The beginning of the noble stage of the Russian liberation movement. Liberation movements

2. ” Salvation Union ” And “ Union of Welfare ” and their programs.

Causes of defeat

1. The origin of the noble stage of the liberation movement.

The history of Decembrism begins in 1810-1811, when artels began to emerge in the guards regiments. There was nothing political or oppositional to the government in them; rather, they opposed the usual way of life and thinking.

The war with Napoleon and the victory in this war caused a huge patriotic upsurge in Russian society. The powerful popular movement against the invaders forced many educated people to change their attitude towards the people. In society, the attitude towards the people as a hero, a people-liberator, was increasingly spreading. Foreign campaigns further strengthened this new and very strong feeling of admiration for their country, but at the same time forced them to think seriously about its future. Russian officers were clearly convinced of how much freer and more prosperous they live in Europe than in autocratic feudal Russia.

Supporters of change had high hopes for the tsar, remembering well the reforms of the beginning of the reign of Alexander I, they expected their continuation.

However, progressive-minded youth very quickly became disillusioned with the tsarist government and, above all, with the tsar himself. Every year it became more and more obvious that there would be no reforms, all changes would be for the worse.

In the works of A.S. Pushkin, you can trace how the poet’s attitude towards the emperor changed in just three years

To you, our brave king, praise and thanksgiving!

When the enemy's regiments covered the distance,

Taking up arms in armor, putting on a feathered helmet,

Kneeling before the highest altar,

You drew your sword in battle and took a holy oath

Protect your native country from the yoke.

Hooray! jumps to Russia

Nomadic despot.

The Savior cries bitterly,

All the people are behind him.

Attitudes towards authorities became increasingly critical . In the capital's society of young officers who had gone through the Napoleonic wars, speeches of the most accusatory nature were increasingly heard.

It must be said that the powerful patriotic upsurge caused by the victory in the War of 1812, the awareness of the offended sense of dignity as a result of foreign campaigns, the lack of interest on the part of the supreme power in reforms and changing the situation in the country for the better, all this taken together forced the leading representatives of Russian society to try to produce change on your own. This is how the first revolutionary organizations began to appear

2. ” Salvation Union ” And “ Union of Welfare ” and their programs.

The Union of Salvation was created in 1816 and later transformed into the Union of Welfare. Both of these organizations were exclusively of a noble nature in their social composition. The main characters in them were guards officers: Trubetskoy, Yakushin, Pestel, Muravyovs, Muravyov-Apostles.

Both of these organizations sought to solve the most important issues of Russian life. Their goals certainly coincided: the introduction of a constitution and the elimination of autocracy, but at the same time there were differences.

The Union of Salvation, at the beginning of the secret society's activities, consisted of 10-12 people, which grew to 30 by 1818. The organization relied on a well-prepared single strike, the seizure of power through a conspiracy and a military coup. In addition, the adopted charter, which Pestel wrote, provided for complete secrecy, strict centralization and almost military discipline.

The emphatically conspiratorial nature of the Salvation Union was largely associated with the offended patriotic feeling of its members: the constitution granted by Alexander I to Finland and the Kingdom of Poland, despite the fact that many Poles supported Napoleon, was perceived here as a mockery towards the victorious Russian people. left by the king in his former slavery. Under the influence of this feeling, the founders of the Union raised the question not only of the seizure of power and a military coup, but also of regicide.

However, in 1817 the mood of most members of the Salvation Union changed. Alexander I's speech at the Sejm in Warsaw was understood by them as a promise of the Polish constitutional experience for the Russian Empire. The not yet forgotten hopes for the reformer tsar revived again.

As the organization grew in size, protests against the rigid charter were heard more and more often.

Under the influence of these sentiments, it was decided to transform the Salvation Union in a more peaceful way.

In general, the Union of Salvation showed almost nothing during its existence. All his activities basically boiled down to discussion.

So, in 1818, a new organization appeared, the “Union of Welfare,” which was going to act exclusively by peaceful means and the organizational principles were softer. The charter of this society - the “Green Book”, provided for the division of the union into separate councils, each of which had relative independence and freedom in relation to the leadership.

The means of achieving the common good have seriously changed, and a program of long-term impact on different segments of the country's population has been developed. Members of the organization saw their task as spreading universal education and philanthropic activities.

Quite quickly, the Welfare Union became a noticeable phenomenon in Russian public life. Propaganda activities were especially noticeable. For this purpose, periodicals were used, where propaganda materials, articles, poetry and prose were published.

In addition to calls and denunciations, members of the union, to the best of their ability, tried to change the lives of ordinary peasants for the better. Landowners who were part of society were obliged to treat their subjects more favorably and respectfully, especially those who fought for their homeland.

The Union sincerely hoped that such activities would pave the way for serious reforms in Russia.

However, with the spread of military settlements and the pogrom of universities, hopes begin to dissipate again and more and more members of the union are inclined to return to the revolutionary path.

But before going underground again, it was necessary to free ourselves both from the principled opponents of the revolutionary movement, and from the many random people whom the Union of Welfare had acquired during its existence. By that time, by 1821, its strength was 200 people.

In 1821, the Welfare Union was dissolved on the initiative of its leaders. At the same time, in order not to arouse suspicion on the part of those whom they wanted to get rid of, the initiators of self-dissolution referred to the fact that such a society was becoming, firstly, dangerous, to the Welfare Union” and indeed there were many denunciations, and secondly, not very necessary, since it was possible to expose the vices of autocratic Russia and take care of one’s serfs alone, without any organization. All this was accepted by the liberal members of the Union without objection, and it self-destructed.

3 Northern and Southern societies, Society of United Slavs and their programs.

However, it was precisely those who liquidated the Welfare Union who were not at all going to abandon the organized struggle for their ideals. Having gotten rid of the ballast, they immediately tried to take this fight to a fundamentally new level.

In the same year, 1821, new organizations were created that already had a revolutionary character. One of them - the Northern Society - was located in St. Petersburg; the other - Southern Society - in Tulchin, in Ukraine. the small town of Tulchin.

Although the Northern and Southern societies arose independently of each other, connections were soon established between them - after all, the organizers and main characters here were former members of the Welfare Union who knew each other well. While maintaining an independent organization, these societies acted in the same direction, striving, like the “Union of Salvation” that preceded them, to seize power and introduce good changes from above: to eliminate the autocracy and abolish serfdom. The leaders of the Northern and Southern societies met periodically, checking their plans.

It was at this stage of the Decembrist movement that clear programs for the upcoming transformations were developed.

Both programs were revolutionary in nature, although they differed in specific proposals. The first thing that caught my eye was the serious discrepancy in resolving the fundamentally important issue of the state system in Russia after the victory of the revolution.

Muravyov: “In the Constitution, legislative power belongs to the People’s Assembly. This body is formed through elections in which the adult male population of the country participates, however, not all: elections are held on the basis of a fairly high property qualification. The executive power belongs to the emperor, who, although possessing hereditary power, nevertheless swears allegiance to the Constitution.”

Thus, Nikita Muravyov proposed replacing autocracy with a constitutional monarchy, in which only wealthy citizens would enjoy political rights. And, by the way, Pestel reproached the northerners for the fact that they “want to introduce an aristocracy of wealth (that is, the bourgeoisie) in place of the aristocracy of blood (that is, the nobility).”

Pestel himself was more consistent and democratic in this part of his “Russian Truth”. He was a strong supporter of republican government and an opponent of property qualifications.

Pestel: “Legislative power is transferred to the People’s Council, but with the condition that it be formed through elections in which the entire adult male population of the country participates without any property restrictions. The executive power should be vested in the government - the State Duma of five people - which is elected by the People's Assembly and is responsible to it.”

The approaches of Muravyov and Pestel to the organization of local government differed significantly. Muravyov adhered to the federal principle.

Muravyov: “Russia must be divided into “powers,” each of which independently resolves its internal issues. The central government, headed by the emperor, only coordinates and harmonizes the activities of local authorities.”

Pestel adhered to the unitary principle.

Pestel: “Russia is divided into regions that are unconditionally subordinate to the central authorities. Local managers appointed from above must work based solely on the instructions of the center.”

No less serious were the differences in those parts of the “Constitution” and “Russian Truth” where it was about the socio-economic relations that were supposed to be established in Russia after the abolition of serfdom. The “Constitution” resolved the issue as follows.

Initially, N. Muravyov intended to leave all the land behind the landowners, giving the peasants only personal freedom. But under the influence of criticism from other members of society, he came to the idea of ​​​​the need to provide the peasants with a land plot, however, a very small one - 2 dessiatines. For comparison: the tsarist government, during the abolition of serfdom in 1861, provided peasants with an average of 7-8 acres per capita.

Muravyov: “The peasants receive freedom and a small amount of land as their own - two dessiatines per yard. The bulk of arable land remains with the landowners, on whom the land-poor peasantry must inevitably become economically dependent.”

Pestel, on the other hand, offers a much more complex solution to the peasant question, and it is quite obvious that the situation of the working masses of the population worries him much more than Muravyov.

Pestel: “All arable land is divided into a private fund (this is

first of all, landowners' estates) and a public fund, which is created from state lands and partially confiscated from landowners. From the public fund, peasants will receive land for use in an amount sufficient to conduct normal farming. Landowner farms will thus lose their workers in the future. Thus, they are doomed to ruin and gradual transfer into the hands of peasants, who will receive the right to buy private land as their own.”

So: the different nature of the programs led to the fact that their creators intended to achieve their goals in different ways.

The northerners, following the more moderate “Constitution” of Nikita Muravyov, really hoped that it would be understood and accepted by a significant part of the Russian population. They wanted to convene a people's council as soon as possible after the revolution and thereby transfer power to elected representatives of the people.

They themselves did not strive for power at all.

Pestel is a different matter. Well aware that his radical program could only be implemented in Russia by force, the creator of “Russian Truth” directly said that after the uprising it was necessary to seize power into one’s own hands, establish a regime of tough military dictatorship that would mercilessly fight opponents of change and prepare the people for democratic transformations. As for these transformations themselves - the holding of general elections to the People's Assembly, the creation of an elected State Duma, and so on - they were postponed indefinitely. Such statements by Pestel aroused the indignation of northerners, who compared the leader of the southerners with Napoleon - a man who used the revolution to his advantage.

It should be noted that the development of program documents and endless disputes over their individual provisions pushed into the background the fundamentally important question of how to begin the real implementation of these programs: how to seize power into one’s own hands? The matter did not go further than renewed and extremely vague talk about regicide.

As a result, the unexpected death of Alexander I and the events that followed took the Decembrists by surprise.

Causes of defeat.

Alexander I spent his last days in Taganrog . Physically, Alexander was quite healthy and no one expected him to die. The Tsar fell ill during a trip to Crimea, where he became acquainted with the organization of military settlements there, and after a short illness, the diagnosis of which the court doctors could not properly diagnose, died on November 19, 1825.

According to the law, after the death of childless Alexander, his next oldest brother, Konstantin Pavlovich, who at that time was the governor of the Kingdom of Poland, should have ascended the throne. It seemed that it would be so.

However, to a complete surprise for all of Russia, it turned out that there was a will written by Alexander I back in 1823, according to which it was not Konstantin who should ascend the throne, but the third oldest brother, Nikolai Pavlovich.

Constantine himself did not aspire to the throne. He was aware of his many weaknesses and did not feel capable of ruling a huge country. Constantine, as soon as he received the news of the death of his elder brother, confirmed his reluctance to reign. He immediately wrote a letter in which he confirmed his abdication of the throne in favor of Nicholas. Meanwhile, Nikolai became acquainted with the will of his elder brother, but did not dare to act according to his will.

In this situation, Nikolai decided not to rush. On November 27, the day after receiving news from Taganrog, Nicholas himself was the first to take the oath to Constantine in the Great Church of the Winter Palace and led the palace guards to it. Constantine was proclaimed emperor.

Constantine, while emphasizing in every possible way the immutability of his decision to renounce his reign, just as stubbornly refused to travel to St. Petersburg.

Only when it became completely clear that Constantine would never come to the capital, Nikolai risked taking the oath again. On the night of December 14, at an emergency meeting of the State Council, he read a manifesto on his accession to the throne. Having learned about the re-oath, which was scheduled for the morning of December 14, members of the Northern Society decided to take full advantage of these circumstances.

From the point of view of the members of the “Northern Society”, the re-oath, which for them, as well as for the whole country, came as a complete surprise, opened the way to the overthrow of the autocracy. The Decembrists hoped that the soldiers of the guards regiments would not understand and would not take the oath again. Indeed, it was not easy to explain to the soldiers, who proceeded from the popular belief “every king is from God,” why Constantine was suddenly deprived of the throne. The re-oath with a living and completely legitimate tsar could easily be perceived as a coup d'état in favor of Nicholas, who was unpopular among the guards soldiers.

When the conspirators learned that Nicholas had decided to take the throne, active agitation began in the regiments among officers and soldiers. The main question became which guard units they could count on. According to the plans of the Decembrists, the officers had to convince the soldiers to refuse to take the oath again, supposedly the oath was false, they say that Constantine did not abdicate, and Nicholas is trying to take the throne from him. This pretext gave the uprising a kind of legal form - loyalty to the previous oath.” Officers who could be counted on were invited to Ryleev. The meetings were very stormy and in the days before the uprising they went on around the clock. The roles were distributed as follows: Ryleev - strategist and inspirer of the uprising, Prince Obolensky - chief of staff and Prince Trubetskoy - dictator. The final plan was developed by Trubetskoy the day before. The leaders of the uprising planned to take control of the Senate and, on its behalf, announce a manifesto to the Russian people. That's why they brought the shelves to Senate Square

It must be said that this whole plan was drawn up in a hurry and looked very unreliable. In accordance with it, the shelves had to be raised only after the official announcement of the re-oath, which was made on the evening of December 13 - that is, in one night, without any preliminary preparation.

The Decembrists were going to include in the Provisional Government senior dignitaries in whose liberalism they were firmly convinced: M.M. Speransky, N.S. Mordvinov and the like. However, no preliminary negotiations were held with them and it was completely impossible to predict how they would react to the coup.

The question of what to do in case of failure on Senate Square was not thought through either. The proposals made on the eve of the uprising - to seize the Winter Palace, arrest the royal family, occupy the Peter and Paul Fortress - did not receive any development on the day of the uprising.

The situation was complicated by the fact that the Decembrists failed to take their enemy, Nicholas, by surprise. Having gained access to the secret papers of his late brother, having familiarized himself with the contents of various denunciations, Nikolai could get a general idea of ​​​​the Decembrist movement. The possibility of speaking out against his accession worried Nicholas throughout the entire interregnum.

On the eve of the re-oath, he received another denunciation - from the guards officer Ya.I. Rostovtsev, who finally convinced him: an uprising could not be avoided.

However, without really knowing the names of his opponents or their plans, Nicholas was unable to take any concrete measures to prevent the uprising.

The only thing he did was order the senators to gather and take the oath early in the morning - at 7 o'clock. As it turned out, this was a successful move that confused all the plans of the Decembrists.

On December 14, 1825, long before dawn, carriages pulled towards the Senate building - senators were gathering to take the oath to the new king. This was a fundamentally important action: after all, from the beginning of the 19th century, it was the Senate that became the “guardian of the law” in the Russian Empire - the oath of senators confirmed the legality of Nicholas’s accession.

That is why the Decembrists sought to disrupt it at all costs. That same morning, young guards officers went to the barracks located in different parts of the city to raise the soldiers and lead them to the Senate. They managed to lure several military units to Senate Square. The Moscow regiment was the first to rise.

“By the time of the oath, when, on the orders of the regimental commander, grenadiers with banners entered the courtyard, the soldiers had already been agitated by the conspiratorial officers. Alexander Bestuzhev, a famous writer and friend of Ryleev, came to the regiment.

He put on his ceremonial adjutant uniform and told the soldiers that he had arrived from Constantine. Regimental commander Fredericks tried to take control of the situation and bring the regiment to the oath to Nicholas. Staff Captain Shchepin-Rostovsky hit him on the head with a saber, and then attacked other senior officers with a saber who were blocking the soldiers’ path. Prince Shchepin-Rostovsky, like many of the rebel officers, was not a member of secret societies and was involved in the conspiracy literally the day before.

Paving the way with a saber and drawing the soldiers behind him, Shchepin-Rostovsky ran out of the gate. Under flying banners, the soldiers rushed to Senate Square, forcing oncoming officers and civilians to shout “Hurray! Konstantin!". By 11 o'clock, Muscovites ran to the empty Senate Square and formed a square. By this time, the senators had already sworn allegiance to Nicholas and went home. The Senate was empty."

And yet the uprising began. The Decembrists challenged the autocratic government - there was no turning back. The leaders of the Northern Society soon joined the rebel regiment. The only thing missing was the dictator of the uprising - Trubetskoy.

“Events in Zimny ​​also developed rapidly. Nikolai, like the Decembrists, did not go to bed all night. At night, a manifesto on his accession to the throne and oath sheets were printed. At 7 am, he gathered the generals of the guard, personally announced to them his decision to accept the throne and gave the necessary instructions for taking the oath. A solemn prayer service was scheduled for 11 a.m. in the Great Winter Church. But Nikolai tensely followed the progress of the oath, expecting trouble, and at the beginning of 11 it happened. Nicholas is reported that the Moscow regiment is going to the Senate in complete rebellion. Nicholas ordered the generals to go to the troops and called the Preobrazhensky battalion to the Winter Palace - the first guards unit that swore allegiance to him that day and was located two steps from the palace.

A battalion of the Preobrazhensky Regiment advanced against the square of the Moscow Regiment, which surrounded the statue of Peter on Senate Square, and took up positions on the corner of Admiralteysky Boulevard.

The Tsar was awaiting the approach of other guards regiments, hoping with their help to surround Senate Square, and then force the rebels to surrender their weapons or suppress them by force.

The rebels were also waiting for reinforcements. But their passivity was also explained by the fact that the leaders of the uprising were in some confusion. Since the senators with their oath preceded the appearance of the Moscow regiment on Senate Square, the original plan of the Decembrists collapsed. The dictator, Trubetskoy, who had to make a decision in this situation on how to proceed further, was absent.

In this situation, time was on Nikolai’s side. Most of the guards regiments stationed in St. Petersburg, which gradually approached Senate Square, swore allegiance to him.

The Horse Guards, who eventually entered the square, took up positions near St. Isaac's Cathedral. One of the companies of the Preobrazhensky Regiment took control of the St. Isaac's Bridge, covering the flank of the Horse Guards and cutting off communication with Vasilyevsky Island. On the opposite side, Senate Square was blocked by the Semenovsky regiment. Thus, the area was surrounded. Those military units that arrived later made it possible to block the square almost completely.

However, before this, the Decembrists also received long-awaited reinforcements. A guards naval crew managed to get through to them, from the side of Galernaya Street and two detachments of Life Guardsmen moved to the square along the Neva ice, and another made its way from the side of the Winter Palace.

Nicholas managed to pull forces to Senate Square that were noticeably superior in numbers to the enemy: about 10 thousand people versus 3 thousand. However, for a long time this superiority in numbers did not give the tsarist troops any serious advantage. One of the main reasons for this was the reluctance of the majority of Russian soldiers and officers - on both sides - to seriously fight against “their own”.

This reluctance was clearly demonstrated by the attacks of the Horse Guards on the rebel square - they turned out to be completely fruitless. During the day, attacks were resumed several times. And although, according to Nikolai’s testimony, most of the soldiers in the rebel square shot upward, apparently not wanting to hit their own, there were still wounded and killed.

Fruitless cavalry attacks alternated with equally fruitless attempts at negotiations. On behalf of Nicholas, the commander of the Guards Corps, General A.L., called on the rebels to lay down their arms. Voinov, St. Petersburg Metropolitan Seraphim, Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich. Unlike Miloradovich, they all managed to return from the square alive. The negotiations did not bring any success.

The impossibility of coping with the rebels with “little bloodshed” became increasingly obvious to Nicholas. In addition, the tsar and his entourage began to become increasingly frightened by the behavior of the common people: all approaches to the square were crowded with crowds, and the tsar’s troops were practically surrounded by them.

“It was necessary to put a quick end to this,” Nikolai later recalled, “otherwise the riot could have been communicated to the mob and then the troops surrounded by it would have been in the most difficult situation.”

Meanwhile, the early December twilight was gathering. The approaching darkness frightened the tsar: it made it difficult to control the situation on Senate Square and opened up the opportunity for the rebels to take the most unexpected actions.

But at the same time, in the evening, Nikolai had artillery at his disposal - only a few guns, but they were destined to play a decisive role in the events of December 14.

Nicholas ordered most of the artillery to be installed in front of the Preobrazhensky Regiment, opposite the Senate - the rebels could now be shot almost point-blank. It was obvious that a square of infantry would not be able to withstand point-blank canister fire.

However, even such a tough and strong-willed person as Nikolai could not immediately give the order to open fire on the rebels. “The darker it got, the more persistently the generals persuaded Nicholas to use artillery, but he did not dare.

I already gave the order several times, but still canceled it.”

Eventually such an order was given.

“For the first time in the history of Russia, in the center of the capital, friendly people fired grapeshot at friendly people. The first shot hit the Senate building.

The rebels responded with frantic shouting, rapid fire and hopeless counterattacks. And then everything was according to the rules of a combat operation: salvo after salvo, sweeping away the rebel square, not distinguishing between right and wrong, falling into a crowd of curious people, chasing cavalry and fleeing soldiers.

Five guns decided the fate of a long-term conspiracy, secret societies, constitutional hopes, reform aspirations and the fate of hundreds of people involved, by chance or naturally, in this desperate attempt to decisively change the course of history.”

The actions of the Southern Society or the “Uprising of the Chernigov Regiment” should also be noted.

Members of Southern society at this time were in an extremely difficult situation. Unlike the northerners, who tried to strike a blow at the autocracy in St. Petersburg, the very heart of the Russian Empire, they had to operate on its outskirts. If the northerners were successful, the southerners could provide them with serious support in this region, in Ukraine. But when performing independently, the members of the Southern Society had practically no chance of success.

And yet they performed. On December 29, 1825, the uprising of the Chernigov regiment began, stationed near the city of Vasilkov, 30 kilometers southwest of Kyiv.

The uprising was led by one of the most respected members of Southern society, Sergei Ivanovich Muravyov-Apostol.

The head of the society, Pestel, had already been arrested - this is how the government reacted to the denunciations that by this time were at its disposal.

In addition to Pestel, several other members of the Southern Society were arrested. The same fate awaited S.I. Muravyov-Apostol. Actually, it was the unsuccessful attempt to arrest him that led to the uprising.

The fact is that Muravyov-Apostol, a very charming and kind man, was very popular in the regiment - both officers and soldiers loved him. The regiment commander G.I. Gebel, who was entrusted with making the arrest, did it very rudely and stupidly: although the Apostle did not offer the slightest resistance, Gebel shouted at him, insulted other officers of the regiment, and did not allow them to say goodbye to the arrested man.

It ended with the officers beating Gebel and raising the soldiers to defend their beloved commander. Thus began the uprising, which was led by Sergei Ivanovich Muravyov-Apostol, who was released from arrest, although, according to the fair remark of his brother Matvey, he “was sufficiently knowledgeable in military affairs not to harbor hopes for the success of the uprising with a force consisting of a handful of people.” Indeed, 970 soldiers followed the Decembrists - about half of the Chernigov regiment. Given the enormous superiority of the tsarist troops stationed in Ukraine, this small detachment was doomed to defeat. It should be noted that the soldiers rebelled mainly because they loved Muravyov-Apostol and trusted him.

Over the course of a week, the detachment carried out its desperate and hopeless raid across the snow-covered fields of Ukraine. Muravyov-Apostol hoped to raise other military units in which members of the secret society served in an uprising. The performance began in the village of Trilesy, Kyiv province. On December 29, the 5th company of the regiment from Triles united in the village of Kovalevka with the 2nd Grenadier company. The next day, the rebels entered Vasilkov, where they were supported by other companies of the Chernigov regiment.

Now 8 officers commanded almost a thousand soldiers. On December 31, the rebel troops left Vasilkov for Motovilovka, from where on January 2, 1826 they began moving towards Bila Tserkva, where they hoped to receive additional help. However, in Bila Tserkva a government regiment was deployed against the rebels. Having learned about this, Muravyov-Apostol turned to Brusilov and Zhitomir, where troops were stationed under the command of members of the Society of United Slavs. The government managed to isolate the Chernigov regiment, withdrawing from its path those units that could follow it. At the same time, reliable regiments that remained loyal to the tsar were gathered in the area of ​​the uprising. On January 3, 1826, between Ustimovka and Kovalevka, the rebels were met by government troops under the command of General Geismar.

Sergei Muravyov-Apostol’s brother Matvey wrote in his memoirs: “The terrain turned out to be the most unfavorable for the infantry, which had to meet the cavalry. Squad, guns in sight. We are moving forward. A cannon shot was heard, followed by a second, the cannonball flew overhead. We all moved forward."

But when the rebel regiment approached the horse artillery detachment, which blocked its path, the rebels opened fire with grapeshot. After this, Muravyov-Apostol decided to stop the unequal battle and save his team from imminent death. He ordered the soldiers to lay down their weapons. “Sergei Ivanovich,” his brother recalled, “told them that he was to blame for them, that, having aroused in them hope for success, he deceived them.” Muravyov-Apostol himself was wounded by buckshot when he tried to start negotiations with his opponents, and was subsequently arrested. Thus ended the uprising of the Chernigov regiment.

5. The place and role of the Decembrists in the history of the revolutionary movement of Russia.

The investigation into the Decembrist case began almost on the day of the uprising. Some of its leaders were detained right on Senate Square. On the evening of December 14, they already gave their first testimony, which in turn led to new arrests.

Nicholas himself took an active part in the investigation, especially in the first days after the uprising. And in this matter, the tsar showed considerable abilities: he skillfully conducted the interrogation, knew how, when necessary, to win over the person under investigation with a condescending attitude, and when necessary, to intimidate.

During the investigation, 316 people were arrested. Along with consistent participants in the movement, this number included many people who had moved away from the movement and were simply random. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of those under investigation were found guilty - 289 people. Nicholas punished some of them himself, without any trial: by personal order of the Tsar, these people were sent to prison for terms of six months to four years, demoted to soldiers, and transferred to the active army to the Caucasus, they were placed under police supervision.

The tsarist government was even more cruel with the rebel soldiers - although there was no doubt that the overwhelming majority of them opposed Nicholas solely due to a lack of understanding of the essence of the matter. Nevertheless, about 200 people who took part in the uprisings on Senate Square and the Chernigov Regiment were subjected to brutal corporal punishment, in some cases tantamount to the death penalty.

The sentence handed down to those placed “outside the ranks” of Ryleev, Pestel, Kakhovsky, Bestuzhev-Ryumin and Sergei Muravyov-Apostol made a very grave impression - they were sentenced to a terrible barbaric execution by quartering. 31 people of the 1st category were sentenced to death by beheading.

A little earlier, on the night of July 12-13, a civil execution of the remaining Decembrists was carried out in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Upon the announcement of the verdict, which deprived them of ranks, orders and noble titles, military uniforms and orders flew into the fire.

Swords were broken over the heads of the condemned - a symbol of belonging to the noble nobility.

Now they all had a long journey ahead of them - to Siberia, to hard labor, to settlement. Many of the Decembrists had a terrible word in their sentence - “forever.” And no one could say whether any of them, having survived the terrible punishment, would be able to return to their native lands.

Deep in Siberian ores

Keep your proud patience,

Your sorrowful work will not be wasted

And I think about high aspiration.

Unluckily faithful sister,

Hope in a dark dungeon

Will awaken vigor and joy,

The desired time will come:

Love and friendship up to you

They will reach through the dark gates,

Like in your convict holes

My free voice comes through.

The heavy shackles will fall,

The dungeons will collapse and there will be freedom

You will be greeted joyfully at the entrance,

And the brothers will give you the sword.

This Pushkin message was brought to the Decembrists in Siberia by Alexandra Muravyova, the wife of Nikita Muravyov.

Indeed, the Decembrist uprising was an important event in the history of Russia. Although it ended in defeat, it marked the beginning of victory. As they say, “The battle is lost, but not the war.”

The Decembrists were and are considered heroes of their time. Indeed, they can be considered standards of patriotism. These are the people who defended their Motherland in the war with Napoleon, who realized the wretched structure of their country and outdated traditions, could not remain indifferent in the global struggle against autocracy, despite the fact that the participants in the uprising themselves were not poor people.

“Children of 1812” gave a powerful impetus to the development of the state, society, culture, and education.

This was the first manifestation of a grandiose revolutionary movement in Russia. The Decembrists were the first in Russia to wage an organized struggle against tsarism and serfdom. They fought for freedom, enlightenment, humanity and were firmly convinced that it was worth fighting for.

Later in Russia, the experience of the Decembrists was adopted by other revolutionary movements. V. I. Lenin begins with them the periodization of the Russian revolutionary movement. Lessons from the Decembrist uprising. were adopted by their successors in the revolutionary struggle: Herzen, Ogarev, and subsequent generations of Russian revolutionaries, who were inspired by the feat of selfless heroes. The profiles of the five executed Decembrists on the cover of Herzen's Polar Star were a symbol of the struggle against tsarism.

Conclusion

In the history of every country there are unforgettable memorable dates. Years pass, generations change, new and new people enter the historical arena, life, way of life, social outlook changes, but the memory of those events remains, without which there is no true history, without which national identity is unthinkable. December 1825 is a phenomenon of this order, “ Senate Square" and "Chernigov Regiment" have long become historical cultural symbols. The first conscious action for freedom is the first tragic defeat.

His notes to S.P. Trubetskoy concludes with the following thoughts:

“The report printed by the government at the end of the investigation carried out by the Secret Committee constituted for that purpose presented the then action of society as some kind of reckless malice of vicious and depraved people who extravagantly wanted only to create unrest in the Fatherland and did not have any noble goal other than the overthrow of the existing authorities and the establishment of The fatherland of anarchy.

Unfortunately, the social structure of Russia is still such that military force alone, without the cooperation of the people, can not only take the throne, but also change the form of government. A conspiracy of several regimental commanders is enough to renew phenomena similar to those that placed a great one on the throne. some of the persons who reigned in the last century. Thanks to providence, enlightenment has now spread the concept that such palace coups do not lead to anything good, that a person who has concentrated power in himself cannot greatly arrange the well-being of the people in their present way of life. Only an improved image of the state structure can, over time, punish the abuses and oppression that are inseparable from autocracy; the person invested with it, no matter how much it burns with love for the Fatherland, is not able to instill this feeling in the people to whom it must necessarily devote part of its power. The current state structure cannot always exist and woe is it if it changes through a popular uprising. The circumstances surrounding the accession to the throne of the currently reigning sovereign were the most favorable for the introduction of a new order in the state structure and the safe participation of the people, but the highest state dignitaries either did not comprehend this or did not want its introduction. The resistance, which could be expected from the spirit that had taken possession of the guards army, should have been expected, without a beneficial direction, to be resolved by a disorderly rebellion. The secret society took it upon itself to turn him to a better goal." [Memoirs of the Decembrists. - P. 76]

Bibliography

1 History of Russia XIX century. Multimedia textbook, T.S. Antonova, A.A. Levandovsky, Project “informatization of the education system”

2 Memoirs of the Decembrists. - M.: Pravda, 1988.

3 Documentary film "Mutiny of the Reformers"

M. Publishing house "Thought". 1979. 288 p. Circulation 15500. Price 1 rub. 10 kopecks

The history of the liberation movement in Russia has always been the focus of attention of Soviet researchers. But, despite this, there are still questions that need further development, the insufficient knowledge of which cannot but affect the understanding of the problem as a whole. These include the important question of continuity in the history of the liberation movement in Russia. As is known, “the liberation movement in Russia went through,” according to V.I. Lenin, “three main stages, corresponding to the three main classes of Russian society that left their stamp on the movement” 1 . In order to determine continuity, it is necessary to have a complete scientific understanding of each of these stages in all the diversity and complexity of its constituent phenomena, the dynamics of their development and connections with other stages.

It is from this position that Doctor of Historical Sciences V. A. Dyakov (head of the sector of the Institute of Slavic and Balkan Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences) approached the analysis of the first stage of the liberation movement in Russia in his monograph. For the first time in Soviet historiography, the noble period of the revolutionary movement is considered as a whole - from the Decembrists to the end of the 1850s. Individual major social phenomena (Decembrists, Petrashevites, V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, etc.), constituting milestones in the history of the noble stage, are analyzed by the author from the point of view of identifying general patterns and features of this stage. In this regard, the main task of the book was “to identify the main typological features of the liberation movement in Russia at the noble stage” (p. 246). The author explores the movement in the process of continuous development, showing the organic connection between the noble and revolutionary raznochinsky stages, their deep continuity, paying special attention to the new that, having originated in the nobility, is established at the next - raznochinsky stage. One of the most important aspects of the problem is the question of the social composition of the participants in the noble stage of the liberation movement. Lenin, as we know, based the periodization of the revolutionary movement on class characteristics and the social affiliation of its participants. The nobility, making up the bulk of participants in the liberation movement during the first half of the 19th century, determined the overall ideology, program and tactics of the revolutionary camp. “The advanced part of the noble class,” says the monograph, “was in 1826 - 1861 the main force of the bourgeois in its objective

1 V. I. Lenin. PSS. T. 25, p. 93.

direction of the Russian liberation movement" (p. 247). However, after the Decembrist uprising, the composition of the participants in the liberation movement began to change. If the Decembrists, as the author points out, "the overwhelming majority not only came from the nobility, but also represented, first of all, a fairly developed and wealthy nobility "(p. 48), then already in the 30s of the 19th century, commoners penetrated into the revolutionary environment, the number of which increased at a fairly rapid pace, so that by the end of the 50s of the last century, "the share of commoners exceeded 50%, as a result why the commoner became the main figure in the movement" (p. 61). And this, in turn, should have led to profound changes in the nature of the liberation movement, for "quantity turned into quality: the commoners not only formed the majority among the participants in the liberation movement, but and became its guiding force" (p. 246). The author rightly considers changes in the social composition of participants in the liberation movement at the noble stage as a reflection of profound socio-economic changes in the era of the crisis of the feudal-serf formation in Russia.

The question of the social composition of the participants in the first stage of the liberation movement is closely related to the main problem of the study - the problem of noble revolution. It is in the class affiliation of the participants in the movement that one should look for the roots of ideological development at this time. The work gives the following definition of noble revolutionism: 1) fear of noble revolutionaries of “a decisive breakdown of the social foundations of the feudal-serf system, their desire to carry out bourgeois reforms with maximum regard for the interests of their class”; 2) “a clear preference for political goals and means of struggle”; 3) “a course towards a military conspiracy,” which gradually became obsolete, “because the experience of the struggle proved its groundlessness” (pp. 247 - 248). The noble revolutionism did not remain motionless; deep internal changes took place in it. The Decembrist movement is only the first period of the liberation movement at the noble stage, when revolutionary organizations first arise, programs and tactics of revolutionaries are developed. However, as the author rightly notes, the traditions of the Decembrists turned out to be strong “throughout the entire noble stage of the historian of the liberation movement in Russia” (p. 18).

Much attention is paid to the relationship between revolutionary and liberal ideas throughout the development of noble revolutionism. V. A. Dyakov believes that “the presence and historical conditionality of liberal-educational or liberal tendencies in the liberation movement of the noble stage are completely undeniable” (p. 250). The question of choosing a revolutionary or reformist path to achieve final goals arose, as shown in the book, already before the Decembrists. The author notes “the complexity and contradictory nature of the process of genesis and development of Decembrist ideology” (p. 70). After the failure of the Decembrist uprising, during the first decade, revolutionary democratic and liberal ideas were intertwined in the liberation movement, which is clearly seen in the activities of various circles and societies that arose after 1825, which V. A. Dyakov conventionally divides into three main groups: democratic, democratic-educational, liberal-educational. He rightly draws attention to the fact that at that time there was no clear division into revolutionary democratic and liberal movements, that the views of participants in the liberation movement could “represent and often represented a differently dosed mixture of democratic and liberal ideologies” (p. 99 ).

At the same time, the author shows that even then the process of isolation of the liberal direction began, and this indicated the emergence of a process of demarcation within the general flow of the liberation movement. A new characteristic feature in the liberation movement after the Decembrist uprising was the spread and assimilation of the ideas of utopian socialism. The circle of A. I. Herzen - N. P. Ogarev played a big role in this. The work rightly notes that the perception of the ideas of utopian socialism “noticeably accelerated the ideological demarcation in the Russian social movement” (p. 103).

In the 40s - 50s of the 19th century. phenomena that had emerged earlier in the liberation movement begin to manifest themselves much more acutely and deeply. The struggle between the democratic and liberal directions is intensifying, while, as the author emphasizes,

“from the very first steps, the revolutionary-democratic trend opposed liberalism as a whole, that is, both Westerners and Slavophiles” (p. 112). Simultaneously with the process of an increasingly sharp demarcation between democracy and liberalism, the assimilation of the ideas of utopian socialism is expanding, and interest in socialist ideas is growing. By the end of the noble stage, that is, in the 50s of the 19th century, utopian socialism had already become significantly widespread among participants in the liberation movement, but it became the “dominant ideological and political doctrine of Russian revolutionaries” only after 1861 (p. 251). At the same time, noting the growing interest in the ideas of utopian socialism in progressive circles, the author believes that in the liberation movement “the general democratic current prevailed” (p. 152).

V. A. Dyakov examines the connections between the national liberation struggle of the peoples of Russia and the Russian liberation movement, analyzes the nature of these connections, the possibility of their mutual influence in the fight against tsarism. For the first time, such an issue as “the relationship between the social and national aspects of the liberation movement in Russia” is being explored (p. 252). The author comes to the conclusion that the national liberation movement was an important reserve of the revolutionary movement, that “advanced figures of various peoples of Russia had already begun to take an interest in each other’s liberation struggle, looked for, and sometimes found, ways for rapprochement and cooperation” (p. 199). Other conclusions of the author seem interesting: that the Polish national liberation movement in the first half of the 19th century. “in its basic social meaning it was anti-feudal” (p. 167), that “the liberation struggle in Ukraine developed as an organic part of the all-Russian liberation movement” (p. 173), that the idea of ​​interethnic cooperation was increasingly included among Russian, Polish and Ukrainian revolutionaries (p. 182).

The book shows the complex path of searching for revolutionaries in organizational and tactical issues. The tactics of the “military revolution” of the Decembrists already in the late 20s - early 30s of the 19th century. gives way to new ideas - the need to attract the people to a revolutionary upheaval. In this regard, the agitation activities of revolutionaries in various social circles begin. The author believes that “in an organizational and tactical sense, a great achievement and the pinnacle of the noble stage was a whole system of revolutionary circles, partly united in a federation, and partly acting independently” (p. 253). The development of organizational and tactical principles of noble revolutionaries organically led to the creation in the early 60s of the last century of the organization of commoner revolutionaries “Land and Freedom”.

However, the author's assertion that the noble stage of the liberation movement ends with the revolutionary situation of 1859 - 1861 raises doubts. It seems to us that it represented a transitional point from the noble to the raznochinsky stage, a line in which the features of raznochinsky revolution already prevailed. It was during these years that the theoretical and tactical signs of the mixed-democratic stage appeared most clearly. And what about the activities of N. G. Chernyshevsky and his associates - the ideological leaders and organizers of the revolutionary democratic camp? What about the revolutionary circles of the late 50s and early 60s? Didn’t they have a pronounced democratic character in their social composition, programs and tactical guidelines?

It would be necessary to more clearly emphasize the importance of the question of the origin of revolutionary democratic thought in the liberation movement and, in connection with this, show the role of V. G. Belinsky as the founder of Russian revolutionary democracy. His activities went beyond the scope of noble revolution. Insufficient attention has been paid to the personality of the great democratic critic. The question of the people, of involving them in the revolutionary struggle, was a qualitatively new and extremely important feature of the liberation movement already at its first stage. I would like the history of this issue to be traced more clearly both in the views of individual revolutionaries and in the ideological platforms of circles and organizations. This is directly related to the problem of succession, since the question of the people's revolution and the preparation of the uprising was one of the main ones in the program of revolutionary democracy.

The beginning of the noble stage in the Russian liberation movement. Decembrist revolt

The novel "Northern Lights" by M. D. Marich gives a broad picture of the social and political life of Russia in the 20s - 30s of the 19th century. It tells about the emergence of secret societies of the Decembrists, their uprisings in St. Petersburg and in the Kyiv province. The images of noble revolutionaries Pestel, Ryleev, Muravyov, Kakhovsky and others are vividly recreated.

The passage below paints a gloomy picture of the feudal-serf system in the country, established by the tsar and his temporary worker Arakcheev.

Russia was ruled by Arakcheev...

Alexander could not help himself: he constantly felt the danger imminently threatening him. Everywhere he imagined conspiracies and disturbances. In any joke he found a hidden hint, a disguised discontent, a reproach... St. Petersburg became hostile and alien to him, and he moved to Tsarskoe Selo." The Tsarskoe Selo Palace became his favorite residence. Here he did not feel that secret fear that crept behind him in St. away from the gloomy Mikhailovsky Castle, from the cold shine of the Neva, from the high state rooms of the Winter Palace.

Russia was ruled by Arakcheev, who saw it as a huge military settlement, in which people had to think, feel and act according to the very “articles” that were introduced in his own domain.

Deciding that only Arakcheev’s iron hand could suppress manifestations of public discontent, Alexander gave the temporary worker forms signed by him, sanctioning in advance everything that Arakcheev, hated by everyone and hating everyone, would like to put on a blank paper. All representations of ministers, all decisions of the Senate, Synod and State Council, all explanatory notes of individual members of these state institutions and their personal letters to Alexander reached him only at the discretion of Arakcheev.

And while Gruzine and the gloomy house of Arakcheev in St. Petersburg on the corner of Liteinaya and Kirochnaya served as a harsh school of “humiliation and patience” for everyone - from field marshals and governors general to sergeant majors and petty officials; at a time when all of Russia was groaning under the blows of sticks, and neither the gray hairs of old age, nor childish weakness, nor feminine modesty prevented the use of this means, and beating flourished in schools, in villages, on the trading floors of cities, in landowner stables, masters' porches, in sheds, in barnyards, in camps, barracks - everywhere a stick, a spitzruten and a rod walked freely along the backs of people - in the Tsarskoye Selo Palace, surrounded by a shady park with crystal clear ponds, along which majestic black and white swans silently swam, reigned peace and quiet*.

*(M. Maric. Northern lights. M., Goslitizdat, 1952, pp. 171, 172.)

Question. What was Alexander I afraid of and by what means did he fight against the danger that threatened him?

The great Russian poet A.S. Pushkin painted a gloomy picture of the life of the serf peasantry at the beginning of the 19th century and the arbitrariness of the landowners in his poem “Village.”

Here the wild lordship, without feeling, without law, has appropriated for itself with a violent vine the labor, property, and time of the farmer, bending over an alien plow, submitting to the whips, Here skinny slavery is dragged along the reins of an inexorable owner. Here, with a painful yoke, everyone is dragged to the grave, Not daring to nourish hopes and inclinations in the soul, Here young maidens bloom For the whim of an insensitive villain. The dear support of aging fathers, Young sons, comrades of labor, From their native hut they go to multiply the Yard crowds of exhausted slaves. Oh, if only my voice could disturb hearts! Why is there a barren heat burning in my chest And the fate of orbit has not given me a formidable gift? Will I see, oh friends, an unoppressed people And slavery, which has fallen due to the tsar’s mania *, And over the fatherland of enlightened freedom Will a beautiful dawn finally rise?**

*(In the author's text of the poem it was written: “And the slavery of the fallen and the fallen king.” The text was corrected by P. A. Vyazemsky for censorship reasons. See: A. S. Pushkin. Complete Works, Vol. II. M.-L., publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1949, p. 1055.)

**(A. S. Pushkin. Selected works. M., Detgiz, 1958, pp. 51 - 52.)

Think, what outraged the poet in the life of his contemporary village and what he saw as a way out of the situation created there.

Soldier's song about military settlements

Life in a military settlement is a real torment, but not for everyone! The villagers are starving, but the authorities are doing very well! For the regiments here there is imprisonment, Hunger, cold, exhaustion - Worse than in the Crimea. Here they give barley to the lancers, and hide the rye in their pockets - ............................. That's the way it is. District, regional, All the swindlers are like you won’t find, Treasurers, auditors* And quartermasters - all thieves............................. Clerks are capitalists. Cantonists are dropping like flies. The air, you see, is like that! State-owned bread will not be born, But your own will be spoiled, There is nowhere to put it! The infirmaries are terribly bad, But the caretakers have nice carriages! Life in a military settlement is a real torment, but not for everyone. On paper everything is fine, but in reality it’s so terrible, don’t even say ***"

*(The auditor is a military official.)

**(Cantonists are children taken from their parents and sent to military settlements to train future soldiers.)

Riot of military villagers in Staraya Russa

Elijah's day was approaching. Osip received news that a riot had begun in Staraya Russa, that many officers had already been killed...

The next day the riot did not subside. They caught officers hiding in the forests and fields, beat them and dragged them to the headquarters in the guardhouse.

Near the fourth company settled there lived a landowner who treated his peasants cruelly. The villagers came to him, they brutally flogged him, and they killed and broke everything in the house and drank the entire supply of wine.

On the same day, a riot began on the other bank of the Volkhov in the settled battalion of the king of the Prussian regiment and, like a fire, it went on and on. The villagers also moved to Gruzino, the estate of Count Arakcheev, but he rode off to Tikhvin...

The riotous people had not yet calmed down; armed groups continued to travel around, many acquired guns and sabers, collected in officers' quarters...

On Elijah’s day, at the very mass, all the owners were demanded to the headquarters. Count Orlov arrived with his retinue, but without an escort. When all the villagers had gathered in the arena, they brought there the arrested officers who might have come.

Count Orlov, in stern terms, exposed to the villagers all the ugliness of their riot and announced that one of these days the Emperor himself would be visiting them, and he escorted all the arrested officers, without exception, to Novgorod...

Finally the sovereign arrived. The sovereign expressed his displeasure in strong and energetic terms to the villagers gathered in the arena, but in conclusion he said: “Give me the guilty, and I forgive the rest”...

The authorities arrived in large numbers, an investigation began, and arrests began. Morchenko was taken first, and after him the lancers and Cossacks began to take dozens of rebels and send them under escort to Novgorod. Mikheich also did not survive; the villagers pointed out to him that he had betrayed his master...

Soon the trial began, which ended even sooner... The punishment took place at headquarters. They were driven through the line along the green street, and as soon as someone fell from exhaustion, they were taken to the hospital and, after recovery, they continued to be driven again. Some were driven this way three times. They beat with a whip on the parade ground, this punishment was carried out completely at one time and the executioner often counted the blows on the dead body*.

*(Nikolai Bogoslovsky. Old orders. A historical story from the life of watered settlements. St. Petersburg, ed. N. G. Martynova, 1881, pp. 130, 143 - 147.)

Questions. Who were the rebels targeting? What was missing from their performance?

In 1820, soldiers of the Semenovsky Guards Regiment rebelled in St. Petersburg. The teacher uses the text from O. Forsh’s novel “The Firstborn of Freedom” to concretize his story about the growing class contradictions in the country on the eve of the revolutionary uprising of the Decembrists.

Uprising in the Semenovsky regiment

At the insistence of Grand Duke Nicholas, who found that the commander of the Semenovsky regiment, Yakov Alekseevich Potemkin, had disbanded his regiment, Colonel Schwartz, who had previously commanded an army regiment, was appointed to “bring up” the soldiers. Rumors spread widely among the troops about his truly brutal cruelty. In the place where he stood with the regiment, they pointed out a certain hill, under which the soldiers he killed were buried. That's what this big hill was called - Shvartsev's grave. Under the former commander Yakov Alekseevich Potemkin, the joyless soldier's life softened somewhat. And it was all the more offensive for the soldiers when Schwartz, who replaced Potemkin, restored all the hated Prussianism, the entire official inhuman system.

Finally, Schwartz’s cruelty became unbearable to the soldiers, and in order to remove him from his post, they decided to do something unheard of in terms of military subordination. On October 16, 1820, the soldiers without permission, at the wrong hour, went out into the corridor and told Sergeant Major Bragin that they most humbly, but immediately demanded the arrival of company commander Kashkarov to convey their request to him.

There was no insolence, but the soldiers showed such unyielding persistence that prompted the sergeant major to call the company commander, who in turn called the battalion commander. The soldiers demanded that Schwartz be removed and any other commander appointed.

We no longer have the strength to endure the bullying of Colonel Schwartz.

The battalion commander went to Schwartz so that he would personally reassure the people and consider their complaints.

Schwartz, who knew so many sins before the soldiers, was frightened and flew with a report about the riot in the Semenovsky regiment directly to Grand Duke Mikhail, the brigade commander.

Young Mikhail, who surpassed Nikolai himself in his zeal for frugality and subordination, held the company for several hours under interrogation: who is the instigator? Who are the “callers” into the corridor, especially at the wrong time?

The soldiers did not give up the “callers”.

In the evening, Adjutant General Vasilchikov lured the unarmed first company to the corps headquarters, declared it under arrest and sent it to the Peter and Paul Fortress.

Having learned about this event, the Semenovites rushed into the yard shouting:

“The first company is in the fortress, and should we go to sleep? We all have the same end, to die together!”

Alarmed by the arrest of their company, the regiment did not want to return to the barracks. Anger raged against Schwartz, because of whom, they understood, hundreds of innocent people would now die a painful death under the spitsrutens.

Some platoon rushed to Schwartz’s apartment. And it would have been the end of this colonel if he had not decided to escape from a well-deserved death in... manure: in the courtyard of his house they were cleaning the stables, and he buried his head in a huge pile. They didn’t think to look for him there.

The soldiers found Schwartz's dress uniform somewhere, lifted it up on a stick and, subjecting it to all sorts of desecration, tore it to shreds.

A courier was immediately sent to Alexander, who was sitting at the congress in Troppau, with a report of a hitherto unprecedented event in the Russian army - a mutiny of an entire regiment. How will he order to deal with him?

They expected a wise solution to this issue from the king...

Deciding that the riot in his Semenovsky regiment was caused, of course, by the “secret Russian Carbonari”, whom he was so afraid of, Alexander did not hesitate to send a courier with a cruel sentence:

“The first company should be judged by a military court in the fortress! The other battalions should be distributed among army regiments and garrisons.”*

*(O. Forsh, Firstborns of Freedom. Collection works, vol. V. M.-L., 1963, pp. 14 - 19.)

Question. What caused and what was evidenced by the uprising of the soldiers of the Semenovsky Guards Regiment?

The story “Mountains and Stars” by N.A. Zadonsky, written on the basis of documentary materials, is dedicated to the remarkable Russian figure, freedom-lover and freethinker, founder of the pre-Decembrist “Sacred Artel”, friend of the Decembrists N. N. Muravyov. N. N. Muravyov was a participant and witness of such historical events as the Patriotic War of 1812, the Decembrist uprising, and the Crimean War of 1854 - 1856. The book provides many striking examples of selfless love for the Fatherland, courage and nobility of advanced Russian people.

The creation of a secret political organization in the pre-Decembrist period is described in the given passage. The text is used to prepare a dramatized reading in person.

"Sacred Artel"

One day, when they got together, Nikolai suggested: “What, my dears, if we create an artel?” Let's rent a comfortable apartment, keep a common table and continue self-education, this is cheaper and more pleasant for us in all respects..

A few days later, an apartment for the artel was rented on Srednyaya Meshchanskaya Street. We pooled money, purchased the necessary furniture and utensils, and hired a cook. At dinner, the artel workers always had room for two guests, and these places were never empty, and in the evenings they had more guests.

Friends and comrades were attracted by the comradely ease that reigned in the artel: here one could read foreign newspapers, which were subscribed by the artel workers, over a glass of hot tea, or play chess, but most of all, they were seduced by the opportunity to talk without embarrassment about the Arakcheev order being introduced in the country and causing general indignation, about the senseless despotic actions of the two-minded king. Liberal-minded young people, in front of whose eyes great historical events had just happened, found the empty court life unbearable and painful to serve under the command of mediocre and cruel paraders*. There were many topics for conversation. And the disputes in the artel became more and more heated day by day.

*(Paradiers are the organizers of parades.)

Nikolai Muravyov’s artel winter evenings will forever remain in the memory of Nikolai Muravyov. And in the artel living room it is warm and unusually cozy.

Yakushkin, pacing around the room, says excitedly:

The slavery and Arakcheev order that we have are incompatible with the spirit of the times... I recently saw how soldiers were tortured with spitzrutens... An unbearable sight! And what about the situation of the unfortunate peasants, who remain the property of landowners ossified in ignorance and cruelty? The whole world admires the heroism of the Russian people, who liberated their fatherland and all of Europe from the tyranny of Bonaparte, and what reward did their ruler, Emperor Alexander, prepare for the heroes?

“Haven’t you read the Tsar’s manifesto?” Matvey Muravyov-Apostol sneers and proclaims in a church manner: “Let our faithful people receive their reward from God!”

“Well, that’s the only thing,” Yakushkin grins. - Reward from God! Nothing but false promises and beautiful gestures! In Europe, our tsar is almost a liberal, but in Russia he is a cruel and senseless despot!

Consider the decree recently signed by the sovereign on the creation of military settlements! - reminds Peter Kaloshin. - Arakcheev is sinking his claws deeper into the body of the people...

Nothing new seemed to be said, the artel workers more than once spoke out for the need to abolish serfdom, but the power of conviction, the passion with which Alexander Muravyov spoke always captivated the artel workers, and, as usual, his last words were drowned in the roar of excited voices:

It is unthinkable to endure the yoke of serfdom any longer!

Eternal shame for us and contempt for posterity if we do not do everything in our power to free ourselves!

The autocracy rests on serfdom; it is useless to rely on the tsar!

Violent disputes broke out, passions ran high*.

*(N. Zadonsky. Mountains and stars. M., Voenizdat, 1965, pp. 75 - 76, 85 - 89.)

Question. What did the advanced noble youth condemn and what political goals did they set for themselves?

The teacher will find exciting, full of dramatic material about the Decembrist uprising on Senate Square in St. Petersburg in the novel “The Firstborn of Freedom” by O. Forsh. Below is an excerpt from the novel. Used in an emotional story by a teacher or to prepare a student's message.

Uprising on Senate Square

Mikhail Bestuzhev's company moved first, followed by Shchepin-Rostovsky's company. They realized that there was no regimental banner ahead. They came back for him. When they all moved together to the gate with the banner, the regimental commander and the brigade commander had already appeared. They stopped the soldiers at the gate and tried to calm them down and return them to the barracks. Shchepin, whom Mikhail Bestuzhev had been inflaming all night with his speeches about freedom, pulled out a saber and hit regimental commander Fredericks with it. And another general, who took part in detaining the army at the very exit from the barracks, was grabbed flat below the back by Shchepin. The soldiers laughed loudly when the overweight general, raising his hands, ran shouting: “They killed me!”

Finally, eight hundred people broke out onto the Fontanka and, with a loud “hurray,” moved to Petrovskaya Square.

When the Moscow regiment approached Petrovskaya Square, it was still empty.

Muscovites also occupied the entrance to the Senate from St. Isaac's Square.

Having made his way through the crowd with great difficulty, Miloradovich drove up to the right front (flank - Ed.) and stopped about ten steps from the rebels. He loudly commanded “Smir-r-but” five times...

Obolensky invited Miloradovich to leave and, in order to rein in his horse, jabbed him with a bayonet, hitting the governor-general’s leg in the process. However, Miloradovich, confidently taking the tone of his father-commander, continued to exhort the soldiers and had already forced many to listen sympathetically to him. Then Kakhovsky shot at Miloradovich. The bullet pierced the blue St. Andrew's ribbon and the chest, hung with orders. Miloradovich fell from his horse, caught by his adjutant.

Meanwhile, Nicholas learned that more troops were moving to help the rebels, and he urgently, as his last hope, sent the clergy to the square.

Urged on, the spiritual fathers gathered hastily, taking with them two deacons...

The Metropolitan got out of the carriage and moved towards the rebels...

The Metropolitan still tried to speak, but they did not listen to him at all; they muffled his voice with a drum. The pressing crowd roared menacingly.

Suddenly, an enthusiastic “hurray” echoed across the square: reinforcements arrived to the rebel Moscow regiment - it was Lieutenant Sutgof who led his life grenadier company straight across the ice of the Neva.

The huge crowd of people was a true participant in the events...

St. Isaac's Cathedral was under construction. At its foot lay piles of logs and granite slabs. The people climbed onto the stones and stacks of logs, vigilantly observed the unusual behavior of the army and very soon understood the essence of what was happening in the square.

The events were interpreted in their own way:

According to Alexander’s will, freedom should be given to the people, but they strive to conceal it!

Meanwhile, on the orders of Nicholas, government troops were increasingly concentrated on Senate Square.

Orlov ordered the first two ranks of horsemen to attack.

The Reitars rushed forward, but people from the crowd fearlessly rushed towards the horsemen, grabbing the horses by the bridles... Four times the squadron went on the attack and four times was stopped by shots from the rebels and a living avalanche of people.

Nikolai galloped up to the corner of the boulevard, wanting to take command himself. From the crowd they shouted at him with rude abuse:

Come here, impostor... We'll show you!

Nikolai turned his horse.

And every time the king tried to approach the monument to Peter, stones and logs flew from the crowd. Having broken the front garden opposite the cathedral, people armed themselves with stakes, frozen clods of earth and snow.

Ryleev rushed about in search of Trubetskoy.

Trubetskoy hid, sparrow soul! - Pushchin responded contemptuously.

Nicholas launched an attack not only from the horse guards, but also from the cavalry guards and the horse-pioneer squadron.

The forced inaction of the rebels, in addition to chilling secret sympathizers, gave strength to the enemies. Nicholas managed to encircle the rebels with his troops.

To Nicholas’s repeated offer to surrender, broadcast throughout the square, the rebels gave one answer:

Firing guns in order! Buckshot! Right flank, begin!

But there was no shot, although the order was “first!” - was repeated by the battery commander. The soldier on the right gun did not want to put down the fuse.

Your honor!..

The officer grabbed the fuse from the fireworks and fired the first shot himself.

In response, a rifle volley rang out from the direction of the monument to Peter.

People were wounded, clinging to the eaves of the Senate house, around the columns, and on the roofs of neighboring houses. Broken glass flew out of the windows with a ringing sound.

It became completely dark, and flashes of gunfire instantly, like lightning, illuminated the bodies of the dead in the snow, the buildings and the monument, surrounded by the same square of rebels, as if already forever separated from it...

A total of seven volleys of buckshot were fired. The shooting continued for a whole hour. The rebel troops finally could not stand it. Many rushed onto the ice of the Neva*.

*(O. Forsh. Firstborns of freedom. Collection works, vol. V. M.-L., 1963, pp. 295, 300, 309, 315 - 316.)

Discuss, what was the significance of the Decembrist uprising and why it was defeated..

A.L. Slonimsky in the story “Chernigovtsy” describes the emergence of the “Southern Society” and the activities of the main members of this society, as well as the uprising of the Chernigov regiment, led by S.I. Muravyov-Apostol. The excerpt below shows one of the episodes of the uprising and its defeat.

Uprising of the Chernigov Regiment

The sixth day of the uprising has arrived. On Sunday, January 3 at four o'clock in the morning, in complete darkness, the Chernigov regiment set out from the village of Pologi (near Bila Tserkva. - Ed.). The companies were lined up in columns in half-platoons, when suddenly it became known that the company commanders, Staff Captain Mayevsky and Lieutenant Petin, had escaped.

Their disappearance only caused ridicule from the soldiers.

At the end of the eleventh hour, the regiment entered Kovalevka, from where five days ago, on Tuesday, the first two rebel companies left.

The soldiers of these companies were a little embarrassed when they saw familiar places.

We're spinning on the spot! - they said, smiling embarrassedly. ... It was noon. The regiment, stretched out in a narrow column in sections, walked at a fast pace along the road to Trilesy. Sergei (S. Muravyov-Apostol - Ed.) rode ahead.

Suddenly, somewhere ahead, something hooted and echoed across the sunny and snowy expanses.

The column involuntarily slowed down.

Sergei turned to the soldiers. On his pale face there was an expression of desperate faith in a miracle that was now about to take place. Rising in his stirrups, he shouted in an enthusiastic ringing voice:

Don't worry, friends! Then the fifth cavalry company gives us a signal. Forward!

They're coming. Another shot. This time you can hear that it is the core. Tearing the air, it rushes with a squeal and howl right above your head.

The soldiers stop in confusion. The back rows press on the front ones.

The soldiers have stern gray faces. Without waiting for orders, they themselves began to prepare for battle.

Having lined up in a combat column by platoons, they move on. At a distance of a mile - where the road, rising, goes into the blue sky - a dark, motionless line of horsemen appears.

This dark line blocks the path to happiness, to freedom. Feel free to break through it all at once -o and there he will be greeted by hugs and brotherly kisses.

Forward! - Sergei commands, starting his horse at a light trot. The soldiers feel like obedient machines in his hands.

The front of the column runs after Sergei, leaving behind the convoy and rearguard.

Stop! - Sergei commands. To the right of the road, under the cover of a small hill, two cannons are visible. Two barrels of black spots peek out from behind a snow-white slope. Now a miracle must happen: these two muzzles will be turned there, towards Zhitomir!

Arrows, scatter! Bypass to the guns! Everything will be decided now: the course history will take depends on this minute. The uprising will grow like a snowball launched from a mountain, and will fall on the heads of the tyrants in a menacing snowfall.

Be brave! Our brothers are waiting for us there! A spark splashed over the hillock and smoke flared up. Shot. Buckshot whistled through the air with a whining squeal.

Everything was instantly confused. The leading platoon dropped their guns and ran. On the road, with their faces buried in the snow, curled up or overturned, lay the wounded and dead. A squadron of hussars, scattered throughout the field, pursued the fugitives*.

*(Alexander Slonimsky. Chernigovtsy. Detgiz, 1961, pp. 260 - 265.)

A. Gessen's book "In the depths of the Siberian ores..." contains colorful material about the Decembrist uprising, the reprisal of Tsar Nicholas I and the remarkable feat of the Decembrist wives, who voluntarily followed to Siberia and shared their fate with their husbands.

Execution of the Decembrists

At dawn, the jailers rattled their keys and began to open the cell doors: the condemned were being led out to death. In the sudden silence, Ryleev’s exclamation was heard:

Sorry, sorry, brothers!

Obolensky, who was sitting in the next cell, rushed to the window and saw all five below, surrounded by grenadiers with fixed bayonets. They were wearing long white shirts, their arms and legs were shackled in heavy shackles. On each chest there was a plaque with the inscription: “Kingslayer”...

All five said goodbye to each other. They were calm and maintained extraordinary fortitude.

“Put your hand on my heart,” said Ryleev to the priest Myslovsky who accompanied him, “and see if it beats stronger.”

The Decembrist’s heart beat evenly... Pestel, looking at the gallows, said:

Don't we deserve a better death? It seems that we have never turned our heads away from bullets or cannonballs. They could have shot us!..

The condemned were taken to the platform, led to the gallows, and the nooses were thrown on and tightened. When the benches were knocked out from under the feet of the hanged men, Pestel and Bestuzhev-Ryumin were left hanging, and Ryleev, Muravyov-Apostol and Kakhovsky fell.

Poor Russia! And they don’t know how to hang it properly! - exclaimed the bloodied Muravyov-Apostle.

In the old days, there was a belief that people from the people, sympathizing with those sentenced to hanging, deliberately made loops from rotten ropes, since those who fell from their loops during execution were usually pardoned. But this was not the case with Nicholas I and his zealous executors.

Adjutant General Chernyshev, “a vile inquisitor in appearance and manners,” who pranced on horseback around the hanged men and examined them through a lorgnette, ordered them to be raised and hanged again.

These three convicts died a second time.

Covered in blood, having broken his head in the fall and having lost a lot of blood, Ryleev still had the strength to get up and shouted to the St. Petersburg Governor-General Kutuzov:

You, General, have probably come to watch us die. Please your sovereign, tell him that his wish is being fulfilled: you see, we are dying in agony.

Hang them again quickly!” Kutuzov shouted in response to this to the executioner.

The vile guardsman of the tyrant! - the indomitable Ryleev threw it in Kutuzov’s face. - Give the executioner your aiguillettes so that we don’t die a third time!..

At dawn, the bodies of those executed were placed in coffins and secretly taken to Goloday Island, where they were buried. Their grave was not found. An obelisk was built on the island in 1939.

The details of the execution became widely known on the same day, they were talked about in all circles of St. Petersburg*.

*(A. Gessen. In the depths of Siberian ores... M., "Children's Literature", 1965, pp. 101, 102.)

Wives of the Decembrists in Siberia

The Decembrists received a lot of help during hard labor and exile by their wives who went to Siberia to pick up their husbands. There were eleven of them, these heroic women.

In distant Siberia, these heroic women began to build their new lives and became “mediators between the living and the dead of political death.”

Together with the Decembrists, they selflessly bore their heavy lot. Deprived of all rights, being together with convicts and exiled settlers at the lowest level of human existence, the wives of the Decembrists, throughout the long years of their Siberian life, did not cease to fight together with their husbands for the ideas that brought them to hard labor, for the right to human dignity in conditions of hard labor. and links.

The wives of the Decembrists always behaved freely and independently and, with their great moral authority, did a lot together with their husbands and their comrades to raise the cultural level of the local population.

The Siberian authorities, big and small, were afraid of them.

“Between the ladies, the two most irreconcilable and always ready to tear the government apart are Princess Volkonskaya and General Konovnitsyna (Nyryshkina. - A.G.), - a police agent reported to the authorities. - Their frequent circles serve as a focus for all dissatisfied, and there is no more evil abuse that which they spew upon the government and its servants."

Not all Decembrists endured thirty years of Siberian hard labor and exile. And not all wives were destined to see their homeland and their children and loved ones left at home again. But those who returned retained clarity of heart and soul and always warmly and gratefully remembered their tightly knit, friendly family of Decembrists.

“The main thing,” wrote I. I. Pushchin from hard labor, “is not to lose the poetry of life, it has supported me so far; woe to those of us who will lose this consolation in our exceptional situation.”*

*(A. Gessen. Said essay. Page 7, 8, 9.)

Question. What moral qualities of the Decembrists’ wives were evidenced by their arrival and life in Siberia?

The poem by A. I. Odoevsky “Response to the message to A. S. Pushkin” is used as an emotional ending to the topic. It is read out by one of the prepared students.

Reply to the message of A. S. Pushkin

The fiery sounds of the prophetic strings reached our ears, Our hands rushed to the swords, But only found shackles. But be at peace, bard: with chains, We are proud of our fate, And behind the prison gates In our souls we laugh at the kings. Our sorrowful work will not be wasted: A flame will ignite from a spark, And our enlightened people will gather under the holy banner. We will forge swords from chains And again we will light the fire of freedom: It will come upon the kings - And the peoples will sigh joyfully *.

*(Collection "Poetry of the Decembrists", M.-L., "Soviet Writer", 1950, p. 353.)

Literature on the topic

A. Gessen, In the depths of Siberian ores... M., Detgiz, 1963.

M. Maric, Northern Lights. M., Goslitizdat, 1952.

L. N. Medvedskaya. Pavel Ivanovich Pestel, M., "Enlightenment", 1967.

S. N. Golubov. From a spark - a flame. Novel. M., Detgiz, 1950.

Yu. Kalugin. Decembrist's wife. Kyiv, 1963.

N. A. Nekrasov. Russian women. Any edition. Vl. Orlov. Poets of Pushkin's time. L., Detgiz, 1954.

A. L. Slonimsky. Chernigovtsy. M., Detgiz, 1961.

Yu. N. Tynyanov. Kyukhlya. Lenizdat, 1955.

N. Zadonsky. Mountains and stars. M., Voenizdat, 1965.

O. Forsh. Firstborns of freedom. Collection of works, vol. V.

M. K. Paustovsky. Northern story. Any edition. L., 1963.

For noble stage of the liberation movement in Russia The economic ideas of the Decembrists were characteristic. V.I. Lenin repeatedly addressed the issue of the noble revolutionism of the Decembrists. He noted that during the era of serfdom, the nobility predominated in the liberation movement: “Serf Russia is downtrodden and motionless. An insignificant minority of nobles, powerless without the support of the people, are protesting. But the best people from the nobility helped awaken the people.”*

The emergence of Decembrism as the first stage of the liberation movement in Russia was due to a number of objective reasons. Among them, the most important place is occupied by the disintegration of serfdom under the influence of the growth of productive forces, the expansion of commodity-money relations, and the aggravation of class contradictions between landowners and serfs. The Pugachev uprising revealed the full depth of these contradictions. The Patriotic War of 1812 played a well-known role in intensifying the ideological struggle within the ruling class, when advanced officers and soldiers, having crossed Europe, became acquainted with the life of the peoples of Western countries, with the elementary norms of bourgeois democracy, with the ideas of the French Revolution of the late 18th century. As I. D. Yakushkin wrote, “a stay for a whole year in Germany and then several months in Paris could not help but change the views of at least some thinking Russian youth”*. The conservative policy of Emperor Alexander I, who left everything in the country unchanged even after the end of the Patriotic War of 1812, had a great influence on the growing discontent of the advanced Russian officers.

The writings of Russian enlighteners of the late 18th century played an important role in the formation of the ideology of Decembrism. (N.I. Novikova, I.A. Tretyakov, S.E. Desnitsky, Ya.P. Kozelsky, etc.). but especially the revolutionary ideas of A. N. Radishchev. The economic views of the Decembrists were generated by the complex economic and political contradictions of feudal Russia, critically understood by representatives of the revolutionary nobility. The revolutionary-minded Decembrists saw their main task in the destruction of serfdom, providing personal freedom to the peasants, eliminating the absolutist monarchy, and establishing a democratic order in Russia. This was a revolutionary program for breaking the feudal system, the implementation of which would contribute to the development of Russia along the bourgeois path.

Anti-feudal movement in Russia should have led the bourgeoisie, but at the beginning of the 19th century. she was still weak. Therefore, the role of leader of the liberation movement fell to the lot of the revolutionary nobility. Various currents emerged within the Decembrist movement. The most consistent noble revolutionaries grouped around P. I. Pestel (Southern Society), and moderates organized the Northern Society led by N. M. Muravyov.

The most striking literary source allowing one to judge the program of the Decembrists is “Russian Truth”, written by P. I. Pestel in the period after the end of the war with Napoleon. P.I. Pestel (1793-1826) was a highly educated man who was seriously involved in political science. He knew well the works of the classics of bourgeois political economy, the works of petty-bourgeois and vulgar economists of the West. Pestel was the ideological leader of the Decembrist movement, a theorist and propagandist of the radical path to establishing a new system, and a convinced supporter of the republic. "Russian Truth" uncompromisingly proclaimed the destruction of autocracy, serfdom, the establishment of a republican system and ensuring the "welfare of the people." In the very concept of “prosperity”, too broad and equally vague, Pestel tried to put two main ideas - welfare and security. To ensure them, Pestel considered it necessary to implement a system of economic and political measures.

Political laws must be based on “natural law”; political economy must also be guided by it. Pestel understood the doctrine of “natural law” very broadly. He believed that “natural law” should be the initial norm in establishing both the political rights of citizens of society and their rights to property and the means of production. Hence, the author saw the main goal of “Russian Truth” as setting out “the right order both for the people and for the temporary Supreme Government”, to indicate ways and methods of achieving the goal of social well-being, by which was meant “the well-being of the totality of the people.” At the same time, “public welfare should be considered more important than private welfare”*.

The Decembrists raised the question of the destruction of the monarchy. In the “Orthodox Catechism”, compiled even before the uprising by Pestel’s associate S.I. Muravyov-Apostol with the participation of M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, and widely distributed among soldiers, the question of what “befits... the Russian army” to do in order to free itself from tyranny of the tsars, an unequivocal answer was given: “To take up arms all together against tyranny and restore faith and freedom in Russia.”*

However, there was no unity among the Decembrists on the issue of a republican system. Head of the Northern Society N. M. Muravyov (1796-1843) in 1820-1821. drafted a Constitution (three versions), in which he resolutely opposed autocracy and serfdom, believing that “the power of autocracy is equally disastrous for rulers and for societies.” Chapter III of the draft Constitution declared that “serfdom and slavery are abolished”*. However, unlike Pestel, Muravyov was inclined to maintain a constitutional monarchy, albeit limited by the People's Council, consisting of the Supreme Duma and the House of People's Representatives.

The Decembrists were unanimous in their methods of overthrowing the autocracy. They all shared the idea of ​​a military coup without the participation of the masses. This is explained by the narrow-mindedness of the nobility and lack of understanding of the role of the people in the destruction of feudalism. The Decembrists intended to create a social system in which, along with the free peasantry, capitalist enterprises in industry and trade, there would also be landowners who owned land as the source of their livelihood.

The Decembrists, while fighting for the “welfare of the people,” at the same time excluded them from participation in this struggle, rightfully fearing that the peasantry would not limit itself to the noble program in resolving the issue of land. This explains why V.I. Lenin, while highly appreciating the Decembrists’ program for eliminating the autocratic system in Russia, noted at the same time that they were too “far from the people” and therefore their practical capabilities for carrying out a military coup were insignificant. This ultimately predetermined their defeat. Pointing out the class limitations of the economic program of the Decembrists, it must nevertheless be emphasized that in the historical conditions of serfdom in Russia, the demand for the liberation of the peasants and the attempt to practically implement this through a military coup were an outstanding revolutionary event.

According to the preliminary plan for the uprising, developed by S.P. Trubetskoy, in the event of the victory of the rebels, the Senate was supposed to publish a “Manifesto” to the people. It announced the destruction of the former rule (autocracy), serfdom, the “equalization of the rights of all classes”, the right of any citizen “to acquire all kinds of property, such as land, houses in villages and cities.” This was complemented by the abolition of “poll taxes and arrears thereon”*.

These are, in general, the fundamental principles of the Decembrists, guided by which they began the fight against the autocracy. At the same time, they saw the supporting positions of their program demands not only in the doctrine of “natural law”, but also in the history of Rus'. As the Decembrist M.A. Fonvizin wrote, “Ancient Rus' knew neither political slavery nor civil slavery: both were grafted onto it gradually and forcibly...”*.

One of the central issues that worried the Decembrists was agrarian. It was discussed for a long time in their circles. How to free the peasants - with or without land? The author of "Russian Truth" took the most radical position, arguing that the real liberation of the peasants from economic and political dependence on the landowners is possible only when the peasants (along with personal freedom) are also endowed with land. Pestel resolutely denied the right of the nobles to keep peasants in personal dependence. “...The right to possess other people as one’s own property,” he wrote, “to sell, mortgage, give... is a shameful thing, contrary to humanity and natural laws.”* Based on this general position, Pestel argued that the liberation of peasants with land is the only and most important condition for ensuring public well-being.

The ideological leader of the Decembrists, P. I. Pestel, did not imagine revolutionary changes in Russia without changes in agrarian relations. He considered agriculture as the main branch of the national economy, and he mainly considered labor in agricultural production to be the source of national wealth. If one of the tasks of the new social system was the elimination of poverty and misery of the masses, then the closest way to achieve this was seen in providing the opportunity for all citizens of the new Russia to work on land that was either publicly owned and provided for the use of peasants, or in their private property. Pestel gave preference to public ownership of land over private ownership, since the use of land from the public fund should be free, everyone will be able to get it at their disposal, regardless of their property status. Pestel thought of granting such a right to all residents of villages and cities in order to place all Russian citizens on an equal footing in relation to the land. It was an original solution to a complex issue.

What lands were to be used to create the public fund? These are mainly lands of landowners and the treasury. Such lands are quite enough to provide for all those in need. The very idea of ​​​​encroaching on the land of the landowners was justified in the new constitution (the “State Testament”), which stated that “the entire Russian people” would form “one estate - the civil”, since all the current estates were being destroyed. This is Pestel’s formulation of the question of land and its use, of a new form of land ownership. He saw the practical embodiment of this idea in the division of all the land in each volost “into two parts: volost and private. The first belongs to the whole society, the second to private people. The first is public property, the second is private property.”*

Pestel also developed the conditions on the basis of which part of the landowners' lands were selected for the benefit of society. It was planned to take away half of it free of charge from landowners with 10 thousand dessiatines or more. If the landowner had from 5 to 9 thousand dessiatines, then half of the selected land should be reimbursed from state holdings or compensated with money from the treasury*. This would allow the landowner to run his economy with the help of hired force and gradually transfer it to capitalist principles. Thus, according to Pestel’s project, the property of landowners’ farms was preserved, although it was significantly reduced in large estates. This undoubtedly reflected the limited views of Pestel. But the true revolutionary nature of his agrarian program lay in the fact that he proposed to allocate land to all peasants and thereby abolish the economic dependence of the peasants on the landowners.

Pestel's agricultural project was not supported by all members of the secret society of the Decembrists. Its radical content went beyond the liberating transformations allowed by moderate members of society. For example, the prominent Decembrist and economist N.I. Turgenev (1789-1871), who fought for the liberation of peasants from personal serfdom, at the same time allowed their liberation without land or with land (two tithes per male soul), but for a ransom. Turgenev made a lot of efforts to convince the landowners that the liberation of the peasants from personal dependence would not be the reason for the disruption of their economy. It is possible to “squeeze” no less income out of the hired labor of peasants than under serfdom. N. I. Turgenev, who wrote a number of works: “An Experience in the Theory of Taxes” (1818), “Something about Corvee” (1818), “Something about Serfdom in Russia” (1819), “The Question of Liberation and the Question of Managing Peasants” (1819 ) and others, painted a vivid picture of the plight of peasants, especially corvées and serfs. However, he still saw a way out of this situation in decisions “from above”, and not in the revolutionary abolition of serfdom. The author of the note “Something about serfdom in Russia” assured that “the government alone can begin to improve the lot of the peasants”*.

But it is known that landowners not only during the period disintegration of serfdom (late 18th - early 19th centuries), but even during the period of the crisis of serfdom (mid-19th century) they were resolute opponents of the emancipation of the peasants, and only objective reasons forced the government in 1861 to take the path of reform. Turgenev mistakenly considered landlord ownership of land as a condition for the economic progress of Russia, and advocated the transfer of noble latifundia to the capitalist path of development. Peasant farms were assigned a subordinate role as a source of cheap labor for the landowners' estates. Unlike Pestel, Turgenev saw the future of Russia in the capitalist development of agriculture, led by large capitalist farms of landowners. Turgenev's views on serfdom and the land question were a reflection of the narrow-mindedness of the nobility.

N. M. Muravyov also expressed his negative attitude towards Pestel’s agrarian project, who did not hide this even before the uprising, and after his defeat, he openly declared during the investigation: “... Pestel’s entire plan was contrary to my reason and way of thinking.”* In his draft Constitution, Muravyov left all the land for the landowners, maintaining the economic basis of the rule of the nobility. In the first version on this issue, he put it this way: “The right of property, which includes certain things, is sacred and inviolable.”

During the period of the dominance of serfdom in Russia, only the nobility and the free commercial and industrial class were granted property rights. Therefore, when N.M. Muravyov declared the inviolability and sacredness of property, this applied only to the ruling class - the nobles. The draft Constitution stated that “the lands of the landowners remain theirs.” After reading the first version of the draft Constitution by individual members of the secret society of the Decembrists, N. M. Muravyov supplemented this thesis with the note that “the houses of the villagers with their vegetable gardens are recognized as their property with all agricultural tools and livestock belonging to them.” I. I. Pushchin wrote a note in the margin: “If there is a vegetable garden, then the earth”*.

Supporters of the landless liberation of peasants were also S.P. Trubetskoy, M.S. Lunin, I.D. Yakushkin, M.F. Orlov and others. The views of the moderate Decembrists came into clear contradiction with the main goal of the movement. The liberation of peasants from the personal dependence of landowners without land or with a meager piece of it did not solve the issue of eliminating the dependence of peasants on land owners. The replacement of non-economic coercion with economic bondage did not exclude an antagonistic class contradiction between peasants and landowners.

"Russian Truth" does not contain a developed program for the development of industry, trade and finance. But the attitude of the Decembrists to these issues can be judged from the works of Turgenev, Bestuzhev and Orlov. Pestel, attaching decisive importance to agriculture, did not deny the important role of the development of industry and trade. Pestel, for example, believed that the state's economic policy should actively promote the development of industry, trade, and the establishment of a correct tax system, and for the sake of protecting backward domestic industry, he supported protectionist policies. Some Decembrists of the southern regions of Russia (I. I. Gorbachevsky (1800-1869) and others) gave priority to industry over agriculture, arguing that the problem of eliminating poverty and poverty could be more successfully solved through the active development of industry. “...The people can be free only by becoming moral, enlightened and industrial,” wrote Gorbachevsky.

Pestel pointed out that the development of industry should be facilitated by trade, both external and internal, but its growth was hampered by the existence of merchant guilds, which provided privileges to large merchants. Decembrists of all directions believed that these privileges should be abolished, since they slowed down the growth of trade.

According to Pestel, tax policy should also be changed. After the declaration of equality of all citizens of Russia and the abolition of class privileges, taxes must be paid by all members of the Russian state, including nobles. Pestel even proposed abolishing poll taxes, all in-kind and personal duties, and establishing direct, differentiated property and income taxes that would not be ruinous for the poor. He was opposed to indirect taxes, especially on basic necessities. In order to help small-scale production in villages and cities, the author of "Russian Pravda" proposed expanding the activities of the banking system, creating banks in every volost and issuing interest-free loans for long periods to peasants and townspeople to promote the development of their farms or industries. All of these proposals by Pestel essentially led to the creation of a new financial system, the purpose of which would be to assist the population in economic development, and not to solve the fiscal problems of the state. The Decembrists did not have a unified view on these issues either.

Representatives of the moderate wing created important works, as evidenced by the works of N. I. Turgenev ("Experience in the Theory of Taxes", 1818), N. A. Bestuzhev ("On Freedom of Trade and Industry in General", 1831) and M. F. Orlov ( "On State Credit", 1833). The content of these works goes beyond the problems indicated in the title. They raise general issues of serfdom, state economic policy in the field of trade, taxation, finance and credit. In “An Experience in the Theory of Taxes,” Turgenev analyzes the history of taxes in various countries, sources of payment of taxes, forms of their collection, the importance of tax policy for the population, the development of industry, trade, public finance, etc. But the author saw his main task in the analysis of Russian history , in criticism of serfdom in defense of the idea of ​​freedom. As Turgenev later recalled in his work “La Russie et les Russes” (“Russia and the Russians,” 1847), “in this work (i.e., in “An Experience in the Theory of Taxes.” - Author) I allowed myself a number of excursions into higher areas of politics. The poll tax gave me the opportunity to talk about slavery... These side points were in my eyes of much greater importance than the main content of my work"*.

Considering Russia as an economically backward country, Turgenev, in contrast to Pestel, considered free trade to be a policy promoting industrial growth. Here, of course, not only the influence of the teachings of A. Smith, which was fashionable at that time, was felt, but also concern for the interests of the landowners. Of all the social strata of Russian society, the nobility was most closely associated with foreign trade as a supplier to the foreign market of bread, hemp, lard, leather and a buyer of fine cloth, silk, wine, spices, luxury goods, etc. Turgenev spoke approvingly of the new tariff of 1810 ., which destroyed customs barriers for foreign goods. However, his historical references to the example of England, which established a policy of free trade, are unsuccessful. It was impossible to mechanically transfer the principles of free trade to Russian reality, where industry was poorly developed. Turgenev ignored the fact that England itself and almost all the countries of Western Europe built their industry under the protection of a policy of protectionism.

The prominent Decembrist P. G. Kakhovsky (1797-1826) also did not understand the significance of the policy of protectionism for the development of industry in Russia. In his letters to Tsar Nicholas I, he stated that “the prohibitive system, which cannot be useful anywhere, has greatly contributed to the decline of trade and the general ruin of the state,” *. N. M. Muravyov, N. A. Bestuzhev and others showed a negative attitude towards protectionism.

In his work “On Freedom of Trade and Industry in General” (1831), N. A. Bestuzhev (1791-1855) expressed an erroneous judgment about the negative consequences of prohibitive tariffs. He perceived the well-known formula “laissez faire, laissez passer” (“freedom of action, freedom of trade”) uncritically, without taking into account the historical conditions of each state. Bestuzhev viewed protectionism as a belated reflection of the outdated policy of mercantilism. In his opinion, countries rich in fertile lands and vast territories should produce mainly agricultural products and supply them to foreign markets. Small countries are forced to develop industry and enter the markets with industrial goods. In this case, there should be free exchange between states. The free actions of private entrepreneurs should not be limited by government restrictions, including tariff policy. Bestuzhev did not oppose the development of industry, but was more inclined to develop the processing industry, which was in the hands of the nobility*.

N. I. Turgenev argued that the tax system, although indirectly, reflects the character of a republican or despotic state, and emphasized that the correct organization of taxation can only be built on a thorough knowledge of political economy and “any government that does not understand the rules of this science ... it is necessary to die" from financial breakdown*. Giving an idealistic explanation of the origin of taxes based on the theory of “social contract” J.-J. Rousseau and considering their collection correct in principle, Turgenev opposed the privileges of the nobles and clergy, because taxes must be paid by all layers of society in accordance with income. Although he took examples of unfair taxation from the history of France, he quite transparently criticized the Russian order, demanded the abolition of poll taxes and their replacement with a tax on “labor and land.” The author especially opposed personal duties, considering it expedient to replace them with monetary dues. In despotic countries, taxes are heavy and burdensome, but they should not be ruinous for the people. Therefore, “the government should take as much as is needed to satisfy the true needs of the state, and not as much as the people are able to give”**. It was proposed to levy taxes only on net income, without affecting fixed capital, and to establish a tax on landowners once every 100 years. This logically followed from his idea of ​​the role of landowner farms in the development of capitalist agrarian relations. It should be emphasized the progressiveness of Turgenev’s views on tax policy aimed against serfdom and tsarist tyranny.

Turgenev's statements about paper money, banks and credit are of some interest. He considered the use of paper money as a means of circulation as a rational phenomenon, since they replaced the movement of metallic money. Turgenev emphasized that the amount of paper money functioning in the sphere of circulation must correspond to the size of trade turnover. If this condition is violated, then the extra paper money leads to the depreciation of “pure money,” i.e., full-fledged money, which is like an additional tax on workers. Turgenev criticized the government, which used the policy of covering the budget deficit by issuing money, believing that it was more economically rational to resort to state credit. He emphasized that “all governments must direct their attention to maintaining and preserving public credit... The age of paper money has passed for theory - and has passed irrevocably. The age of credit is coming for all of Europe”*.

Deeper systematic analysis of public credit given by the Decembrist General M. F. Orlov (1788-1842). His book “On State Credit” (1833) was one of the first in world literature to set out the bourgeois theory of state credit. Orlov was a supporter of large-scale capitalist industry and large-scale private ownership of the means of production. Until the end of his days, he adhered to the idea of ​​​​the inviolability of private property. Unlike other Decembrists, Orlov linked progress in Russia's economic development with the organization of large-scale production in both industry and agriculture. But such development was hampered by the lack of large capital. To solve these problems, Orlov proposed expanding state credit (by the way, well-known opponents of this idea were A. Smith, D. Ricardo, Russian finance ministers Guryev, Kankrin, etc.). The Decembrist overestimated the role of state credit, fetishized it, seeing in it a source of so-called primitive accumulation, and proposed combining this with a moderate taxation system. He noted that “if a good tax system is the first basis for credit, then the use of credit is the motivating reason for establishing a tax system”*.

Orlov's proposal to make government loans a source of government credit was original. In this case, it was meant not to repay the loans, but to pay their amount in the form of interest over a long time. This idea formed the basis of the theory of state credit. A developed system of state credit will require the creation of an extensive network of banks, which corresponded to the trend in the development of capitalism. Having written this book, M. F. Orlov declared himself as a serious theorist in the field of state credit not only in Russian, but also in world economic literature. References to his work are available in German literature.

Thus, the Decembrists not only acted as revolutionary fighters against serfdom and autocracy, but also left a serious mark on the history of economic thought. In their works, agrarian problems, issues of state economic policy, especially foreign economic and tax policies, problems of public debt, credit, etc. received deep coverage. Their views, being essentially bourgeois, had a huge influence on the development of socio-economic thought in Russia.

V.I. Lenin gave a dialectical definition of the historical place of the Decembrist period of the liberation movement in Russia: “The circle of these revolutionaries is narrow. They are terribly far from the people. But their cause was not lost. The Decembrists woke up Herzen. Herzen launched revolutionary agitation”*.