries - Prague., 1929.
21. Makushin, Alexander Vasilievich. P.N. Miliukov: the path in historical science and the transition to political activity (late 1870s - early 1900s): Author's abstract. dis. for the job application scientist step. Ph.D. : Special 07.00.02 / [Voronezh. state University]. - Voronezh, 1998. - 24 p.
P.N. Miliukov: historian, politician, diplomat: Materials of the international. scientific Conf., Moscow, May 26-27, 1999 / [Ed.: V.V. Shelokhaev (responsible editor), etc.]. - M.: Rosspen, 2000. - 558, p.
23. Obolensky V.A. My life. My contemporaries. Paris, 1988.
24. Platonov, Sergei Fedorovich (1860-1933). Letters from Russian historians: (S.F. Platonov, P.N. Milyukov) / [Compiled by: Doctor of History. V.P. Korzun et al.]; Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, Om. state univ. - Omsk: Polygraphist, 2003. - 304, p.
Rutkevich, Natalia Alekseevna. Philosophy of the history of Russian liberalism: P.B. Struve and P.N. Miliukov: (Comparative analysis): Author's abstract. dis. for the job application scientist step. Ph.D. : Special 09.00.11 / Rutkevich N.A.; Ross. acad. Sciences, Institute of Philosophy. - M., 2002. - 26 s
26. Savich N.V. Memories. St. Petersburg, 1993.
Sedykh A. Distant, Close - New York, 1970.
28. Tribunsky, Pavel Alexandrovich. P.N. Miliukov as a historian of Russian historical thought: Author's abstract. dis. For the job application. scientist step. Ph.D. : Special 07.00.09 / [Rus. state humanist University]. - M., 2001. - 22, p.
29. Tyrkova-Williams A.V. On the path to freedom. London, 1990.
Shulgin V.V. 1917 - 1919 // Persons: Biographical almanac. M.; St. Petersburg, 1994. Part 5. P.121 - 328.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov(1859-1943) - theorist of liberal democracy and leader of the Party of Constitutional Democrats, famous historian, political scientist, politician. Born in Moscow. His father, a commoner who received architectural education, combined work in his specialty with teaching activities. The mother, a noblewoman from the Sultanov family, was a powerful woman and played the main role in the family.
Navel Miliukov matured early for a conscious independent life. This was facilitated by a steady interest in literature, music, painting, and history. During his high school years, he wrote poetry, played the violin brilliantly, and enthusiastically read ancient authors. Organized a circle for political discussions at the gymnasium. In 1877, his father died, and Pavel, as the eldest man in the family, begins to help his mother and younger brother, earning money by giving private lessons.
At the age of 18, Miliukov entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. His most outstanding teachers were V. O. Klyuchevsky and P. G. Vinogradov. They also showed up here leadership skills future politician: for participating in the movement of student constitutionalists, Miliukov was expelled from the university with the right to continue his studies after a year. At the end of the course, he was left at the department of Russian history. In 1892, having defended his dissertation “The State Economy of Russia in the First Quarter of the 18th Century and the Reform of Peter the Great,” he received a master’s degree.
The ideas formulated in this work formed the basis of his scientific views. This is the determination by economic relations of the state structure of the country. But unlike Western countries, Russia's economic development occurs mainly under the influence of the state, that is, not from the bottom up, but from the top down. The development of civilization in Russia, according to Miliukov, followed the European path, but was delayed by environmental conditions. Peter's reforms were not subjective “actions of the tsar”; they organically fit into the historical process and were prepared by the internal evolution of Russian society.
In addition to teaching Russian history, P. N. Milyukov is engaged in educational activities. On behalf of the Moscow Commission for Self-Education, he gave lectures in Izhny Novgorod on social movements in Russia. For condemning the autocracy, he was dismissed from the university and exiled to Ryazan for three years. It was there that he did the main work of writing “Essays on the History of Russian Culture.”
In 1897, Miliukov accepted an invitation from Bulgaria and headed the department of general history at the Sofia Higher School. My professional activity he combined it with the study of Slavic culture and the political situation in the Balkans (published “Letters from the Road” in “Russian Gazette” in 1897-1899).
Upon returning to Russia, to St. Petersburg (1899), he chaired a meeting dedicated to the memory of P. N. Lavrov. This time he was sentenced to six months in prison, followed by a ban on living in St. Petersburg. After serving his sentence (1890), Miliukov settled outside the city at Udelnaya station.
In the next period of his activity, he prepared a draft policy statement for the liberal magazine “Osvobozhdenie” (1902), published a monograph “From the history of the Russian intelligentsia” (1903), and took a trip abroad (1903-1905), during which he gave lectures “On Russia and the Slavs.” "at the University of Chicago and Harvard, publishes the book "Russia and its Crisis" in English and French (Chicago, 1905), visits (except the USA) Canada, Austria-Hungary, England, France, where he meets with famous political scientists, politicians, public figures (A. Lowell, R. MacDonald), including Russian emigrants (P. A. Kropotkin, A. V. Tchaikovsky, E. K. Breshko-Breshkovskaya, V. I. Lenin, etc.).
Upon returning to Russia (1905), Miliukov was elected chairman of the congress of the Union of Unions, an authoritative public and professional organization that adopted an appeal demanding the convening of a Constituent Assembly. In August 1905, for publishing “The Political Significance of the Law of August 6,” Miliukov was again arrested and spent a month in Kresty. After that, he settled in Moscow, where he joined a circle of lawyers (M. M. Kovalevsky, S. A. Muromtsev, F. F. Kokoshkin, P. I. Novgorodtsev) who were discussing the text of the future Russian constitution.
In conditions of expanding political freedoms, he joins the process of party building. He sets the goal of creating not a revolutionary, but a constitutional party. At the founding congress of the Constitutional Democratic Party (KDP) (October 1905), Miliukov made an introductory address and a report on tactics. At the II Congress of the CDP-PNS (People's Freedom Party), he reads a report (January 1906), which became the basis for decisions on issues of ideology, tactics and organization.
Miliukov was the recognized leader of the KDP-PNS, co-editor (with N.V. Gessen) of the party newspaper “Rech” and the author of almost all of its editorials (published in the book “Year of Struggle”, St. Petersburg, 1907). At the Third Congress (September 1906), the KDP-PNS dissociated itself from the revolutionary actions of the left forces - Social Democrats, Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists (“not an assault, but a correct siege”). At the same time, Miliukov draws a dividing line on the right: he is increasingly at odds with the leader of the Octobrists A.I. Guchkov, who did not recognize the need to put pressure on the tsar in order to quickly establish constitutionalism and parliamentarism. He calls the CDP-PNS a “non-class” parliamentary party, a party of the “third option” (neither left nor right).
Not having the opportunity to be elected to the First and Second State Dumas, Miliukov actually led the largest faction of the Cadets. After the Tsar dissolved the First State Duma, it was he who drafted the Vyborg Appeal of Deputies, which called on the population to civil disobedience.
In 1910, P. N. Milyukov took part in the collection “Intelligentsia in Russia,” which was the response of the liberal-democratic intelligentsia to the religious-conservative authors of the collection “Vekhi” (1909). In the article “Intellectuals and Historical Tradition,” Miliukov, recognizing the historical separation of the intelligentsia from the people, the “detachment” of the intelligentsia, nevertheless showed its enormous importance in society, which only intensifies with the beginning of a new political life (after the Manifesto
October 17, 1905). Moreover, new political realities (elections, party struggle, the work of the State Duma, controversy in the press, etc.) will serve, in his opinion, joint activities and mutual understanding between the intelligentsia and the grassroots. Other accusations against the Russian intelligentsia of irreligion, statelessness and lack of nationality only demonstrate, as Miliukov believed, the philosophical-ideological (neo-Slavophilism, Orthodox Russian nationalism) and political (right-wing spectrum of forces) position of the authors of “Vekhi”. P. N. Milyukov not only affirmed the historicity and organic nature of the European and Russian intelligentsia, not only opened up the prospect of overcoming their “disengagement,” but also pointed out the path of democratic development of the entire society - the path of joint social and political activity, rejection of class privileges, inclusion of the lower classes to culture, politics, education.
In the III and IV Dumas, P. N. Milyukov was already a full-fledged deputy, the leader of the faction, specializing in issues of constitutionalism and foreign policy. In relation to the war, the cadets took the position of liberating the homeland, Europe and the Slavs from German hegemony, liberating the world from the unbearable burden of ever-increasing weapons.
In 1915, Miliukov became the initiator and de facto leader of the Progressive Bloc, which included left- and right-center parties and which put forward a program for creating a government of trust, changing the government of the country, amnesty for political and religious crimes, lifting restrictions on Jews and persecution of Ukrainians, and granting autonomy Poland, restoration of trade unions, equalization of rights of peasants with other classes, reform of city and zemstvo institutions. On November 1, 1916, the leader of the cadets spoke in the Duma famous speech about the policy of the tsarist government, in which the refrain was: “What is this, stupidity or treason?” The public outcry of the speech was so great that the Chairman of the Council of Ministers B.V. Stürmer was immediately dismissed. At the end of 1916, leading figures of the Progressive Bloc (G. E. Lvov, A. I. Guchkov, P. N. Milyukov) discussed the idea palace coup with the aim of transferring power to the heir Alexei under the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, whose flexible character and liberal beliefs could become a guarantee of the Russian constitutional order.
During the February Revolution of 1917, Miliukov played a decisive role in determining the composition of the Provisional Government and especially in the selection of its chairman - the chairman of the Zemstvo organization, Prince G. E. Lvov. Miliukov himself was confirmed as Minister of Foreign Affairs. He determined his line in this post in an active struggle on three fronts: 1) against Zimmerwaldism (internationalism), for maintaining a common foreign policy with the allies, 2) against Kerensky’s aspirations to strengthen his own power and 3) for maintaining the full power of the government, created by the revolution. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, Miliukov also spoke out for the liberation of the Slavic peoples inhabiting Austria-Hungary, and the creation of the Czech-Slovak and Serbo-Croatian states, the merger of the Ukrainian lands of Austria-Hungary with Russia, and for the possession of Constantinople and the Black Sea straits. For this last demand he was nicknamed "Dardanelle." Based on these government goals, which coincided with Russian national interests, Miliukov drew up a note from the Provisional Government (dated March 27, 1917).
The left parties, supported by A.F. Kerensky, did their best to compromise Miliukov’s statement and advocated immediate peace “without annexations and indemnities.” In Petrograd, clashes occurred between supporters of leftist parties who put forward the slogan “Down with Miliukov, down with capitalist ministers!” and supporters of centrist forces under the slogan “Trust Miliukov! Long live the Provisional Government! Down with Lenin! There were casualties. The way out of the political crisis, according to many, was the creation of a coalition government with the participation of left and center parties. In the new government, Miliukov was offered the post of Minister of Public Education, but he resolutely refused. This was the nickname of his political career.
Subsequently, he continued to remain chairman of the Central Committee of the KDP-PDS, but the ban on the Cadets Party by the Bolsheviks who came to power (October 1917) put an end to his legal activities in Petrograd. Miliukov left for Novocherkassk. But, having familiarized himself with the draft “Political Program of General Kornilov,” he disagreed with the fact that documents and the government in the South of Russia were created without consultation with political parties. Having moved to Kyiv, he came into contact with the German command, for which he was condemned by the Central Committee of the KDP-PDS. Miliukov resigned as chairman of the Central Committee. After the expulsion of Wrangel's army from Crimea, he abandoned attempts to armedly overthrow the Bolsheviks.
Since 1920, Miliukov lived in Paris, working as editor-in-chief of the newspaper of the Russian diaspora “Last News”. He put forward the concept of “gradual evolution of the Soviet political system into a democratic one." In 1922, during a speech in Berlin, Russian monarchists shot at him. The bullet was taken by V.D. Nabokov, a member of the Central Committee of the KDP-PDS, who covered it with his body. With the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, Miliukov declared solidarity with the USSR. In recent years he has lived in small towns in the south of France.
And whose work is the subject of this review, he was the most prominent and largest representative of Russian liberalism at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. His career and historical works are indicative in the sense that they reveal the features of the development of the era of this time, when our country experienced severe domestic and foreign political upheavals that changed the course of its development for the entire next century.
Some biographical facts
Pavel Milyukov was born in 1859 in Moscow. He came from a noble family and received a good education at the Moscow Gymnasium. Then he entered the Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University, where he became interested in history. His teachers were Vinogradov and Klyuchevsky. The latter largely determined the interests of the future scientist, although they subsequently differed in their views on the history of Russia. Also at this time, he was greatly influenced by another prominent historian of the time in question - Soloviev. At the same time, Pavel Milyukov became interested in liberation ideas, for which he later got into trouble with the police.
Historical views
He was greatly influenced by the historical concepts of his teachers. However, even when choosing, the future historian strongly disagreed with his teacher Klyuchevsky. Pavel Milyukov developed his own concept of Russian history. In his opinion, its development was determined by the action of several factors at once. He denied the principle of singling out any one principle in determining the development trend historical process.
The scientist attached great importance to the themes of borrowing and the national identity of peoples. He believed that normal development possible in the context of cultural dialogue between countries and peoples. Pavel Milyukov believed that a feature of Russian history was that it sought to achieve a Western European level of development. The researcher argued that the state played a major role in the formation of society. He believed that it largely determined the formation of the social system and social institutions.
About colonization
This topic occupied an important place in the historical concepts of Solovyov and Klyuchevsky. They attached fundamental importance to the geographical conditions of the people’s residence, the influence of climate, waterways for the development of trade and economy. Pavel Milyukov accepted Solovyov's idea of the struggle between forest and steppe in the history of Russia. At the same time, he, relying on the latest archaeological research, largely corrected the developments of his teacher. The scientist took part in archaeological excavations, went on expeditions, and was also a member of the Geographical Natural Science Society, so the knowledge he gained helped to shed new light on this interesting topic in science.
Master's dissertation
Miliukov Pavel Nikolaevich chose the theme of Peter’s reforms for his work. However, his teacher advised him to study the letters of the Northern Russian monasteries. The scientist refused, which became the reason for their disagreement during the defense of the work, which was called “State Economy in Russia in the First Quarter of the 18th Century and the Reform of Peter the Great.” In it, he proved the idea that the first emperor carried out his transformative activities spontaneously, without a pre-thought-out plan. According to the researcher, all his reforms were dictated by the needs of the war. In addition, Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov believed that his transformations in the public sphere were determined by the need to carry out taxation and financial reforms. For this work, members of the academic council wanted to immediately award the candidate a doctorate, but Klyuchevsky opposed this decision, which led to the rupture of their friendly relations.
Trips
His participation in archaeological expeditions played a great role in Miliukov’s development as a historian. He traveled to Bulgaria, where he taught history and also did excavations. In addition, he gave lectures in Chicago, Boston, and some European cities. He also taught in Moscow educational institutions, but lost his position for participating in liberal circles. In 1904-1905 he actively participated in social movement: So, he takes part in the Paris Conference, represents the organizations “Union of Liberation”, “Union of Unions” in European countries. Such an active socio-political position determined the fact that he headed the party when the State Duma was created in Russia.
Political career in 1905-1917
Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich, the leader became one of the most famous political figures of the era. He held moderate liberal views and believed that Russia should be a constitutional monarchy. During these years, his name was considered one of the most famous and at the same time loudest in social and political life.
The latter circumstance is explained by the fact that he made loud announcements and accusations. He and his followers positioned themselves as opposition to the tsarist government. During the First World War, he advocated maintaining obligations to the allies, that is, for conducting military operations to a victorious end. Subsequently, he accused the country's leadership of colluding with the Germans, which largely contributed to the sharp intensification of opposition sentiments in society.
After the February Revolution, he became Minister of Foreign Affairs. While in this post, he continued to make loud speeches about the need to wage war until victory. He was a supporter of the transfer of the Black Sea straits of the Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russia. However, these statements did not bring him popularity at that time: on the contrary, his statement led to the growth of opposition in a society that was tired of the war, which the Bolsheviks took advantage of, provoking protests against the government.
This led to the leader of the Kadet Party resigning, but accepted the more modest post of Minister of Education. He supported the Kornilov movement and was elected to the Constituent Assembly, which never began its work. After the events described above, he emigrated to Europe, where he continued his active social and political activities, and also began publishing and reprinting his works.
Life in exile
Prominent among Russian emigration occupied by Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich. “The History of the Second Russian Revolution,” one of his works written during the years of emigration, is proof that even abroad he very keenly and keenly perceived the changes taking place in our country. At first he was a supporter of armed opposition to the Bolsheviks, but later changed his point of view and began to argue that it was necessary to undermine new system from the inside. For this, many of his followers abandoned him. In exile, the scientist edited the main newspaper of the Russian intelligentsia, Latest News. Despite his oppositional views, the historian nevertheless supported foreign policy Stalin, in particular, approved of the war with Finland. During the Second World War, he supported patriotic sentiments and supported the actions of the Red Army.
Some works
Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich, whose books have become a noticeable phenomenon in Russian historiography, in emigration began reprinting one of the main works of his life, dedicated to the history of Russia. Several volumes of “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” have become a notable phenomenon in historical science. In them, the author examined the historical process as a combination of the actions of several social phenomena: school, religion, political system. In them, he attached great importance to the country's borrowing of norms Western Europe.
Among the publications of the politician one can also name the essay “Living Pushkin”, collections of articles “From the history of the Russian intelligentsia” and “Year of Struggle”, the book “Armed Peace and Arms Limitation” and others.
Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich, whose “Memoirs” summed up his life, died in 1943. This work remained unfinished, however, it is important for understanding the formation of the historian’s personality. He wrote it from memory, without having any archival materials at hand, since his library in Paris was sealed. However, relying on his memory, he quite accurately conveyed the path of his formation as a scientist and socio-political figure.
Meaning
Miliukov left behind a noticeable mark both in science and in public life. His works are an important component of Russian historiography. The scientist's theory of the socio-historical process is original, and although he largely followed the ideas of the public school and his teacher, he nevertheless departed from their views on many points. It should be noted here that his socio-political activities affected his historical works. His style and language cannot be called exclusively scientific: journalistic vocabulary periodically slips into them. Miliukov's political activities were quite loud, and therefore we can say that he left a noticeable mark on socio-political thought.
Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov (January 15 (January 27) 1859, Moscow - March 31, 1943, Aix-les-Bains, France) - Russian political figure, historian and publicist. Leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party (People's Freedom Party). Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government in 1917.
Father - Nikolai Pavlovich Milyukov, an architect, a descendant of a noble family dating back to Semyon Melik (Milyuk), a participant in the Battle of Kulikovo. Mother - Maria Arkadyevna, nee Sultanova. First wife: Anna Sergeevna, née Smirnova, daughter of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy. She died in 1935. Second (since 1935): Nina (Antonina) Vasilievna, née Lavrova. Children: Nikolai, Sergei (died in 1915 at the front), Natalya.
Graduated from the 1st Moscow Gymnasium. In the summer of 1877, during the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878, he was in Transcaucasia as a treasurer of the military economy, and then an authorized representative of the Moscow sanitary detachment.
He graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University (1882; expelled for participating in a student meeting in 1881, reinstated the following year). At the university he was a student of V. O. Klyuchevsky and P. G. Vinogradov. During his student years, after the death of his father, in order to provide for his family, he gave private lessons. He was left at the university to prepare for a professorship.
Master of Russian History (1892; dissertation topic: “The state economy of Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century and the reforms of Peter the Great”). He did not defend his doctoral dissertation (there is a version that this was the result of a refusal to immediately award him a doctorate for his master's thesis - many members of the academic council were in favor of this, but V. O. Klyuchevsky opposed it, after which the relationship between him and Miliukov was spoiled).
In his master's thesis, he was the first to express the idea that the reforms of Peter I were a spontaneous process, prepared by the passage of time, and not initially planned. Argued that Peter's sphere of influence was very limited; the reforms were developed collectively, and the final goals of the reforms were only partially understood by the tsar, and even then indirectly by his immediate circle.
Miliukov's main historical work is “Essays on the History of Russian Culture.” The first issue sets out “general concepts” about history, its tasks and methods of scientific knowledge, defines the author’s theoretical approaches to the analysis of historical material, and contains essays on population, economic, government and social order. The second and third issues examine the culture of Russia - the role of the church, faith, school, and various ideological movements.
In “Essays” he showed the large role of the state in the formation of Russian society, arguing that Russia, despite its characteristics, followed the European path of development, and also presented his arguments regarding the adaptability of the Russian “national type” to borrowed social institutions. Believing that “there are a number of basic regular evolutions different sides social life,” Miliukov did not consider it possible to explain the historical process by the development of production or the “spiritual principle.” He sought to view a single history as a series of interconnected but different histories: political, military, cultural, etc.
Miliukov’s main historiographical work was the book “The Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought,” which was a revised and expanded course of university lectures. The book contains an analysis of the evolution of Russian historical science from the 17th century to the first third of the 19th century.
In 1886-1895 - private assistant professor at Moscow University, at the same time teaching at the gymnasium and at the Higher Women's Courses. He was dismissed from the university due to political unreliability and exiled to Ryazan. In 1897 he was invited to the Sofia Higher School to lecture on history and went to Bulgaria, but already in 1898, at the request of the Russian government, he was removed from teaching. He took part in an archaeological expedition in Macedonia, where a necropolis from the Hallstadt period was discovered.
In 1899 he returned to Russia, in 1901 he spent several months in prison for opposition activities. He published articles in the opposition emigrant publication Osvobozhdeniye, and became one of the recognized ideologists of Russian liberalism. In 1903-1905 he lived in the USA, where he lectured at the University of Chicago, as well as at Boston and Harvard. In 1905, having received news of “Bloody Sunday” on January 9, 1905, he returned to Russia. In May - August 1905 he was chairman of the Union of Unions - Association professional organizations who were in opposition to the government.
In October 1905 he became one of the founders of the Constitutional Democratic Party (People's Freedom Party), and from March 1907 - chairman Central Committee this party. He was a recognized leader of the Cadets, and during discussions between party members he usually took centrist positions. Member of the Central Committee of the Cadet Party A.V. Tyrkova wrote: “There were many extraordinary people in the party. Miliukov rose above them and became a leader primarily because he strongly wanted to be a leader. He had something rare for a Russian public figure concentrated ambition. This is a good trait for a politician.” He was one of the authors of the party program and believed that Russia should be a “constitutional and parliamentary monarchy.” He was one of the editors of the party newspaper Rech, the author of most of its editorial articles.
After the dissolution of the First State Duma in 1906, he was one of the authors of the “Vyborg Appeal,” which contained a call for civil disobedience. However, since he was not elected as a deputy, he did not sign the appeal and, as a result, was given the opportunity to continue his political activities (all “signatories” were sentenced to prison and lost the right to be elected to the Duma).
In 1907-1917 - member of the Third and Fourth State Dumas. He led the work of the cadet faction, which positioned itself as “the opposition to His Majesty” (and not to “His Majesty”). He spoke extensively in the Duma on foreign policy issues, including the situation in the Balkans. He criticized the government's internal policy.
After the outbreak of the First World War, he was a supporter of “war to the victorious end” (received the nickname “Milyukov-Dardanelles” for his demands to transfer control of the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits to Russia after the war), in 1914-1915 he considered it possible to reach an agreement with the government on a patriotic basis. Since 1915, after the defeats of the Russian army, he was again in strong opposition to the government, which he considered incapable of ensuring victory in the war. He was one of the leaders of the “Progressive Bloc” in the State Duma.
On November 1, 1916, from the rostrum of the State Duma, Miliukov accused Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and Russian Prime Minister Boris Sturmer of preparing a separate peace with Germany. Miliukov substantiated the charges of treason with notes in foreign newspapers; the refrain of his speech was the words “What is this, stupidity or treason?”
Pavel Milyukov:“I named these people for you - Manasevich-Manuilov, Rasputin, Pitirim, Sturmer. This is the court party whose victory, according to the Neue Freie Presse, was the appointment of Stürmer: “The victory of the court party, which is grouped around the young Queen.”
Here, right at a meeting of the State Duma, Miliukov was called to his face a slanderer.
Pavel Milyukov:“I am not sensitive to the expressions of Mr. Zamyslovsky” (voices from the left: “Bravo, bravo”).
Miliukov deliberately used slander in order to prepare for coup d'état, which he later regretted:
Pavel Milyukov (from a letter to Joseph Vasilyevich Revenko): “You know that we made a firm decision to use the war to carry out a coup soon after the start of this war. Note also that we could not wait any longer, because we knew that at the end of April or beginning of May our army had to go on the offensive, the results of which would immediately completely stop all hints of discontent and would cause an explosion of patriotism and jubilation in the country.”
After the abdication of Nicholas II as a result of the February Revolution, he was a member of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma, and advocated the preservation of constitutional monarchy, however, the majority of the leaders of the Progressive Bloc spoke out against it.
In the first composition of the Provisional Government (March-May 1917) he was Minister of Foreign Affairs. One of Miliukov's first orders in office was to order embassies to assist in the return of emigrant revolutionaries to Russia.
He advocated for Russia to fulfill its obligations to its Entente allies and, therefore, for continuing the war to a victorious end. His note outlining this position, sent to the Allies on April 18, caused indignation on the left of the political spectrum - the Bolsheviks and their allies staged demonstrations in the capital. Taking advantage of the crisis that arose, Miliukov's opponents in the government, in particular G. E. Lvov and A. F. Kerensky, achieved the creation of a coalition cabinet of ministers with the socialists, in which Miliukov was given the secondary post of Minister of Public Education. He refused this position and left the government.
He continued his political activities as the leader of the Kadet Party, supported the Kornilov movement (after the defeat of the Kornilov speech he was forced to leave Petrograd for the Crimea), had a sharply negative attitude towards the Bolsheviks coming to power, and was a consistent supporter of the armed struggle against them.
He was elected to the Constituent Assembly, but did not participate in its activities, since he left for the Don, joining the so-called “Alekseevskaya organization”, upon the arrival of generals Kornilov, Denikin, Markov, which was transformed into the Volunteer Army. In January 1918, he was a member of the “Don Civil Council,” created under the Volunteer Army of General L. G. Kornilov, for which he wrote a declaration.
Then he moved to Kyiv, where in May 1918 he began negotiations with the German command, which he considered as a potential ally in the fight against the Bolsheviks. Since the negotiations were not supported by the majority of the Cadets, he resigned as chairman of the party's Central Committee (he later recognized the negotiations as erroneous).
In November 1918 he went to Western Europe to get the Allies to support the White movement. He lived in England, and from 1920 in France, where he headed the Union of Russian Writers and Journalists in Paris and the council of professors at the Franco-Russian Institute. Developed a “new tactic” aimed at internal overcoming Bolshevism, which rejected both the continuation of the armed struggle within Russia and foreign intervention. He considered it necessary to form an alliance with the socialists on the basis of recognition of the republican and federal order in Russia, the destruction of landownership, and the development of local self-government. Many of Miliukov’s colleagues in the party opposed the “new tactics” - as a result, in June 1921 he left it, becoming one of the leaders of the Paris Democratic Group of the People's Freedom Party (from 1924 - the Republican Democratic Association). He was attacked by monarchists, who accused him of organizing the revolution and tried to kill him on March 22, 1922 (then Miliukov remained alive, but the famous figure of the Kadet Party V.D. Nabokov died).
From April 27, 1921 to June 11, 1940, he edited the Latest News newspaper published in Paris - one of the most significant printed publications Russian emigration. In emigration he was engaged in historical research, published “The History of the Second Russian Revolution”, the works “Russia at the Turning Point”, “Emigration at the Crossroads”, and began writing “Memoirs”, which remained unfinished. He continued to be critical of the Bolsheviks, but supported the imperial foreign policy of I.V. Stalin - in particular, he approved of the war with Finland, saying: “I feel sorry for the Finns, but I am for the Vyborg province.” On the eve of World War II, he argued that “in the event of war, emigration must unconditionally side with its homeland.”
During the war he was a determined opponent of Germany, and shortly before his death he sincerely rejoiced at the victory of the Soviet troops at Stalingrad. Died in Aix-les-Bains, buried in Paris.
P.N. Miliukov
Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich is better known in modern Russia as a politician of the liberal opposition, a talented publicist, leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party (People's Freedom Party, Cadet Party), Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government, an active participant in the Civil War. But it is absolutely impossible to dispute the fact that this man left a significant mark on history not only as its protagonist. Historian, researcher, teacher at Moscow University, he made a significant contribution to the development of Russian historical science at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, becoming one of the brightest representatives domestic historiography of that time. It is to P.N. Milyukov that Russian society actually owes the scientific substantiation of the legality and necessity of government reforms in Russia, carried out “from above,” but in agreement with “public opinion.” The entire liberal-democratic and bourgeois intelligentsia, who enthusiastically accepted the gains of February 1917, fell for this “bait.” But the Bolsheviks, like Peter I, carried out a radical reform of the Russian state system, without any regard for “public opinion” in the person of the same bourgeois intelligentsia. Ultimately, they artificially led the country away from its historical path, leaving neither “society” in it, nor its “opinion,” nor P.N. Milyukov himself.
Family and early years
Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov was born on January 15 (27), 1859 in Moscow. It was believed that his grandfather - Pavel Alekseevich Milyukov - came from the Tver nobles. During the era of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, one of his ancestors was granted a charter, however, there was no documentary evidence of his noble origin. Having gone to Siberia in search of gold, the grandfather failed and went completely broke. The father of the future politician, Nikolai Pavlovich Milyukov, is a graduate of the Academy of Arts, an architect by profession. He taught a lot, served as an inspector at two art schools in Moscow, worked as an appraiser in a bank, and for some time held the position of a city architect. The atmosphere in the family was far from prosperous due to the difficult relationship between the parents. Mother was proud to belong to noble family Sultanov, invariably emphasizing that her marriage with N.P. Milyukov (this was her second marriage) was a misalliance. Quarrels constantly broke out in the family; no one took serious care of the children. P.N. Miliukov later recalled: “The father, busy with his own affairs, did not pay attention to the children at all and was not involved in our upbringing. Our mother led us..."
Pavel was the eldest of two children born in marriage. WITH early years he developed a strong interest in poetry and music. He began writing poetry early: at first they were imitations of Nikitin and Pushkin, and later - his original works. P. N. Milyukov carried his love for music throughout his life: he had an absolute ear for music and played the violin beautifully.
The future historian received his education at the 1st Moscow Gymnasium, located on Sivtsev Vrazhek. After graduating from the gymnasium, in the summer of 1877, together with P.D. Dolgorukov P.N. Miliukov volunteered to participate in the Russian-Turkish War of 1877 - 1878 as a treasurer of the military economy, and then as an authorized representative of the Moscow sanitary detachment in Transcaucasia.
In 1877 he became a student at the Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University. At first, the young man was attracted by such a new direction of science as linguistics and comparative linguistics. “History,” recalled P. N. Milyukov, “didn’t interest me right away,” because the first teachers of general and Russian history - V.I. Guerrier and Popov did not stimulate interest in the subject and did not leave good impressions. Everything changed when V. O. Klyuchevsky and P. G. Vinogradov appeared at the university, real, according to P. N. Milyukov, luminaries of learning and talent. P. G. Vinogradov impressed the students with his serious work on historical sources. “Only from Vinogradov did we understand what real scientific work and to some extent they learned it,” wrote P. N. Milyukov. "IN. O. Klyuchevsky, according to P.N. Milyukov, overwhelmed students with his talent and scientific insight: his insight was amazing, but its source was not accessible to everyone.”
In 1879, after the death of their father, the Miliukov family was on the verge of ruin. To ensure a decent living for his mother (his younger brother Alexey did not live with his family by that time), the student was forced to give private lessons.
In addition, the period of P. N. Milyukov’s studies at the university was marked by a particularly strong surge in the student movement. On April 1, 1881, Miliukov was arrested for attending a student meeting. The result was expulsion from the university, although with the right to admission after a year.
The break from his studies was used by P. N. Miliukov to study Greco-Roman culture in Italy. After graduating from the university, P. N. Milyukov was left at the department of V. O. Klyuchevsky. At the same time, he taught at the 4th Women's Gymnasium (from 1883 to 1894), gave lessons at a private girls' school and at the Agricultural School. Having successfully passed his master's exams and given two trial lectures, P. N. Milyukov became a private assistant professor at Moscow University in 1886, which significantly changed his social status and circle of acquaintances. He became a member of many Moscow historical societies: the Moscow Archaeological Society, the Society of Natural Science, Geography and Archeology. At the university, the historian taught special courses on historiography, historical geography and the history of the colonization of Russia.
Master's thesis by P.N. Milyukov
For six years (from 1886 to 1892) P. N. Milyukov prepared his master’s thesis “The state economy of Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century and the reform of Peter the Great.”
By the time of defense, the dissertation was published in the form of a monograph, and the young scientist already had big name in the scientific world. Miliukov actively published his articles in famous historical and literary magazines “Russian Thought”, “Russian Antiquity”, “Historical Bulletin”, “Historical Review”, “Russian Archive”, etc., participated in the English magazine “Atheneum”, where he published annual reviews of Russian literature. In 1885 he was elected a corresponding member, and in 1890 - a full member of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society.
The opponents in the defense were V.O. Klyuchevsky and V.E. Yakushkin, who replaced I.I., who refused due to illness. Yanzhula.
The dissertation brought P.N. Milyukov truly all-Russian fame. The originality of this work lay in the fact that the researcher, following S.M. Solovyov and to a certain extent V.O. Klyuchevsky “organic” transformations early XVIII century with the previous development of Russia, noted their artificiality, and considered the very necessity of Peter I’s transformations doubtful. They were “timely” only in the sense of external conditionality: a favorable foreign policy situation prompted Russia to war, which resulted in reforms. According to Miliukov, the internal conditionality of Peter’s reforms was completely absent:
Miliukov was the first in the history of Russian historiography to express the idea that the reforms of Peter I were a spontaneous and completely unprepared process. They gave much less results than they could have, because they went against the opinions and wishes of society. Moreover, according to Miliukov, Peter I not only did not recognize himself as a reformer, but in fact he was not one. Miliukov considered the personal role of the Tsar to be the least important factor in carrying out the reforms:
The conclusion about the limited influence of Peter I on the development and course of the reform itself was one of the fundamental theses of Miliukov’s dissertation. Despite the existing scientific literature critical remarks about the role of the tsar-reformer (in particular, in the works of N.K. Mikhailovsky and A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky), it was Miliukov who formulated this conclusion in the most categorical form and with his name entered subsequent literature.
The high scientific merits of the work, the scale and completeness of the material studied, reasoned and strictly proven conclusions, and the novelty of the research caused a lot of positive reactions to the dissertation among the scientific community and professors of Moscow University. A proposal was even made to assign P.N. Miliukov received a doctorate immediately. Most likely, this is exactly what the scientist was counting on when he presented an extremely controversial but original work as a dissertation research. However, his teacher V.O. was categorically against it. Klyuchevsky, who won over the Academic Council to his side.
In his memoirs, Miliukov noted that to all the insistence of other professors that the work was outstanding, Klyuchevsky inexorably insisted: “Let him write another one, science will only benefit from it.”
Most researchers explain Klyuchevsky’s position as a personal grudge against the ambitious Miliukov. He rejected the topic of his master’s thesis previously proposed to him by his teacher and, taking the reforms of Peter I as the object of study, pointedly withdrew from his scientific leadership. Klyuchevsky was never able to come to terms with the quick success of an unauthorized student, which ruined their relationship forever.
His work on Peter I brought Miliukov great fame and authority. Almost all scientific and socio-political magazines published responses to his book on their pages. For his research P.N. Miliukov was awarded the S.M. Solovyov.
However, the resentment and “feeling of insult” that, according to him, remained with him from the defense, hurt the young scientist’s pride. Miliukov gave himself a word, which he subsequently kept: never to write or defend a doctoral dissertation. In this regard, he refused S.F.’s offer. Platonov nominated his other work for a doctorate - “Controversial Issues in the Financial History of the Moscow State” and defended it at St. Petersburg University. This work was a review, which Miliukov, at the request of the same S.F. Platonov, wrote on the book by A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky “Organization of direct taxation in the Moscow State from the Time of Troubles to the Era of Transformations” (St. Petersburg, 1890).
At the end of the 1880s, changes occurred in the personal life of P.N. Milyukova: he married Anna Sergeevna Smirnova, daughter of the rector of the Trinity-Sergius Academy S.K. Smirnova, whom he met in the house of V.O. Klyuchevsky. Like her husband, who was fond of playing the violin all his life, Anna Sergeevna loved music: according to the reviews of those around her, she was a talented pianist. Having left her family against the will of her parents, Anna lived in a private boarding school (her main source of livelihood was piano lessons) and attended women’s courses in general history by Professor V.I. Gerye, taught by V.O. Klyuchevsky. Anna became Miliukov’s faithful companion, was an activist in the movement for the emancipation of women, and took an active part in the life of the Cadet Party. They remained together for exactly half a century - until her death in 1935 in Paris. Three children were born into the Milyukov family: in 1889 - son Nikolai, in 1895 - son Sergei, youngest child had an only daughter, Natalya.
“Political unreliability” and the link of P.N. Milyukov
Recognition in the scientific world, prizes and wide fame that befell Miliukov after the publication of his works were undoubtedly a reward for his hard work, but they only gratified the historian’s ambition. His further career within the walls of Moscow University seemed very problematic. According to the university charter of 1884, only professors could be full-time employees of the university with an appropriate salary, and it was impossible to obtain this title without a doctorate. There remained the opportunity to seek inclusion on the staff as an assistant professor, but this option encountered resistance from V.O. Klyuchevsky, who at that time occupied the position of vice-rector of the university. A university career, Miliukov noted with regret, “was closed for me before the government closed it.”
In this regard, one cannot but agree with the opinion of some subsequent researchers who believed that Russia owes, oddly enough, the phenomenon of the politician Miliukov, who almost brought the country to the brink of national and political catastrophe, to the great historian V.O. Klyuchevsky. In particular, N.G. Dumova in her book “Liberal in Russia: the tragedy of incompatibility” considers 1892-1893 as a turning point in the biography of P.N. Milyukova. The conflict with Klyuchevsky led to the fact that the historian actually began to be forced out of the university: he was not included in the full-time teaching staff; the vice-rector, by his authority, does not allow the main course of lectures to be given at the faculty; successfully defending a doctoral dissertation in such conditions also becomes impossible.
Shaky public and financial position forces P.N. Miliukov to look for new areas where he could more fully realize his potential. Although during this period Miliukov continued to be actively engaged in historical research, took part in the activities of scientific societies, and published in journals, social and then political activities were increasingly mixed into these activities.
To develop self-education for teachers in the provinces, the Moscow Archaeological Society organized a lecture bureau. The professors who were part of it had to travel around the country and give general education lectures. As such a lecturer P.N. Miliukov spoke in Nizhny Novgorod, where he gave a series of lectures on the Russian liberation movement of the 18th-19th centuries. In them, he traced the development of the Russian liberation movement, starting from its inception in the era of Catherine II and ending with the contemporary state of affairs. The liberal orientation of the lectures, in which he, in his own words, “could not help but reflect... one way or another this general high spirits” associated with society’s expectations from the accession of Nicholas II, aroused enormous interest among the assembled public.
Using examples from the era of Catherine II, Miliukov tried to convey to listeners the need to develop dialogue between society and government, educate citizenship and create public institutions in Russia.
The lectures given aroused dissatisfaction with the authorities, who saw them as sedition and a harmful influence on young people. The Ministry of Internal Affairs opened an investigation against Miliukov. By order of the police department of February 18, 1895, he was removed from any teaching activity due to “extreme political unreliability.” The Ministry of Public Education issued an order to dismiss the historian from Moscow University and prohibit him from teaching anywhere. Until the end of the investigation P.N. Miliukov was expelled from Moscow. He chose Ryazan as his place of exile - the provincial city closest to Moscow, which did not have a university (this was the condition of the authorities).
In Ryazan, Miliukov participated in archaeological excavations, wrote articles and feuilletons in Russkie Vedomosti, and actively contributed to the encyclopedic dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron, worked on the creation of his main fundamental work, “Essays on the History of Russian Culture.”
The first edition of "Essays" was published in 1896-1903 in three issues and four books. In Russia, before 1917, 7 editions of “Essays” were published. While already in exile, Miliukov published a new, revised edition of the book. It took into account published literature on various fields of knowledge and the changes that the author considered necessary to make to his concept of the historical development of Russia. The new edition was published in Paris in 1930-1937, and was an anniversary edition, dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the first edition.
At the beginning of 1897, Miliukov received an invitation from Sofia Higher school in Bulgaria with a proposal after the death of M.P. Drahomanov to head the department of general history. The authorities allowed the trip. The scientist stayed in Bulgaria for two years, taught courses on general history, on antiquities of archeology and on the history of philosophical and historical systems, studied Bulgarian and Turkish (in total, Miliukov knew 18 foreign languages). Deliberately ignoring the ceremonial reception at the Russian embassy in Sofia on the occasion of the name day of Nicholas II caused irritation in St. Petersburg. The Bulgarian government was demanded to fire Miliukov. The “unemployed” scientist moved to Turkey, where he took part in an expedition of the Constantinople Archaeological Institute in excavations in Macedonia.
In November 1898, at the end of the two-year period of supervision, Miliukov was allowed to live in St. Petersburg.
In 1901, for participating in a meeting at the Mining Institute, dedicated to memory P. Lavrova, P.N. Milyukov was again arrested and sent to Kresty prison. After staying there for six months, he settled at Udelnaya station near St. Petersburg.
During this period, Miliukov became close to the liberal zemstvo environment. He became one of the founders of the magazine “Osvobozhdenie” and the political organization of Russian liberals “Union of Liberation”. In 1902-1904 he repeatedly traveled to England, then to the USA, where he lectured at the University of Chicago and Harvard University, and at the Lowell Institute in Boston. The course taught was compiled into the book “Russia and Its Crisis” (1905).
Actually, this is the biography of P.N. Miliukov as a historian and scientist can be completed. The revolutionary events of 1905-1907 finally turned the privatdozent, “excommunicated” from teaching, into an opposition politician and publicist who seriously believed that society could be “prepared” for constitutional reforms.
P.N. Miliukov - politician
Since the summer of 1905, the former historian became one of the founders and undisputed leader of the constitutional democrat party. He is also the publisher and editor of the cadet press, the permanent leader of the cadet faction in all 4 Dumas.
Miliukov, as is known, could not be elected to either the First State Duma or the Second. Opposition from the authorities had an effect, although the formal pretext for exclusion from participation in the elections was non-compliance with the requirements of the housing qualification. However, Pavel Nikolaevich acted as the de facto leader of the Duma faction of the Cadets. They said that Miliukov, who visited the Tauride Palace every day, “conducted the Duma from the buffet”!
Miliukov's cherished dream of parliamentary activity came true in the fall of 1907 - he was elected to the Third Duma. The leader of the Cadet Party, having headed its parliamentary faction, became an even more influential and prominent figure. They joked that Miliukov was an ideal parliamentarian; he was created as if by order especially for the British Parliament and the Encyclopedia Britannica. In the Third Duma, the cadet faction was in the minority, but its leader P.N. Miliukov became the most active speaker and chief expert on foreign policy issues. He dealt with these issues in the IV Duma, and also spoke on various problems on behalf of the faction.
At the congress of the Constitutional Democratic Party, held on March 23 - 25, 1914, P.N. Miliukov proposed the tactic of “isolating the government,” which received the support of the majority of delegates. This meant the legitimation of open confrontation between the Cadets and the authorities, which was reflected in the harsh speeches of party representatives in the Duma and in the periodical press.
The First World War first made adjustments to the cadets' tactics. P.N. Miliukov became a supporter of the idea of ending internal political struggle until victory, for which the opposition forces must support the government. He viewed the war as an opportunity to strengthen the foreign policy influence of the state, associated with the strengthening of positions in the Balkans and the inclusion of the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits into the Russian Empire, for which he received the eloquent nickname “Milyukov-Dardanelles”.
But the “sacred unity” with the government did not last long: the economic crisis in the country, the defeat of the army and internal political instability led to the fact that a strong opposition to the government began to form in the Duma, which united in August 1915 into the Progressive Bloc. P.N. Miliukov was the organizer and one of the leaders of the bloc, who believed that Russia could win the war only by replacing existing government a ministry that enjoys the country's confidence.
At the end of 1915 P.N. Miliukov experienced a deep personal tragedy: during the retreat from Brest, his second son Sergei, who volunteered for the war, was killed.
1916 is the peak of the Progressive Bloc's activity. This year, B.V. became the head of the Russian government. Stürmer, who concentrated in his hands three key positions of the Cabinet of Ministers, a protege of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and G.E. Rasputin. It is natural that the resignation of B.V. Stürmera became one of the main tasks of the bloc. An important step towards its implementation was the famous Duma speech of P.N. Milyukova dated November 1, 1916, which received the code name “Stupidity or Treason?” in historiography. based on a repeated refrain in it. Having based his speech on information unknown in Russia, collected by him during a trip abroad in the summer - autumn of 1916, P.N. Miliukov used them as evidence of B.V.’s incapacity and malicious intent. Sturmer, even mentioning in this regard the name of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. The speech denouncing the queen became very popular in the country, which is why among emigrants, already in the 1920s, it was often perceived as a “storm signal” for revolution.
Miliukov’s political obsession is evidenced by little-known words, spoken by him at a breakfast with the British Ambassador George Buchanan shortly before the February Revolution. Buchanan asked why the parliamentary opposition, in the midst of a difficult war, was so aggressive towards its government? Russia, from a diplomatic point of view, has acquired a legislative Duma, freedom of political parties and the press in ten years. Shouldn’t the opposition have moderated its criticism and waited for the realization of its wishes for “some ten more years”? Miliukov exclaimed with pathos: “Sir, Russian liberals cannot wait ten years!” Buchanan grinned in response: “My country has waited for hundreds of years...”
After the February Revolution P.N. Miliukov took part in the formation of the Provisional Government, which he joined as Minister of Foreign Affairs. After the abdication of Nicholas II, he tried to achieve the preservation of the monarchy in Russia until the convening of the Constituent Assembly.
At the ministerial post, the decline of P.N.’s political career began. Milyukov: the war was unpopular among the people, and on April 18, 1917, he sent a note to the allies in which he outlined his foreign policy doctrine: war to a victorious end. This revealed the main shortcoming of P.N. Miliukov-politician, who cost him his career: being convinced of the correctness of his views and firmly convinced of the need to implement the program guidelines of his party, he calmly walked towards his goals, not paying attention to external influences, to the real situation in the country, to the mentality of the population. Manifestation of discontent and demonstrations in the capital after P.N.’s note. Miliukov caused the resignation of the minister on May 2, 1917.
In the summer - autumn of 1917 P.N. Miliukov participated in the political life of Russia as Chairman of the Central Committee of the Constitutional Democratic Party, a member of the permanent bureau of the State Conference and the Pre-Parliament. In August 1917, he supported the proposals of General L.G. Kornilov, at the same time actively made calls to the Russian public about the need to fight Bolshevism.
Bolshevik coup P.N. Miliukov did not accept and began to use all his influence to fight the Soviet regime. He advocated armed struggle, for which he sought to create a united front. In November 1917, Miliukov participated in a meeting of Entente representatives on the fight against Bolshevism. Having gone to Novocherkassk, he joined the volunteer military organization of General M.V. Alekseeva. In January 1918 he was a member of the Don Civil Council. When Alekseev asked Miliukov in February 1918 to familiarize himself with the draft of the so-called “Political Program of General Kornilov,” Miliukov expressed disagreement with the fact that the project was created without consultation with political parties. He also rejected Kornilov’s attempt to create a government alone. Miliukov believed that the publication of the program would deprive the volunteer movement of support from broad sections of the population. Ultimately, the leaders of the Volunteer Army, still sensitive to the comments of liberal politicians, did not accept any program. Together with the cadet boys and yesterday's students, they went to die in the Kuban steppes. And P.N. Miliukov, as befits a “giant of thought and the father of Russian democracy,” moved from the inhospitable Don to Kyiv, where, on behalf of the Cadet Party conference, he began negotiations with the German command about the need to finance the anti-Bolshevik movement. A staunch supporter of the Entente at this moment saw in the German occupiers the only real force capable of resisting the Bolsheviks. The Cadet Central Committee condemned his policies, and Milyukov resigned as chairman of the Central Committee. At the end of October he admitted his policy towards the German army was wrong. He welcomed the military intervention of the Entente states.
At the same time, P.N. Miliukov resumed his activities as a historian: in 1918, in Kyiv, “The History of the Second Russian Revolution” was being prepared for publication, published in 1921-23 in Sofia.
Emigrant
In November 1918, P.N. Miliukov went to Western Europe to obtain support from the allies for anti-Bolshevik forces. He lived for some time in England, where he edited the weekly The New Russia, published in English by the Russian emigrant Liberation Committee. He appeared in the press and in journalism on behalf of the White movement. In 1920 he published the book “Bolshevism: An International Danger” in London. However, the defeats of the White armies at the front and the indifferent policy of the Allies, who failed to provide the White movement with sufficient material support, changed his views on ways to rid Russia of Bolshevism. After the evacuation of the troops of General P.N. Wrangel from Crimea in November 1920, Miliukov stated that “Russia cannot be liberated against the will of the people.”
During these same years, he received tragic news from Soviet Russia about the death of his daughter Natalya from dysentery.
In 1920 P.N. Miliukov moved to Paris, where he headed the Union of Russian Writers and Journalists in Paris and the council of professors at the Franco-Russian Institute.
Summing up the results of the anti-Bolshevik struggle in 1917 - 1920, he developed a “new tactic”, the theses of which he presented in May 1920 at a meeting of the Paris Committee of Cadets. The “new tactics” towards Soviet Russia, aimed at internally overcoming Bolshevism, rejected both the continuation of armed struggle within Russia and foreign intervention. Instead, it provided for the recognition of the republican and federal order in Russia, the destruction of landownership, and the development of local self-government. P.N. Miliukov considered it necessary, together with the socialists, to develop a broad plan in land and national issues, in the sphere of state construction. It was expected that this platform would gain the support of democratic forces within Russia and inspire them to fight against the Bolshevik regime.
A change in worldview put P.N. Milyukov was in opposition to most of the Russian emigration and made enemies of many cadets who were his like-minded people in Russia. In June 1921, he left the party and, together with M.M. Vinaver, forming the Paris Democratic Group of the People's Freedom Party (in 1924 it was transformed into the Republican Democratic Association).
Monarchists who rightly accused P.N. Miliukov in unleashing the revolution in Russia and in all its consequences, several attempts were made to assassinate him. In Paris, a city with a relatively liberal emigrant colony, the former politician had to live in a “semi-safe” apartment and go into hiding for fear of attacks. March 28, 1922 in the building of the Berlin Philharmonic in P.N. Miliukov was shot, but V.D. Nabokov, a famous cadet, the father of the writer V. Nabokov, shielded the former party leader with himself, as a result of which he himself was killed.
In exile P.N. Miliukov wrote and published a lot: his journalistic works “Russia at the Turning Point”, “Emigration at the Crossroads” were published, “Memoirs” were begun, and remained unfinished. Miliukov wrote articles about Russia for the Encyclopedia Britannica, collaborated in other publications, and gave lectures on the history of Russia in many countries, including the United States of America, where he traveled by invitation American Association Lowell Institute.
From April 27, 1921 to June 11, 1940 P.N. Miliukov edited the newspaper Latest News, published in Paris. It devoted a lot of space to news from Soviet Russia. Since 1921, P.N. Miliukov consoled himself by finding “signs of revival and democratization” in Russia, which, in his opinion, were contrary to the policy of the Soviet government. In the 1930s, he began to positively evaluate Stalin’s foreign policy for its imperial character, approved of the war with Finland, reasoning: “I feel sorry for the Finns, but I am for the Vyborg province.”
For 20 years, “Last News”, headed by Miliukov, played a leading role in the life of the emigration, uniting around itself the best literary and journalistic forces of the Russian diaspora. It is enough to name those whose works regularly appeared on the pages of the newspaper: I. A. Bunin, M. I. Tsvetaeva, V. V. Nabokov (Sirin), M. A. Aldanov, Sasha Cherny, V. F. Khodasevich, K D. Balmont, A. M. Remizov, N. A. Teffi, B. K. Zaitsev, N. N. Berberova, Don Aminado, A. N. Benois and many, many others. The liberal “Last News” carried on a fierce debate with the far-right emigrant newspaper “Vozrozhdenie”, headed by Miliukov’s former comrade-in-arms in the Liberation Union and the Kadet Party, P. B. Struve.
 |
Former like-minded people, who had previously entered into fierce disputes among themselves, became irreconcilable enemies in emigration. Disputes between the two newspapers were on all political issues, and above all, on the most painful one - who is to blame for what happened to Russia? Their endless bickering on this topic became a common feature of emigrant life. The neutral magazine Illustrated Russia published the following satirical picture: two dogs are squabbling, tearing out a gnawed bone from each other. The emigrant, looking at them, realizes: - Oh, I forgot to buy “News” and “Renaissance”!
In the conditions of World War II, P.N. Miliukov unconditionally sided with the USSR, viewing Germany as an aggressor. He sincerely rejoiced at the Stalingrad victory, assessing it as a turning point in favor of the USSR.
P.N. Miliukov died in Aix-les-Bains on March 31, 1943 at the age of 84, and was buried in a temporary plot of the local cemetery. Soon after the end of the war, the only surviving child of P.N. Milyukova, eldest son Nikolai, transported his father’s coffin to Paris, to the family crypt at the Batillion cemetery, where A.S. had previously been buried. Milyukova.
Personality assessments of P.N. Milyukov
It must be said that the attitude of his contemporaries towards Miliukov throughout his life remained complex and contradictory, and assessments of his personality were often polar opposite. In the memoir literature it is almost impossible to find impartial judgments about this extraordinary person, not colored by personal attitudes. He always had many enemies and at the same time many friends. Sometimes friends became enemies, but it happened - though rarely - and vice versa.
The ability to flexibly maneuver between political extremes, the desire to search for mutually acceptable solutions (those traits for which opponents on the right and left usually branded “cowardly liberalism”) coexisted in Miliukov with extraordinary personal courage, which he repeatedly demonstrated at decisive moments in his life. As Prince V.A. Obolensky, who knew Pavel Nikolaevich closely (and was quite critical of him), testified, he completely lacked a “fear reflex.”
His character combined the most contradictory features. Great political ambition and complete indifference to insults from opponents (he told friends: “They spit on me every day, but I don’t pay any attention”). Restraint, coldness, even some stiffness and true, unostentatious democracy in dealing with people of any rank, of any position. Iron tenacity in defending one's views and sudden, dizzying, completely unpredictable turns in one's political position. Commitment to democratic ideals, universal human values and unwavering devotion to the idea of strengthening and expanding the Russian Empire. An intelligent, insightful politician - and at the same time, according to the nickname that has stuck with him, “the god of tactlessness.”
Miliukov never attached importance to everyday comfort; he dressed cleanly, but extremely simply: his worn suit and celluloid collar were the talk of the town.
In Paris, he lived in an old “abandoned house, where almost all his rooms were completely filled with shelves of books,” which made up a huge library of more than ten thousand volumes, not counting numerous sets of newspapers in different languages.
There were legends about Miliukov's ability to work. Pavel Nikolaevich managed to do a huge number of things in a day; all his life he wrote serious analytical articles every day, worked on books (the bibliographic list of his scientific works compiled in 1930 amounted to 38 typewritten pages). At the same time, he devoted a lot of time to editorial, Duma and party activities. And in the evenings he kept up with all sorts of entertainment: he was a regular at balls, charity evenings, theater premieres, and vernissages. Until his old age he remained a great ladies' man and enjoyed success, as one of the people close to him, D.I. Meisner, recalled.
In 1935, after the death of his wife A.S. Milyukova, P.N. At the age of 76, Miliukov married Nina (Antonina) Vasilyevna Lavrova, whom he met back in 1908 and maintained the closest relationship for many years. Nina Vasilievna was much younger than her husband. Obeying her tastes, Miliukov agreed to move to a new apartment on Montparnasse Boulevard, where for the first time in his life he decorated his surroundings differently, “in a bourgeois way.” However, he himself, as before, remained outside all external conventions. According to the recollections of contemporaries, the elderly historian felt like a stranger in this apartment; he almost never dined in the dining room, preferring to have a snack in the office, right at his desk. When, during the German occupation, the Milyukovs' Paris apartment was robbed, Pavel Nikolaevich was most worried about the loss of his library and some manuscripts - the most precious thing that remained in his life.
Historical legacy of P.N. Milyukov
P. N. Milyukov’s views on the history of Russia were formulated in a number of works of a purely historical nature: “The state economy of Russia in the first quarter of the 18th century and the reform of Peter the Great”; “The Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought” is the largest domestic historiographic study of the late 19th century; “Essays on the history of Russian culture”, “Law school in Russian historiography (Soloviev, Kavelin, Chicherin, Sergeevich)”. His historical views were also reflected in his journalism: “The Year of Struggle: A Journalistic Chronicle”; "Second Duma"; "History of the Second Russian Revolution"; “Russia at a turning point”; “Bolshevik turning point of the Russian revolution”; “Republic or monarchy”, etc.
Despite his wide fame and popularity, Miliukov as a historian was not actually studied before the revolution. Important critical assessments of his views were given only by N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky and B. I. Syromyatnikov. The rest of the scientific community was disgusted by the passion of its recent member for politics, and therefore P.N. Milyukov was no longer taken seriously as a historian.
In Soviet times, the scientific concept of P.N. Milyukov was also viewed through the prism of his political views. This tradition remained almost unchanged in Soviet literature from the 1920s to the mid-1980s. According to the point of view of A.L. Shapiro and A.M. Sakharov, Miliukov stood on the principles of positivism and belonged to the school of neo-statists. They call him the most biased historian of the early twentieth century, who skillfully subordinated historical material to the argumentation of the political positions of the Russian bourgeoisie.
Only in the early 1980s did authors begin to free themselves from ideological standards in relation to the historian. For the first time, interest in the historiographical work of P. N. Milyukov appears. During this period, I. D. Kovalchenko and A. E. Shiklo expressed their point of view on the methodological views of P. N. Milyukov and defined them as typically neo-Kantian. It was recognized that, having learned something from historical materialism, P. N. Milyukov remained on idealistic positions and tried to use his theoretical weapons to refute the Marxist historical concept.
The most detailed study of the historical concept of P.N. Milyukov began in the 1990s, when the heritage of the Russian Abroad became one of the main objects of study by domestic historians.
In connection with the 140th anniversary of the birth of Miliukov, an international Scientific Conference, dedicated to the memory of the historian, the result of which was the fundamental work “P. N. Milyukov: historian, politician, diplomat.” (M., 2000). It sums up the results of the study of the philosophical, historical and sociocultural foundations of Miliukov’s worldview, shows his contribution to Russian historical science, to the development of the doctrine and ideology, program and tactics of a new type of liberalism.
From this time on, the study of Miliukov’s historical creativity begins to acquire objectivity and comprehensiveness. And yet, it can be stated with bitterness that among domestic historians main work P.N. Milyukov’s “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” remains uninterpreted even today (to paraphrase G.V. Plekhanov, it remains a favorite, unread book of the Russian public who still reads something).
“Essays on the history of Russian culture” and the historical concept of P.N. Milyukov
Today we have every reason to say that historical concept Milyukova developed on the basis of, in interaction and in contradiction with various theoretical-methodological and scientific-historical theories, both domestic and foreign science. The sources of influence on Miliukov’s historical constructions were varied, and his theoretical and methodological views reflected the complex historiographical situation of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when three main methodological systems collided - positivism, neo-Kantianism and Marxism.
Miliukov’s concept of the history of Russia developed gradually. The initial stage of its formation occurred in the mid-1880s and early 90s of the 19th century, when the historian wrote his master’s thesis “The State Economy of Russia in the Era of the Transformations of Peter I.” In Miliukov's first works, purely positivist positions are visible; the influence of the state (legal) historiographic school of S.M. Solovyov and the views of V.O. Klyuchevsky is great.
The further development of Miliukov’s concept is set out in “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” and a number of his historical and journalistic works.
In the first issue of “Essays” Miliukov outlined “general concepts” about history, its tasks and methods of scientific knowledge, defined the author’s theoretical approaches to the analysis of historical material, and contained essays on the population, economic, state and social system. The second and third issues examine the culture of Russia - the role of the church, faith, school, and various ideological movements.
P. N. Milyukov pointed out the existence various directions in understanding the subject of history. History, filled with stories - stories about heroes and leaders of events (pragmatic, political), has been replaced by history, the main task of which is to study the life of the masses, i.e. internal history (everyday or cultural). Thus, P. N. Milyukov believed, “history will cease to be a subject of simple curiosity, a motley collection of “days past anecdotes” - and will become “a subject capable of arousing scientific interest and bringing practical benefit.”
Miliukov considered the opposition between “cultural” history, material, social, spiritual, etc., existing in science to be unfounded. “Cultural history” is understood by him in its very in a broad sense words and includes: “economic, social, state, mental, religious, and aesthetic” history. “...We consider attempts to reduce all of the listed aspects of historical evolution to just one completely hopeless,” the historian concludes.
The very historical concept of P.N. Milyukov was initially built on a positivist multifactorial approach to the analysis of historical material.
Demographic factor
Among the factors influencing the process of historical development, Miliukov attached particular importance to the “population factor,” i.e. historical demography. Miliukov constantly compared population processes in Russia with similar processes in Western European countries. He believed that there were two types of countries: countries with low welfare, and weak development of individuality, with the presence of unspent sources of livelihood. In these countries, population growth will be most significant. The second type is characterized by high degree well-being of the population, the individual has great scope for development, and labor productivity can be increased by artificial means, and, accordingly, population growth is slowed down. Miliukov classifies Russia as one of the first type of countries. It was typical for Russia low level well-being, isolation of the lower social system, poor development of individuality, and, accordingly, a large number of marriages and births.
Miliukov “considered demographic processes, both in Russia and in Europe, in their totality and as determined by the ethnographic composition of the population and colonization,” considered it necessary to take into account the time of settlement, and noted the delay of these processes in Russia compared to Western European ones.
Geographical and economic factors
The second section of “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” deals with economic life. According to Miliukov, Russia's economic development was lagging behind Western Europe. The initial thesis of his reasoning: the transition from subsistence to barter economy in the countries of Western Europe was completed much earlier than in Russia. The belatedness of the historical process is explained by Miliukov exclusively by climatic and geographical reasons, because The Russian plain was freed from continuous ice cover much later than Western European territory. Over time, this delay could not be overcome, and it was deepened by the interaction of a number of local conditions.
According to P.N. Milyukov, the population usually begins by plundering natural resources. When there are not enough of them, the population begins to migrate and settle in other territories. This process, according to the historian, took place throughout the history of Russia and was far from over in the 19th century. The researcher names the north and southeast as the main directions of colonization. The continuous movement of the Russian people prevented the growth of population density, which determined the primitive nature of our economic economy:
“...In general, our entire economic past is a time of dominance of subsistence farming. In the agricultural class, only the liberation of the peasants caused the final transition to barter farming, and in the peasant class, natural farming would have flourished to this day if the need to get money to pay taxes had not forced the peasant to bring his products and personal labor to the market,” wrote P. N. Milyukov.
Miliukov associated the beginning of the industrial development of Russia exclusively with the activities of Peter I and the factor of state necessity. The second stage of industrial development - named after Catherine II; a new type of completely capitalist factory - with the reform of 1861, and the traditional state patronage of industry, according to the historian, reached its apogee by the end of the 19th century.
In Russia, unlike the West, manufacture and factory did not have time to develop organically from home production. They were created artificially by the government. New forms of production were transferred from the West ready-made. At the same time, Miliukov notes that since the second half of the 19th century there has been a rapid break in Russia with its economic past.
General conclusion arising from the analysis economic development Russia and Western countries: “having fallen behind its past, Russia is still far from catching up with the European present.”
Role of the State
P.N. Milyukov explains the predominant role of the state in Russian history purely external reasons, namely: the elementary nature of economic development, due to demographic and climatic factors; the presence of external threats and geographical conditions that contributed to continuous expansion. Therefore, the main distinguishing feature of the Russian state is its military-national character.
Next, Miliukov identifies five fiscal and administrative revolutions in the life of the state, carried out as a result of growing military needs in the period between the end of the fifteenth century and the death of Peter the Great (1490, 1550, 1680 and 1700-20). Summing up his arguments in the conclusion to the first volume of Essays, Miliukov wrote: “If we want to formulate general impression which is obtained by comparing all the aspects of the Russian historical process that we have touched upon with the same aspects of the historical development of the West, then, it seems, it will be possible to reduce this impression to two main features. What is striking about our historical evolution is, firstly, its extreme elementaryness, and secondly, its complete originality.”
According to P.N. Milyukov, the development of Russia occurs in accordance with the same universal laws as in the West, but with a huge delay. The historian believed that at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, Russia was already going through the stage of state hypertrophy and was developing in the same direction as Europe.
However, already early critics, in particular N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky and B.I. Syromyatnikov, drew attention to the unsuccessful and completely inexplicable leap from the former backward “originality” to the future successful uniformity with the West in Miliukov’s concept. Later, Miliukov made changes to the thesis about originality. In 1930, in a lecture “The Sociological Foundations of the Russian Historical Process,” given in Berlin, Miliukov reduced his concept of originality to the idea of backwardness or slowness. And subsequently, in his efforts to distance himself from the Eurasians, Miliukov completely destroyed the Russia-Europe dichotomy by recognizing the existence of multiple “Europes” and constructing a West-East cultural bias that included Russia as the easternmost flank of Europe, and therefore as the most distinctive European country.
Thus, P. N. Milyukov in “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” tries to return to state theory, but accumulates latest achievements domestic and European thought, laying a more solid foundation for it.
The historian constantly emphasizes such a feature of Russia as the absence of a “dense impenetrable layer” between the government and the population, i.e. feudal elite. This led to the fact that public organization in Rus' was made directly dependent on state power. In Russia, unlike the West, there was no independent landownership noble class, by its origin it was a serviceman and dependent on the military-national state.
The military-national state was personified by P. N. Milyukov with the Muscovite kingdom of the 15th-16th centuries. The main spring is “the need for self-defense, which imperceptibly and involuntarily turns into a policy of unification and territorial expansion.” The development of the Russian state is connected with the development of military needs. “The army and finances... have been absorbing the attention of the central government for a long time since the end of the 15th century,” writes P. N. Milyukov. All other reforms have always been caused only by these two needs.
However, P. N. Milyukov does not accept the empiricism of positivism and the absolutization of the economic factor in the sociological schemes of Marxism. He presents his position as something between idealism and materialism. The philosophical studies of P. N. Milyukov belong to the period when Russian historiography was just beginning to take shape. research program neo-Kantianism. The main battles between positivists and neo-Kantians were still ahead, therefore in the works of P. N. Milyukov we find neither a formulation of the problem of the specific logic of historical research, nor methods for resolving it. One can, perhaps, talk about the evolution of a historian towards neo-Kantianism only by keeping in mind the general cultural atmosphere, imbued with interest in personality, creativity, historicism, culture in general, and in particular, “ cultural history”, about which the author reflects.
“Cultural history” by P.N. Milyukov
In 1896, two outstanding historians - K. Lamprecht in Germany and P.N. Milyukov in Russia, independently announced a new direction in historical science. And to denote this direction, both historians chose a new term - “cultural history”. It was a reaction to the crisis of historicism in the 19th century. To explain the historical process, both used socio-economic factors; subsequently, both were suspected of historical materialism.
“While Miliukov relied on sociology and used social psychology as an additional aid In order to establish the parallelism of material and spiritual processes, Lamprecht took a step even further. He got lost in folk psychologism, which is based on artistic and historical categories. In the end Lamprecht concentrated his scientific interests on the national consciousness, or mental life people. In contrast, Miliukov sought to establish a cultural tradition or democratize society,” this is how the modern German scientist T. Bohn outlined the unique historical and cultural situation at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, where he sees the origins of the modern understanding of anthropological searches.
Miliukov considers the “place of development” and the economy as a building in which spiritual culture lives and develops. Its existence, according to P. N. Milyukov, is a reception process, which is transmitted by school, church, literature, and theater. For Russia, external cultural influence played a decisive role in this process. The main feature of Russian culture, according to the historian, is the absence of a cultural tradition, which he understands as “the unity of public education in a certain specific direction.” Initially, the influence of Byzantium dominated, manifesting itself most forcefully in the attitude of Russian society to religion, then, starting from the era of Peter the Great's reforms, Russia experienced a decisive influence of German and French cultures.
In this matter, P. N. Milyukov continues the tradition of his teacher V. O. Klyuchevsky, who believes that the 17th century marks the beginning of a new Russian history, however, the process of Europeanization affects only the upper strata of Russian society, mainly the nobility, which predetermined it further break with the people.
When the Russian man “awake up to an unexpectedly large sum of alien habits, learned in small ways, it was already too late to go back,” states P. N. Milyukov. “The old way of life had already been virtually destroyed.”
The only force that could come out in defense of antiquity was schism. According to P.N. Milyukov, he was big step forward for the religious self-awareness of the masses, since for the first time he awakened their feelings and thoughts. However, the split did not become the banner of nationalist protest, because “in order to accept... under the protection of the nationalist religion the entire national antiquity, it was necessary that all of it be subjected to persecution...”. This did not happen in the 17th century, and by the era of the reforms of Peter I, the schismatic movement had already lost its strength.
The reform of Peter I is the first step in the formation of a new cultural tradition, the reform of Catherine is the second. P.N. Milyukov considered the era of Catherine II to be an entire era in the history of Russian national identity. It was at this time that the “prehistoric, tertiary period” of Russian social life ends, the old forms finally die out or emigrate to the lower strata of society, the new culture finally wins.
A characteristic feature of Russian culture, according to P. N. Milyukov, is the spiritual gap between the intelligentsia and the people, which was revealed primarily in the area of faith. As a result of the weakness and passivity of the Russian church, the attitude of an intelligent person towards the church was initially indifferent, while the people were characterized by religiosity (albeit formal), which intensified immensely during the schism. The final line between the intelligentsia and the people was laid as a result of the emergence of a new cultural tradition in our country: the intelligentsia turned out to be the bearer of critical elements, while the masses of the people were nationalistic.
In his later work, “The Intelligentsia and Historical Tradition,” P. N. Milyukov argues that, in principle, the break between the intelligentsia and the traditional beliefs of the masses is quite natural. He is not at all characteristic feature relationship between Russian layers society, and “there is a permanent law for every intelligentsia, if only the intelligentsia is truly the advanced part of the nation, performing its functions of criticism and intellectual initiative.” Only in Russia did this process, due to the peculiarities of its historical development, acquire such a pronounced character.
Miliukov dates the very emergence of the intelligentsia in Russia to the 50-60s of the 18th century, but its number and influence at that time was so insignificant that the historian begins the continuous history of Russian intellectual public opinion from the 70s - 80s of the 18th century. It was during the era of Catherine II that an environment appeared in Russia that could serve as an object of cultural influence.
The fate of the Russian faith and the absence of tradition, believes P. N. Milyukov, determined the fate of Russian creativity: “... the independent development of national creativity, as well as the national faith, was stopped at the very beginning.”
The historian identifies four periods of development of literature and art. The first period - until the 16th century - is characterized by the mechanical reproduction of Byzantine designs. The second period - XVI-XVII centuries - a period of unconscious folk art with the active use of local national characteristics. Under pressure from adherents of true Greek antiquity, all national creativity is persecuted. Therefore, during the third period, art began to serve the upper class and copy Western works. Everything popular at this time becomes the property of the lower strata of society. With the onset of the fourth period, art became true need Russian society, it revealed attempts at independence, the goal of which was service to society, and the means was realism.
The history of the Russian school is closely dependent on the history of the Russian church. As a result of the failure of the church to establish a school, knowledge began to penetrate into society outside of it. Therefore, having started to create a school, the state did not encounter any competitors, which predetermined the very strong addiction Russian school from the mood of Russian authorities and society.
Thus, P. N. Milyukov considers the history of Russian spiritual culture as a unity of social, power facts and internal mental processes. Unfortunately, in the Soviet tradition, such a synthetic approach to cultural history was lost and replaced by class analysis.
To this day, there is an opinion in the scientific community that the “Westernizer” Miliukov belittled the development and significance of Russian culture. Even in the latest publications (for example, in the works of S. Ikonnikova) we encounter such conclusions. However, Miliukov's concept of borrowings is more complex and interesting. The researcher largely anticipates the modern vision of the interaction of cultures, their mutual dialogue.
Miliukov believes that simple borrowing is being replaced by creative comprehension. Changing the composition of participants in the dialogue contributes, according to P.N. Miliukov, the destruction of some historical prejudices. For example, when assessing the legal school in Russian historiography, he focuses not on borrowing, but on combining the ideas of the historical school and the German philosophy of Hegel and Schelling. A dialogue of cultures is taking place, according to P.N. Miliukov, certain stages: acceptance of foreign culture (translations); “incubation period” accompanied by compilations and imitations of others; completely independent development of Russian spiritual creativity and, finally, the transition to the stage of “communication with the world as equal” and influencing foreign cultures.
Characteristics of dialogue given by P.N. Miliukov in the latest, Paris edition of the “Essays”, largely echoes the model of dialogue by Yu.M. Lotman - the perception of a one-way flow of texts, mastering a foreign language and recreating similar texts - and, finally, a radical transformation of a foreign tradition, i.e. stages when the party that receives some cultural texts becomes the transmitter.
Thus, considering the process of borrowing, Miliukov resorts to a figurative comparison of it with photography, or more precisely, with a developer, without which an image that already exists in potency is not perceived by a person: “The picture was, in fact, before its “manifestation” in solution. But every photographer knows that not only is a developer necessary to reveal a picture, but also that to a certain extent it is possible to influence the distribution of light and shadows in the picture by changing the composition of the solution. Foreign influence usually plays the role of such a “developer” of the created historical picture - a given national type.”
The theme of revolution in the historical and journalistic works of Miliukov
The First Russian Revolution was reflected in the journalistic works “The Year of Struggle” and “The Second Duma.” The articles in the first collection cover the period from November 1904 to the end of May 1906; the second - from February to June 3, 1907. Considering the history of the first Russian revolution, Miliukov assesses it as a natural phenomenon. It was called upon to carry out, in a reformist way, the transformation of tsarism into a legal bourgeois state in the form of a constitutional monarchy. Miliukov reduced the causes of the revolution of 1905-1907 to a statement political preconditions with a clear dominance of the psychological factor. He saw the essence of the revolutionary upheavals at the beginning of the twentieth century in the conflict between government and society over the constitution, and he considered all phases of the first Russian revolution to be phases of the struggle for the constitution.
Miliukov, as a participant in the events, was characterized by a political and legal approach to the first Russian revolution. Therefore, these works cannot even be called historical and journalistic. The participant in the events expressed his opinion - and that’s all.
Miliukov devotes a large work to the Second Russian Revolution, “The History of the Second Russian Revolution.” His vision of the revolution is significantly complemented by the work “Russia at the Turning Point. Bolshevik period of the revolution" (Paris, 1927, Vol. 1-2).
The opportunistic conclusions and the weakness of the source base of the above studies are partly explained by the fact that the politician P.N. Milyukov in 1917-1920 did not have a real opportunity to create, in fact, a historical work.
He began writing “The History of the Second Russian Revolution” at the end of November 1917 in Rostov-on-Don, and continued in Kyiv, where it was planned to publish 4 issues. In December 1918, the printing house of the Letopis publishing house, where the first part of the book was typed, was destroyed by the Petliurists. The entire set of the book was destroyed. Miliukov, now busy saving the fatherland from the Bolsheviks, was able to start working on “History” again only in the fall of 1920, when he received a copy of the manuscript that he had saved from the publisher, who had moved to Sofia. The matter began in full swing in December 1920: the author gained access to an extensive collection of Russian periodicals stored in Paris. It was they, combined with personal observations, memories and conclusions of the ex-historian Miliukov, that formed the basis of his “History of the Second Russian Revolution”. Full text The book was prepared for printing and published in Sofia in three parts (1921-1923).
The “History” he wrote does not contain the moral indignation and accusatory tone that was present in the works of contemporary authors of the moderate socialist trend. Miliukov the politician did not try to defend socialism from “Bolshevik” perversions. For him, the main issue of the revolution was the question of power, not justice. In his History, Miliukov argued that the success of the Bolsheviks was due to the inability of their socialist opponents to view the struggle from these positions.
Other socialist leaders (Chernov, Kerensky) usually began the periodization of the history of the October Revolution with the Bolshevik coup, thereby ignoring their own failures and defeats throughout 1917. Miliukov considered the Bolshevik regime to be the logical result of the activities of Russian politicians after the collapse of the autocracy. If, in the view of the socialists, the Bolshevik government was a kind of separate, qualitatively new phenomenon, completely isolated from the so-called “conquests of the February Revolution,” then Miliukov viewed the revolution as a single political process that began in February and reached its culmination in October.
The essence of this process, according to Miliukov, was the inexorable disintegration of state power. Before the readers of Miliukov's History, the revolution appeared as a tragedy in three acts. The first is from February to July days; second - crash right military alternative revolutionary state (Kornilov rebellion); the third - “The Agony of Power” - the history of the last Kerensky government up to such an easy victory over it by the Leninist party.
In each of the volumes, Miliukov focused on government policy. All three volumes of History are filled with quotes from speeches and statements of leading politicians of post-February Russia. The purpose of this quotation panorama is to show the pretentious incompetence of all the rapidly changing rulers.
Analyzing the causes of the revolution, the author again draws attention to complex system interactions of geographical, economic, political, social, intellectual, cultural, psychological factors, diluting all this with examples drawn from periodical materials.
Miliukov, as one would expect, placed all the blame for the defeat of the revolution on Kerensky and the socialist leaders. He accused his fellow politicians of “inaction hiding behind a phrase”, the lack of political responsibility and the resulting action based on common sense. Against this background, the behavior of the Bolsheviks in 1917 was an example of a rational desire for power. The moderate socialists were defeated not because they failed to achieve their goals, but because they themselves did not know what they wanted. Such a party, according to Miliukov, could not win.
“The History of the Second Russian Revolution” aroused sharp criticism from both emigrant and Soviet historiography. The author was accused of rigid determinism, schematic thinking, subjectivity of assessments, and positivistic “factualism.”
But here's what's interesting. Although in “History” the theme of betrayal and “German money”, thanks to which the Bolsheviks were able to achieve their goals, loudly sounds, in general both in this book and in the two-volume “Russia at the Turning Point” (history of the civil war) published in 1926, Lenin and his followers are portrayed as strong, strong-willed and intelligent people. It is known that Miliukov in exile was one of the most stubborn and implacable opponents of the Bolsheviks. At the same time, he retained his attitude towards them as serious bearers of the state idea, whom the people followed, until the end of his life, which alienated almost the entire white émigré community from himself - from fierce monarchists to yesterday’s comrades-in-arms liberals and socialists of all stripes.
Partly for this reason, and partly because of not very high professionalism and a purely positivist approach to research methodology, Miliukov’s latest works were not successful. It’s not for nothing that they say that you cannot step into the same river twice. A historian who himself strives to make history, as a rule, dies for science forever.
This happened with P.N. Milyukov. For a long time, his name as a politician was inclined in every way by the Russian monarchist emigration; At home, the leader of the Cadet Party was also cursed and almost completely forgotten. In history lessons in Soviet schools, he was remembered only as the hapless “Milyukov of the Dardanelles,” calling for war to the bitter end, when the “tops” couldn’t and the bottom “didn’t want to.” Moreover, I. Ilf and E. Petrov in their satirical novel “The Twelve Chairs” (by chance or not?) gave the treasure hunter Kisa Vorobyaninov not only an external resemblance to the former leader of the Kadet Party, but also made a clear nod towards Miliukov, naming his colleague Ostap Bender "a giant of thought and the father of Russian democracy."
Nevertheless, there has always been interest in the scientific community in the original concept of “cultural history” by P.N. Milyukov. This concept was invariably reflected even in Soviet university textbooks; Miliukov’s historical works were translated and repeatedly republished in the West. And today, interest in the historian and politician Miliukov does not wane, forcing researchers from different countries to turn again and again to the study of his scientific heritage.
Elena Shirokova
The following literature was used in preparing the article:
- Alexandrov S.A. The leader of the Russian cadets P.N. Miliukov in exile. M., 1996.
- Arkhipov I. P. N. Milyukov: intellectual and dogmatist of Russian liberalism // Zvezda, 2006. - No. 12
- Vandalkovskaya M.G. P.N. Miliukov // P.N. Miliukov. Memories. M., 1990. T.1. P.3-37.
- Vishnyak M.V. Two paths February and October - Paris. Publishing house "Modern Notes", 1931.
- Dumova N.G. Liberal in Russia: the tragedy of incompatibility. M., 1993.
- Petrusenko N.V. Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich // New historical bulletin, 2002. - No. 2 (7)