"The day before."

(Julian calendar - February 19) On the 6th anniversary of his accession to the throne Alexander II signs the Manifesto About the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants and about the structure of their life. This was followed by a series of legislative acts, the most important of which was Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom. (See also On the ransom of peasants emerging from serfdom...) Suppression of a peasant revolt by troops. Abyss of Kazan province ( see Apraksin's report), demanding “full freedom” and immediate provision of land. In the following months, frustration with the inconsistency of the reform grows: articles appear A. Herzen And N. Ogareva V "Bell" , N. Chernyshevsky V "Contemporary". There is a rapid spread of revolutionary (“nihilistic”) sentiments among young people. Articles contribute to this D. Pisareva And N. Dobrolyubova, as well as calls for rebellion in proclamations N. Shelgunova And M. Mikhailova(“To the younger generation”) and P. Zaichnevsky("Young Russia"). (according to the Julian calendar - January 10) The beginning of the Polish uprising of 1863-1864. - simultaneous attack on all Russian garrisons, creation of a Provisional National Government, declaration of national independence Poland, flight of the Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich from Warsaw. The uprising spreads to Lithuania, part of Belarus and Right Bank Ukraine, but the forces of the rebels are clearly insufficient, weakened by disagreements between the “Reds” and “Whites” and deprived of the support of the peasants. The uprising was received with sharp hostility by Russian public opinion - A. Herzen and M. Bakunin, who welcomed it, themselves were subjected to public ostracism. (according to the Julian calendar - January 1) Zemstvo reform in Russia - Regulations on provincial and district land institutions. Bodies of local self-government - county zemstvo assemblies are elected for 3 years by three curiae of voters (county landowners, city voters and elected from rural societies) and elect the provincial zemstvo assembly from among themselves. The competence of zemstvos includes management (under the tutelage of the administration) of healthcare, public education, local communications and promoting economic development. Zemstvos were introduced only in 34 provinces. (according to the Julian calendar - April 4) The first (of eight) attempt on life Alexandra II walking through the Summer Garden. Revolutionary terrorist D.V. Karakozov, a member of the secret society "Hell" led by N. Ishutin, adjacent to “Land and Freedom”, shot at the emperor near the Summer Garden, but missed. The intervention of the peasant O. Komissarov saved the tsar's life. Thanksgiving prayers throughout the country, a patriotic demonstration on Palace Square in St. Petersburg, arrests of all those involved in the assassination attempt. Closing of the magazines "Sovremennik" and "Russian Word". The beginning of a departure from the policy of reforms: important government posts were replaced by conservatives, Count D. Tolstoy was appointed Minister of Public Education, and from 1865 - Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. The attacker was immediately arrested and placed in the Alekseevsky Ravelin. Student unrest in St. Petersburg. Arrest of most members of the illegal group S. Nechaeva And P. Tkacheva. S. Nechaev’s flight abroad, meeting in Geneva with the anarchist ideologist M. Bakunin. Upon returning to Russia, S. Nechaev creates a secret society "People's Retribution" in Moscow and kills one of its members, student I. Ivanov, on suspicion of treason (the "Nechaev case" that shocked Russia and served as the plot basis for the novel F.M. Dostoevsky"Demons", 1871-1872). After the murder he flees abroad again. Issued by the Swiss government of Russia. He died in 1882 in the Peter and Paul Fortress.

Notes

* To compare events that took place in Russia and Western Europe, in all chronological tables, starting from 1582 (the year of the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in eight European countries) and ending with 1918 (the year of the transition of Soviet Russia from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar), in the column DATES indicated date only according to the Gregorian calendar , and the Julian date is indicated in parentheses along with a description of the event. In chronological tables describing the periods before the introduction of the new style by Pope Gregory XIII (in the DATES column) Dates are based on the Julian calendar only. . At the same time, no translation is made to the Gregorian calendar, because it did not exist.

RUSSIAN JOURNALISM IN THE AGE OF REFORM IN THE 60S OF THE 19TH CENTURY

So, in the first half of the 19th century. the high social position of Russian journalism was consolidated, the type of literary and social monthly was determined as the leading one in the press system.

In journalism, a lot of space is occupied by the personal element, the authority of the leader. The main figure in the press becomes the literary critic. It is not the publisher or editor, but the leading critic-publicist who determines the direction, significance and authority of the publication.

As before, few private newspapers are published, although the “Gubernskie Gazette” (since 1838) and some special publications appear.

A significant breakthrough is taking place in the field of freedom of speech thanks to the efforts of Herzen and his Free Printing House in exile.

Russia's defeat in the Crimean War exposed the extreme backwardness of the country, which was under conditions of serfdom and autocracy. The second half of the 50s is marked by the strengthening of the revolutionary movement in the country, and the need for socio-economic changes becomes more and more tangible. Under the pressure of the liberation movement and the needs of economic development, many representatives of the ruling class begin to express ideas about the abolition of serfdom through reforms from above.

The ideas of Belinsky and his associates about the need to abolish and destroy serfdom become common property. Now the struggle is unfolding around the conditions for the liberation of the peasants. Russian journalism had to play an important role here.

Among the landowners there was still a large layer of conservatives who wanted to keep the old relations unchanged. Liberals sought to liberate peasants from serfdom, while ensuring maximum privileges for landowners and capitalists. And only revolutionary democrats sought such orders after the abolition of serfdom, when the people received land, political freedom, when the interests of the people, especially the peasantry, were reliably protected.

Each of these areas had its own print media: magazines and newspapers.

"Russian Messenger"

The organ of the liberal-conservative trend, first of all, turned out to be the magazine M.N. Katkova "Russian Messenger" The magazine, organized in 1856, on the eve of reforms, advocated the abolition of serfdom, the elimination of the old bureaucracy, but while maintaining autocracy and the dominant position in the country of noble landowners.

After the peasant reform, Katkov turns more and more to the right. He actively opposes the democrats (especially Herzen and Chernyshevsky), condemns the Polish uprising of 1863, and declares himself a patriotic statesman. In magazines and newspapers "Moskovskie Vedomosti" which he has been acquiring on lease since 1863, Katkov criticizes any anti-Russian actions and intentions of the European powers, rebels against the internal turmoil of the liberals, and exposes sedition. “It is only through a misunderstanding that they think that monarchy and autocracy exclude “people’s freedom”; in fact, it ensures it more than any stereotyped constitutionalism.”

“We call ourselves loyal subjects,” the publicist proudly asserted. This position found many supporters; the authority of Katkov the journalist was quite high.

Liberal positions were taken by Kraevsky's Otechestvennye zapiski, the newspapers St. Petersburg Vedomosti, Our Time and others.

"Contemporary" 1650-1860

But the most important, striking and significant in content and influence on society was the democratic magazine "Contemporary", the editor of which was still N. Nekrasov. Having survived the years of the “dark seven years” (1848-1855), a brutal political reaction that hampered the development of advanced Russian journalism after the European revolution of 1848, Nekrasov, already in the mid-50s, took a number of measures to revive the magazine, attracted prominent writers: I.S. Turgeneva, I.A. Goncharova, L.N. Tolstoy and others, opens the humorous department “Yeralash” (where the literary parody character Kozma Prutkov first appears), searches for and finds new employees.

In 1854, N.G. began collaborating with Sovremennik. Chernyshevsky is a great democratic revolutionary, first as a literary critic, and then as a publicist, politician and organizer of all revolutionary forces in the country. Chernyshevsky began by reviving Belinsky's principles in both literary criticism and journalism. With the support of editor Nekrasov, he begins the struggle for the democratization of Sovremennik itself (“On sincerity in criticism”, “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” and other articles). He gives battle to representatives of noble aesthetics and liberal fiction writers who found themselves in the magazine during the years of reaction. The ideas of his dissertation “On the Aesthetic Relationship of Art to Reality”, the philosophical works “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy”, etc. were of great importance. Nekrasov supported the young employee, and gradually the liberals, including Turgenev, began to leave Sovremennik one after another.

With the arrival of N.A. to the magazine in 1858. Dobrolyubov, the positions of the revolutionary democrats are significantly strengthened.

By 1859, the contradictions of Russian life had become so acute that a revolutionary situation had developed in the country, when a peasant uprising against serfdom and landowners was becoming more and more real.

During these years, Sovremennik began to play a particularly important role as a center of advanced ideology, the ideological headquarters of the liberation movement. The magazine is undergoing internal and external restructuring in order to most successfully conduct revolutionary propaganda. Issues related to the discussion of peasant reform, the conditions for the liberation of peasants from landowners, which have been constantly discussed in the magazine since 1857, are actually removed from the agenda. They give way to the propaganda of revolution, uprising as the most radical means of overcoming the oppression of the landowners.

Chernyshevsky already realized at this time that the reform, which the autocratic government and landowners were preparing in fear of the onslaught of the revolution, would be a deception: the fundamental interests of the people would not be satisfied. Based on this, he begins the ideological preparation of a peasant uprising.

Invariably condemning and exposing the feudal landowners, the magazine, however, deals the main blow at this time to liberal ideology, realizing that the liberals, with their policy of conciliation, can nullify all the efforts of democracy and the people. The magazine opens a “Politics” section. Chernyshevsky begins to lead it, transferring the department of literary criticism under the leadership of

Dobrolyubova. Analyzing the events of European history and the facts of the class struggle of peoples in the “Politics” department, Chernyshevsky convinces his readers of the inevitability of revolution and the need to isolate liberals.

Dobrolyubov in his critical articles, such as “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”, “What is Oblomovism?”, “When will the real day come?” and others, debunks serfdom, condemns liberals for indecisiveness and betrayal of popular interests, fosters faith in the liberating forces of the people, who cannot endlessly tolerate their oppressors. Using the plot of Turgenev’s novel “On the Eve,” the critic calls for a fight against the “internal Turks” and not to trust the government’s reforms. In 1859, Dobrolyubov, with the approval of Nekrasov, organized a new satirical department in Sovremennik (actually a magazine within a magazine) called “Whistle”. And this department was directed primarily against Russian and international liberalism, all carriers of reactionary, anti-people ideas. Here Dobrolyubov showed himself as a talented satirist poet.

In articles with political content, Dobrolyubov, analyzing the experience of the historical development of advanced European countries, comes to the conclusion about common revolutionary ways to overcome the resistance of the exploiting classes both in Europe and in Russia (“From Moscow to Leipzig”). The peculiarity of Russia should lie only in a more decisive and consistent struggle against exploitation and liberal-bourgeois compromise.

Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov achieve great perfection in the methods of revolutionary propaganda. An example of revolutionary propaganda under tsarism and cruel censorship is Chernyshevsky’s article “Isn’t this the beginning of change?” In form, this is a literary critical article dedicated to the folk stories of the writer N. Uspensky. But in this form of a critical article, the revolutionary writer was able to put a sharp assessment of the state of the country, the idea of ​​the inevitability of a revolution to satisfy the just demands of the Russian people. In the course of analyzing literary sources, Chernyshevsky quotes in the article the poem “Song of the Wretched Wanderer” from Nekrasov’s poem “Peddlers”, which contains the following words:

I'm going to the village: man! Do you live warmly?

It's cold, stranger, it's cold,

It’s cold, dear, it’s cold!

I'm on the other side: man! Are you eating and drinking well?

Hungry, wanderer, hungry,

Hungry, dear, hungry! Etc.

And then he asks the imaginary peasant: “Can’t you live warmly? But isn’t it possible for you to live a satisfying life? Is the land bad if you live on black soil, or is there little land around you if it’s not black soil? Why are you looking?” (PSS T.7. P. 874). But the question of land is one of the fundamental issues of the Russian (and not only Russian) revolution.

In an effort to shatter the idea of ​​the Russian peasant as a downtrodden and passive creature, Chernyshevsky resorts to allegory in the article, comparing the people with an uncomplaining, meek horse on which they carry water all their lives. But “the horse rides and rides calmly and prudently - and suddenly it rears up or neighs and carries off...”. So in the life of the most humble person, of the people, there are moments when he cannot be recognized, for “he cannot have the strength to remain coldly in an unpleasant position forever.” The quiet activity of the meekest horse cannot do without such antics. Such an impulse is a revolution, which “in five minutes will move you (and yourself, of course) so far forward that it would not be possible to move at a measured, quiet step in a whole hour” (ibid., pp. 881-882). And so that the reader has no doubt that we are talking about the social behavior of people, Chernyshevsky calls to remember the liberation impulse of the people in the Patriotic War of 1812. No less indicative from the point of view of the skill of a revolutionary publicist is the article “Russian man at rendez vous” and many other. Allegory and allegory very often turned out to be a reliable means of revolutionary propaganda.

There is no doubt about the skill of Chernyshevsky, who knew how to talk about the revolution in the censored press and educate real revolutionaries with his articles.

The ideas of the revolution were no less clearly reflected in Dobrolyubov’s articles and reviews. As an example, we can cite Dobrolyubov’s article “When will the real day come?”, marked by the critic’s ardent sympathy for the fighters for the happiness of the people - Insarov and Elena Stakhova.

The popularity of Sovremennik in the 60s was exceptionally great. The magazine's circulation reached 6-7 thousand copies. Chernyshevsky published special reports on the distribution of the magazine and reproached those cities and towns where they did not subscribe to the magazine and did not receive a single copy, although he understood that not everyone could find the means to subscribe,

The significance of Sovremennik in the history of Russian journalism is exceptionally great. It was one of the best magazines of the 19th century. His main advantages were complete ideological unity, strict consistency of direction, devotion to the interests of the people, progress and socialism. Journalism has acquired unprecedented importance. The best articles of Russian journalism, many of Nekrasov’s poems, Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?” were published here, and the satirical work of the great Russian writer M.E. began here. Saltykov-Shchedrin.

All the years of publication of Sovremennik, the censorship kept a vigilant eye on it; in 1862, the magazine was suspended for its revolutionary direction for six months, and in 1866, after the death of Dobrolyubov and the arrest of Chernyshevsky, it was completely closed in violation of the law on personal press by order of the king.

The leaders of the magazine - Nekrasov, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov - had exceptional authority and influence on their contemporaries. The articles of Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, and the poems of Nekrasov were read with enthusiasm by leading figures of other peoples inhabiting Russia and the Slavic countries. The fact is that the process of development of liberation ideas in Russia in the 60s coincided with the awakening of civic activity of the peoples of Ukraine, Transcaucasia, the Volga region, part of Central Asia, and the struggle for the national and social independence of Bulgaria, Poland, Serbia and other Slavic peoples. The influence of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov on L. Karavelov, X was enormous. Botev, S. Serakovsky, S. Markovich and many others. Russia itself, from a stronghold of reaction, became an important factor in the revolutionary movement in Europe.

Consistent struggle against the remnants of feudalism, oppression, exploitation, foreign enslavement, criticism of the strategy and tactics of bourgeois liberals, revolutionary animation, dedication, selflessness predetermined this influence.

"Russian word"

The second magazine of revolutionary democracy of the 60s of the XIX century. appeared "Russian word". The magazine was organized in 1859, but acquired a democratic character only in 1860 with the arrival of the new editor G.E. Blagosvetlova. Blagosvetlov is a typical commoner. The son of a poor priest, who was left early without financial support, graduated from St. Petersburg University on his own, but did not find a place in the government service due to his democratic beliefs and political unreliability.

The magazine "Russian Word" had a popular science bias. Here, along with issues of literature and literary criticism, much attention was paid to natural science knowledge and facts of scientific life. He was very popular among students and in the Russian provinces. By changing the staff, Blagosvetlov managed to increase the magazine's circulation from 3 to 4.5 thousand copies. The most successful decision of the editor was to invite D.I. to the role of leading critic in the magazine. Pisareva.

Entering Russian journalism at a crucial moment in Russian social life in the 60s, the critic had to determine his place among the main contending trends. And he identified him as an ally of Sovremennik and Chernyshevsky, which he directly stated in the second part of one of the first large articles published in Russian Word, “Scholastics of the 19th Century.”

Pisarev acted as a lawyer for “hungry and naked” people, a supporter of the emancipation of the individual from any social and family constraints and bonds. First of all, he defended the mental emancipation of man from dogmas and moral concepts generated by serfdom. Fighters for the freedom of mankind from mental darkness and oppression (Voltaire, Heine) deserve the highest praise from critics.

On the eve of the peasant reform of 1861, Pisarev spoke out in defense of Herzen’s authority, spoke sharply negatively about the dynasty of the reigning house of the Romanovs in Russia, in general about a society divided into classes, where one appropriates the fruits of the labor of another (see articles “On the Chedeau-Ferroti brochure” , "Bees"). Pisarev advocates materialism.

In an article about a brochure by the hired writer Chedeau-Ferroti, Pisarev directly called for the overthrow of the Russian autocracy. For attempting to publish this work in an illegal printing house, the publicist was imprisoned for four years in the Peter and Paul Fortress.

Pisarev thought a lot about the potential abilities of the Russian peasantry for revolutionary struggle. The publicist considered the lack of consciousness among the mass of the people to be a great disadvantage and sought to promote knowledge on a maximum scale, believing that knowledge itself is such a force that a person who has mastered it will inevitably come to recognize socially useful and revolutionary Activities directed against tsarism and exploitation.

Pisarev is a talented critic and interpreter of the work of many Russian writers: L. Tolstoy, Turgenev, Ostrovsky, Dostoevsky, Chernyshevsky. On the eve of the reform and after it, he defends the type of commoner in literature, the type of new people like Bazarov from Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons”, and then the hero of Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?” Rakhmetova and others. He promotes literary characters who, being realists, people who know how to work and benefit people at any time, are capable of becoming revolutionaries during the direct struggle of the masses for social justice and renewal (articles “Bazarov”, “Realists”, "The Thinking Proletariat"). His talented defense of the image of Bazarov and the entire novel “Fathers and Sons” by I.S. is known. Turgenev in a polemic with Sovremennik critic M.A. Antonovich.

As a follower of Belinsky, the critic advocates art that is true to the truth of life, realism, high ideology and morality.

Pisarev most decisively condemned the so-called “pure art”.

At the same time, Pisarev is a complex, contradictory figure. He is characterized by certain hobbies and straightforwardness in promoting his beliefs, utilitarianism, and the fallacy of some denials.

Pisarev had an exceptional talent as a polemicist, and therefore many of his works cannot be considered without taking this circumstance into account. A number of Pisarev’s so-called misconceptions were only a deliberate polemical aggravation of problems. Pisarev also loved paradoxical posing of questions.

In general, Pisarev was no less persistent and consistent fighter against feudalism and its products in all spheres of life, its remnants in Russian life after 1861, than the leading employees of Sovremennik. The publicist had a deep understanding of social processes and the question of the driving forces of the Russian revolution, especially in the context of the end of the revolutionary situation of the 60s. His skepticism about the readiness of the Russian peasantry for revolution turned out to be historically justified.

Along with Pisarev, the magazine “Russian Word” defended the “hungry and naked” N.V. Shelgunov, V.A. Zaitsev, N.V. Sokolov, P.N. Tkachev. The French reporter and publicist Elie Reclus fruitfully collaborated as a permanent foreign observer.

The anti-monarchical, anti-feudal position of the magazine more than once caused repression by tsarism. Simultaneously with Nekrasov’s Sovremennik, Russkoe Slovo was suspended for 6 months in 1862 and was finally closed in 1866.

"Time"

In the 60s, the Russian writer F.M. began his journalistic activity. Dostoevsky.

Together with his brother Mikhail in 1861-1863. he published a magazine "Time".“Notes from the House of the Dead”, “Humiliated and Insulted” by F.M. were published here. Dostoevsky, “Everyday Scenes” by N.A. Pleshcheeva, “Sin and misfortune do not live on anyone” by A.N. Ostrovsky and others. A large place was devoted to French criminal chronicles, masterfully processed by the editors; the articles touched upon issues of youth education; There were departments for domestic news and foreign news. The magazine was varied and interesting to the public and attracted up to four thousand subscribers.

Dostoevsky led criticism and polemicized with Dobrolyubov on issues of art and literature.

An important role in the magazine was played by the idealist critic N.N. Strakhov, who, with the consent of the publishers, defended a certain special identity of the Russian people, developed the ideas of the so-called pochvennichestvo as opposed to Westernism, speculative Western European utopian socialism. The magazine argued that Russia’s trouble is not in serfdom (especially since it has been abolished), but in the separation of the intelligentsia from the people. He accused Sovremennik of being groundless, of trying to instill Western European diseases in the Russian people, and although the “soilers” were not homogeneous in their views, they were united precisely by their disagreement with the revolutionary democrats.

Strakhov especially vehemently objected to the material approach to improving the lives of the people. Changing the position of the masses must come through moral and religious improvement: the world cannot be healed either by bread or gunpowder, but only by “good news.” The patience of the Russian people was interpreted as a commendable virtue; Strakhov, by his own admission, tried to convey his hostility towards the nihilists. Dostoevsky.

At the same time, the magazine ridiculed Katkov’s conservative opinions and his fear of Sovremennik. The magazine objected to K. Aksakov, challenging the thoughts of the article “The Public - the People” about the extreme contrast between the ideals and habits of the people and the privileged part of the population, the gentlemen.

Saltykov-Shchedrin and Antonovich in Sovremennik more than once spoke out against the inconsistency of Vremya’s position, the conservatism of a number of points in its social program, and the denial of the need for struggle.

In 1863, due to the magazine's coverage of the causes of the Polish uprising, the magazine was closed by the government. But F.M. Dostoevsky continued his publishing activities by launching a monthly called "Epoch" which was published for two years (1864-1865). The magazine “Epokha” continued to defend the ideas of pochvennichestvo, discussed the new judicial reform and intensified polemics on a number of issues with the democratic magazines “Sovremennik” and “Russkoe Slovo”.

"Spark"

The era of revolutionary animation of the 60s led to the emergence of a large number of satirical publications in the country. The most expressive in form and content was a weekly magazine called "Spark"(1859-1873). Its publishers were the famous poet-translator Beranger Vasily Kurochkin and cartoonist Nikolai Stepanov.

The feuilletons in verse and prose of the poet V.I. deserve high praise. Bogdanov (author of the famous song “Hey, Dubinushka, Let’s Whoop”), dedicated to the international events of the 60-70s - the revolutionary struggle in France, the liberation struggle of Latin American countries, etc.

Russian journalists of subsequent generations highly valued the role and traditions of Iskra as a satirical publication.

In the 60s, satirical magazines such as Alarm Clock, Gudok, and some others also deserve attention.

Review questions

1. When did M.N.’s independent editorial and publishing activities begin? Katkova, renting the newspaper “Moskovskie Vedomosti”, organizing the magazine “Russian Herald”?

2. What changes have occurred in the magazine “Sovremennik” N.A. Nekrasov in the late 1850s - early 1860s?

3. List the main problems of N.G.’s articles. Chernyshevsky on the peasant question.

4. What was the meaning of N.A. Dobrolyubov into the concept of “real criticism”?

5. For what purpose was the “Whistle” department organized in the Sovremennik magazine?

6. Was there a magazine “Russian Word” by G.E. Is Blagosvetlov an ally of Sovremennik?

7. What are the features of D.I.’s journalism? Pisareva?

8. What is the difference between the assessment of the novel by I.S. Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons” in “Sovremennik” and in “Russian Word”?

9. What place did the Dostoevsky brothers’ magazine “Vremya” take in the system of Russian journalism of the 60s? What was the theory of “soilism”?

10. Controversy between F.M. Dostoevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov on art issues.

11. Indicate the advantages of the satirical magazine “Iskra”.

Texts for analysis

N.G. Chernyshevsky . Is it difficult to buy land? Is this the beginning of a change?

ON THE. Dobrolyubov. What is Oblomovism?

M.A. Antonovich. Asmodeus of our time.

DI. Pisarev. Bazarov. Realists.

F.M. Dostoevsky. A number of articles about Russian literature.

The second half of the 19th century was a time of serious changes in the social life of Russia, a period of unprecedented prosperity and world recognition of Russian national culture. The 60s and 70s were turning points in this process. The difficult economic situation and the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War (1856) acutely raised the question of the need for fundamental changes in the structure of the state.

The “era of great reforms” began with the abolition of serfdom (1861) under Alexander II, who went down in Russian history under the name of “tsar-liberator.” The reforms affected self-government and the judicial system, the introduction of universal military service and public education, the weakening of censorship and the development of the press. They were accompanied by a powerful social upsurge that embraced all segments of the population. A special role in it was played by the heterogeneous (non-noble) intelligentsia, which united teachers and artisans, doctors and agronomists, officials and people from the peasantry and clergy, students and writers.

The activities of Herzen and his newspaper Kolokol, as well as the writings of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, who collaborated with Nekrasov in the Sovremennik magazine, were important in the dissemination of democratic and revolutionary ideas. Later, Nekrasov continued and developed the traditions of Sovremennik in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski.

The changes that took place had a huge impact on the development of domestic literature, science and art. The pride of Russian culture was the work of Turgenev, Goncharov, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Dostoevsky, Ostrovsky, Leo Tolstoy, as well as the works of outstanding historians Solovyov, Kostomarov, Klyuchevsky. The rapid progress of natural sciences was facilitated by the works of biologists Mechnikov and Timiryazev, chemists Zinin, Mendeleev and Butlerov, physicist Stoletov, physiologist Sechenov and other scientists.

During these years, theatrical art flourished. In addition to state (“state-owned”) theaters, numerous private troupes appear in the capital and provinces; Modern realistic drama is increasingly being included in their repertoire. Deep psychological images in performances are created by such luminaries of the Russian stage as Prov Sadovsky, Fedotova, Ermolova, Savina, Varlamov.

Fine art is also being updated. In 1870, a group of artists organized the “Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions,” which began organizing painting exhibitions in various cities of Russia. The “Wanderers” included Kramskoy, Perov, Surikov, the Vasnetsov brothers, Repin, Shishkin, Polenov, Savrasov, Ge, Vasiliev, Kuindzhi, Makovsky, Yaroshenko, and in the 80s Levitan and V. Serov joined them. In their landscapes, portraits, everyday and historical paintings, artists sought to embody real life in all the complexity of its social and moral problems, to reveal the fate of an individual and an entire people. Starting from the mid-50s, their best works were acquired by the Moscow merchant P. M. Tretyakov, who decided to compile a collection of Russian painting. His collection became the basis of the first Russian national gallery, which he donated to Moscow in 1892.

The forms of musical and concert life have also changed. The number of people interested in serious art has increased. In order to “make good music accessible to large masses of the public” (D. V. Stasov), the Russian Musical Society (RMS) was founded in St. Petersburg in 1859, which later became known as the Imperial Society (IRMS). The initiator of its creation was Anton Grigorievich Rubinstein, the great Russian pianist, composer and conductor. The RMO not only organized symphony and chamber concerts: it contributed to the creation of music educational institutions (music classes) and the holding of competitions among Russian composers to create new works. Following St. Petersburg, RMO branches are opening in Moscow and most large cities of Russia.

To train and educate professional musicians, the need for which has sharply increased, in 1862 in St. Petersburg, the music classes of the Russian Musical Society were transformed into the first Russian conservatory, whose director was A. G. Rubinstein. In 1866, the Moscow Conservatory opened; it was headed by A. G. Rubinstein’s brother Nikolai Grigorievich Rubinstein, a pianist and conductor who did a lot for the development of the musical life of Moscow.

In 1862, in St. Petersburg, simultaneously with the conservatory, the Free Music School (FMS), which was led by M. A. Balakirev and choral conductor, composer and singing teacher G. Ya. Lomakin. In contrast to the professional goals of conservatory education, the main task of the BMS was to spread musical culture among a wide range of people. An ordinary music lover could learn the basics of musical theory, singing in a choir and playing orchestral instruments at the BMS.

Its symphony concerts (with the participation of the school choir) were of great importance in the musical and educational work of the BMS, and a significant part of their repertoire consisted of works by Russian composers.

A huge contribution to the popularization of Russian music and the development of national performing arts was made by pianists and conductors the Rubinstein brothers, singers Platonova, Lavrovskaya, Melnikov, Stravinsky, violinist Auer, cellist Davydov, conductor Napravnik and others.

In the 60-70s, A. N. Serov and A. G. Rubinstein created their best works. At the same time, the talent of representatives of the younger generation - Tchaikovsky and a whole group of St. Petersburg composers who united around Balakirev - was fully revealed. This creative community, which emerged at the turn of the 50s and 60s, was called the “New Russian Music School”, or “The Mighty Handful”. In addition to Balakirev, who headed the circle, it included Cui, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov and Borodin. Their creative views were formed under the influence of the democratic ideas of Belinsky, Herzen, Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky. The musicians considered themselves to be continuers of the work of Glinka and Dargomyzhsky and saw their goal in the renewal and development of Russian national music. They believed that an artist in his work should reproduce the truth of life in all its diversity, that art is called upon to fulfill educational and educational tasks and be, as Chernyshevsky put it, “a means for conversation with people.”

The work of the composers of the “Mighty Handful” was closely connected with the history and life of Russia, with musical and poetic folklore, with ancient customs and rituals. Peasant folk songs were important to them. Carefully collecting and studying folk melodies, they saw them as a source of inspiration and the basis of their musical style.

Members of the circle who did not have a professional musical education acquired their skills under the guidance of Balakirev. A brilliantly gifted composer, a brilliant virtuoso pianist, a capable conductor, Mily Alekseevich Balakirev (1836-1910) already had considerable creative and performing experience and enjoyed enormous authority among his young colleagues.

Subsequently, Rimsky-Korsakov recalled about him: “An excellent pianist, an excellent reader of notes, an excellent improviser, naturally gifted with a sense of correct harmony and voice control, he possessed partly native, partly acquired through practice on his own attempts, a compositional technique.” As a critic, “he immediately felt a technical imperfection or error, he immediately grasped the shortcomings of the form. [...] They obeyed him unquestioningly, for the charm of his personality was terribly great. Young, with wonderfully moving, fiery eyes, with a beautiful beard, speaking decisively, authoritatively and directly, every minute ready for wonderful improvisation at the piano, remembering every bar known to him, memorizing instantly the compositions played to him, he had to produce this charm like no one else . Appreciating the slightest sign of talent in another, he could not help but feel his superiority over him, and this other also felt his superiority over himself. His influence on those around him was limitless and resembled some kind of magnetic or spiritual force.”

Balakirev directs the Free Music School and its regular concerts, continues to compose symphonic and chamber music (the musical film “1000 Years”, the piano fantasy “Islamey”, romances), makes arrangements of folk songs (the collection “40 Russian folk songs” for voice and piano) , is the chief conductor of the RMO.

In the 70s, Balakirev began to be haunted by failures both in his musical and social activities and in his personal life. His relationship with the members of the “Mighty Handful” is changing, who, having become mature composers, no longer need his help and tutelage. The struggle with life's adversities, loss of faith in one's own strength, and material need lead Balakirev to a long-term mental and creative crisis.

In the early 80s, Balakirev returned to musical activity - he again headed the BMS, became director of the Court Singing Chapel, created new works (the symphonic poem “Tamara”, later two symphonies, as well as romances and piano works). But this was a different person - withdrawn and having lost his former energy.

Hand in hand with Balakirev and his young like-minded people, did a music and art critic and historian pave new paths in Russian art? art Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov (1824-1906). A man of encyclopedic knowledge, an expert in music, painting, sculpture, theater, literature, folk art, he was their close friend and assistant, inspirer and initiator of creative ideas. Stasov was a participant in all musical meetings of the Balakirev circle, the first listener and critic of new compositions. In his articles, he promoted the work of the largest representatives of Russian art and devoted his entire long life to the struggle for an independent national art; the path of its development.

Simultaneously with Stasov, Russian musical criticism during this period was represented by A. Serov, C. Cui and G. Laroche; Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov present articles and reviews.

Russian music of the 60-70s became an important stage in the development of national art and opened new paths for the further development of domestic and world musical culture.

In the last two decades of the 19th century, composers Borodin, Balakirev, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Tchaikovsky continued their creative path and created outstanding works in various genres.

Questions and tasks

1. What marked the 60s and 70s of the 19th century in the public life of Russia?

2. How did the cultural life of Russia change at this time? Tell us about the organization of the RMO, the BMS, and the first Russian conservatories.

3. List the writers, artists, scientists of the 60s and 70s.

4. Name the composers who were part of the “Mighty Handful”. What were their ideological and aesthetic views?

5. Tell us about Balakirev, his personality and fate.

6. Describe Stasov’s critical activity and its significance in the development of Russian art. Name other Russian music critics.

In the history of Russian reforms, the reforms of the 60s of the 19th century occupy a special place.

They were carried out by the government of Emperor Alexander II and were aimed at improving Russian social, economic, socio-legal life, adapting its structure to developing bourgeois relations.

The most important of these reforms were: Peasant reform (abolition of serfdom in 1861), Zemstvo and Judicial reform (1864), Military reform, reforms in the field of printing, education, etc. They entered the history of the country as the “era of great reforms” .

The reforms were difficult and contradictory. They were accompanied by a confrontation between various political forces of society of that time, among which ideological and political directions clearly manifested themselves: conservative-protective, liberal, revolutionary-democratic.

Prerequisites for reforms

By the middle of the 19th century, the general crisis of the feudal peasant system reached its apogee.

The serf system has exhausted all its capabilities and reserves. The peasants were not interested in their work, which excluded the possibility of using machines and improving agricultural equipment in the landowners' economy. A significant number of landowners still saw the main way to increase the profitability of their estates in imposing an increasing number of duties on the peasants. The general impoverishment of the village and even famine led to an even greater decline of landowners' farms. The state treasury was short of tens of millions of rubles in arrears (debts) from state taxes and fees.

Dependent serf relations hampered the development of industry, in particular mining and metallurgy, where the labor of sessional workers, who were also serfs, was widely used. Their work was ineffective, and the factory owners tried their best to get rid of them. But there was no alternative, since it was almost impossible to find civilian labor, society was divided into classes - landowners and peasants, who were mostly serfs. There were no markets for the emerging industry, since the poor peasantry, who made up the vast majority of the country's population, did not have the funds to purchase manufactured goods. All this exacerbated the economic and political crisis in the Russian Empire. Peasant unrest increasingly worried the government.

The Crimean War of 1853-1856, which ended in the defeat of the tsarist government, accelerated the understanding that the serf system should be eliminated, since it was a burden on the country's economy. The war showed the backwardness and powerlessness of Russia. Recruitment, excessive taxes and duties, trade and industry, which were in their infancy, exacerbated the need and misfortune of the slavishly dependent peasantry. The bourgeoisie and nobility finally began to understand the problem and became a significant opposition to the serf owners. In this situation, the government considered it necessary to begin preparations for the abolition of serfdom. Soon after the conclusion of the Paris Peace Treaty, which ended the Crimean War, Emperor Alexander II (who replaced Nicholas I on the throne who died in February 1855), giving a speech in Moscow to the leaders of noble societies, said, referring to the abolition of serfdom, that it is better so that it happens from above rather than from below.

Abolition of serfdom

Preparations for the peasant reform began in 1857. For this purpose, the tsar created the Secret Committee, but already in the fall of the same year it became an open secret for everyone and was transformed into the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. In the same year, Editorial commissions and provincial committees were created. All these institutions consisted exclusively of nobles. Representatives of the bourgeoisie, not to mention the peasants, were not allowed to make laws.

On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the Manifesto, the General Regulations on Peasants Emerging from Serfdom, and other acts on peasant reform (17 acts in total).

Hood. K. Lebedev "Sale of serfs at auction", 1825

The laws of February 19, 1861 resolved four issues: 1) on the personal emancipation of peasants; 2) about land plots and duties of freed peasants; 3) on the purchase by peasants of their land plots; 4) on the organization of peasant administration.

The provisions of February 19, 1861 (General Regulations on Peasants, Regulations on Redemption, etc.) proclaimed the abolition of serfdom, approved the right of peasants to a land plot and the procedure for making redemption payments for it.

According to the Manifesto on the Abolition of Serfdom, land was allocated to peasants, but the use of land plots was significantly limited by the obligation to buy them back from the former owners.

The subject of land relations was the rural community, and the right to use the land was granted to the peasant family (peasant household). The laws of July 26, 1863 and November 24, 1866 continued the reform, equalizing the rights of appanage, state and landowner peasants, thereby legislating the concept of “peasant class”.

Thus, after the publication of documents on the abolition of serfdom, the peasants received personal freedom.

Landowners could no longer resettle peasants to other places, and they also lost the right to interfere in the personal lives of peasants. The sale of people to others with or without land was prohibited. The landowner retained only some rights to supervise the behavior of peasants who had emerged from serfdom.

The property rights of the peasants also changed, first of all, their right to land, although for two years the old serfdom remained in place. It was assumed that during this period the transition of the peasants to a temporarily obliged state should have taken place.

The allocation of land took place in accordance with local regulations, in which for different regions of the country (chernozem, steppe, non-chernozem) the highest and lowest limits on the amount of land provided to peasants were determined. These provisions were specified in charters containing information about the composition of the land transferred for use.

Now, from among the noble landowners, the Senate appointed peace mediators who were supposed to regulate the relationship between landowners and peasants. Candidates for the Senate were presented by governors.

Hood. B. Kustodiev "Liberation of the peasants"

The peace intermediaries had to draw up charters, the contents of which were brought to the attention of the corresponding peasant gathering (gatherings if the charter concerned several villages). Amendments could be made to the Statutory Charters in accordance with the comments and suggestions of the peasants, and the same mediator resolved controversial issues.

After reading the text of the charter, it came into force. The mediator recognized its contents as complying with the requirements of the law, while the consent of the peasants to the conditions provided for in the letter was not required. At the same time, it was more profitable for the landowner to achieve such consent, since in this case, upon the subsequent purchase of the land by the peasants, he received the so-called additional payment.

It must be emphasized that as a result of the abolition of serfdom, peasants throughout the country received less land than they had before. They were disadvantaged both in the size of the land and in its quality. The peasants were given plots that were inconvenient for cultivation, and the best land remained with the landowners.

The temporarily obligated peasant received land only for use, and not property. Moreover, for use he had to pay with duties - corvée or quitrent, which differed little from his previous serfdom.

In theory, the next stage of the liberation of the peasants was supposed to be their transition to the state of owners, for which the peasant had to buy out the estate and field lands. However, the ransom price significantly exceeded the actual value of the land, so in reality it turned out that the peasants paid not only for the land, but also for their personal liberation.

To ensure the reality of the buyout, the government organized a buyout operation. Under this scheme, the state paid the ransom amount for the peasants, thus providing them with a loan that had to be repaid in installments over 49 years with an annual payment of 6% on the loan. After the conclusion of the redemption transaction, the peasant was called the owner, although his ownership of the land was subject to various kinds of restrictions. The peasant became the full owner only after paying all the redemption payments.

Initially, the temporarily obligated state was not limited in time, so many peasants delayed the transition to redemption. By 1881, approximately 15% of such peasants remained. Then a law was passed on a mandatory transition to redemption within two years, during which it was necessary to conclude redemption transactions or the right to land plots would be lost.

In 1863 and 1866, the reform was extended to appanage and state peasants. At the same time, appanage peasants received land on more preferential terms than landowners, and state peasants retained all the land that they used before the reform.

For some time, one of the ways of running a landowner's economy was the economic enslavement of the peasantry. Taking advantage of the peasants' lack of land, the landowners provided the peasants with land in exchange for labor. In essence, serfdom continued, only on a voluntary basis.

However, capitalist relations gradually developed in the village. A rural proletariat appeared - farm laborers. Despite the fact that the village had lived as a community since ancient times, it was no longer possible to stop the stratification of the peasantry. The rural bourgeoisie - the kulaks - along with the landowners exploited the poor. Because of this, there was a struggle between landowners and kulaks for influence in the village.

The peasants' lack of land prompted them to seek additional income not only from their landowner, but also in the city. This generated a significant influx of cheap labor into industrial enterprises.

The city attracted former peasants more and more. As a result, they found work in industry, and then their families moved to the city. Subsequently, these peasants finally broke with the village and turned into cadre workers, free from private ownership of the means of production, proletarians.

The second half of the 19th century is marked by significant changes in the social and government system. The reform of 1861, having freed and robbed the peasants, opened the way for the development of capitalism in the city, although it put certain obstacles in its way.

The peasant received just enough land so that it tied him to the village and restrained the outflow of labor needed by the landowners to the city. At the same time, the peasant did not have enough allotment land, and he was forced to go into a new bondage to the previous master, which actually meant serfdom, only on a voluntary basis.

The community organization of the village somewhat slowed down its stratification and, with the help of mutual responsibility, ensured the collection of ransom payments. The class system gave way to the emerging bourgeois system, a class of workers began to form, which was replenished by former serfs.

Before the agrarian reform of 1861, peasants had virtually no rights to land. And only since 1861, peasants individually, within the framework of land communities, act as bearers of rights and obligations in relation to land under the law.

On May 18, 1882, the Peasant Land Bank was founded. Its role was to somewhat simplify the receipt (purchase) of land plots by peasants on the right of personal property. However, before the Stolypin reform, the Bank's operations did not play a significant role in expanding property rights to peasant land.

Further legislation, up to the reform of P. A. Stolypin at the beginning of the twentieth century, did not introduce any special qualitative and quantitative changes to the rights of peasants to land.

Legislation of 1863 (laws of June 18 and December 14) limited the rights of allotment peasants in matters of redistribution (exchange) of collateral and alienation of land in order to strengthen and speed up the payment of redemption payments.

All this allows us to conclude that the reform to abolish serfdom was not entirely successful. Built on compromises, it took into account the interests of the landowners much more than the peasants, and had a very short “time resource”. Then the need for new reforms in the same direction should have arisen.

And yet, the peasant reform of 1861 was of enormous historical significance, not only creating for Russia the opportunity for the broad development of market relations, but giving the peasantry liberation from serfdom - centuries-old oppression of man by man, which is unacceptable in a civilized, rule-of-law state.

Zemstvo reform

The system of zemstvo self-government, which emerged as a result of the reform of 1864, existed with certain changes until 1917.

The main legal act of the ongoing reform was the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions”, approved by the Supreme on January 1, 1864, based on the principles of all-class zemstvo representation; property qualification; independence exclusively within the boundaries of economic activity.

This approach was supposed to provide advantages for the landed nobility. It is no coincidence that the chairmanship of the electoral congress of landowners was entrusted to the district leader of the nobility (Article 27). The open preference given by these articles to the landowners was supposed to serve as compensation to the nobility for depriving them of the right to manage serfs in 1861.

The structure of the bodies of zemstvo self-government according to the Regulations of 1864 was as follows: the district zemstvo assembly elected a zemstvo council for three years, which consisted of two members and a chairman and was the executive body of zemstvo self-government (Article 46). The assignment of salary to members of the zemstvo council was decided by the district zemstvo assembly (Article 49). The provincial zemstvo assembly was also elected for three years, but not directly by voters, but by the members of the district zemstvo assemblies of the province from among them. It elected the provincial zemstvo council, consisting of a chairman and six members. The chairman of the zemstvo government of the province was confirmed in office by the Minister of Internal Affairs (Article 56).

Interesting from the point of view of its creative application was Article 60, which approved the right of zemstvo councils to invite outsiders for “permanent work on matters entrusted to the management of the councils” with the assignment of remuneration to them by mutual agreement with them. This article marked the beginning of the formation of the so-called third element of zemstvos, namely the zemstvo intelligentsia: doctors, teachers, agronomists, veterinarians, statisticians who carried out practical work in zemstvos. However, their role was limited only to activities within the framework of decisions made by zemstvo institutions; they did not play an independent role in zemstvos until the beginning of the twentieth century.

Thus, the reforms were beneficial primarily to the noble class, which was successfully implemented during all-class elections to the bodies of zemstvo self-government.

Hood. G. Myasoedov "Zemstvo is having lunch", 1872

The high property qualification for elections to zemstvo institutions fully reflected the legislator's view of zemstvos as economic institutions. This position was supported by a number of provincial zemstvo assemblies, especially in provinces with developed grain farming. From there, opinions were often heard about the urgency of granting the right to large landowners to participate in the activities of zemstvo assemblies as representatives without elections. This was rightly justified by the fact that every large landowner is most interested in the affairs of the zemstvo because he accounts for a significant part of the zemstvo duties, and if he is not elected, he is deprived of the opportunity to defend his interests.

It is necessary to highlight the features of this situation and turn to the division of zemstvo expenses into mandatory and optional. The first included local duties, the second - local “needs”. In zemstvo practice, for more than 50 years of zemstvo existence, the focus was on “unnecessary” expenses. It is very indicative that, on average, the zemstvo throughout its entire existence spent a third of the funds collected from the population on public education, a third on public health care, and only a third on all other needs, including compulsory duties.

The established practice, therefore, did not confirm the arguments of supporters of the abolition of the elective principle for large landowners.

When, in addition to the distribution of duties, the zemstvo had the responsibility of caring for public education, enlightenment, food affairs, which, of necessity, life itself placed above concerns about the distribution of duties, persons receiving huge incomes could not objectively be interested in these matters, while for the average - and for low-income people, these items under the jurisdiction of zemstvo institutions constituted an urgent need.

Legislators, while guaranteeing the very institution of zemstvo self-government, nevertheless limited its powers by issuing laws regulating the economic and financial activities of local authorities; defining their own and delegated powers of zemstvos, establishing rights to supervise them.

Thus, considering self-government as the implementation by local elected bodies of certain tasks of public administration, it must be recognized that self-government is effective only when the execution of decisions made by its representative bodies is carried out directly by its executive bodies.

If the government retains the implementation of all tasks of public administration, including at the local level, and considers self-government bodies only as advisory bodies under the administration, without providing them with their own executive power, then there can be no talk of real local self-government.

The regulations of 1864 gave zemstvo assemblies the right to elect special executive bodies for a period of three years in the form of provincial and district zemstvo councils.

It should be emphasized that in 1864 a qualitatively new system of local government was created; the first zemstvo reform was not only a partial improvement of the old zemstvo administrative mechanism. And no matter how significant the changes introduced by the new Zemsky Regulations of 1890 were, they were only minor improvements to the system that was created in 1864.

The 1864 law did not consider self-government as an independent structure of state administration, but only as the transfer of economic affairs that were not essential for the state to counties and provinces. This view was reflected in the role that the Regulations of 1864 assigned to zemstvo institutions.

Since they were seen not as state institutions, but only as public institutions, they did not recognize the possibility of endowing them with functions of power. The zemstvos not only did not receive police power, but were generally deprived of compulsory executive power; they could not independently implement their orders, but were forced to turn to the assistance of government bodies. Moreover, initially, according to the Regulations of 1864, zemstvo institutions were not vested with the right to issue decrees binding on the population.

The recognition of the institutions of zemstvo self-government as social and economic unions was reflected in the law and in determining their relationship to government agencies and individuals. Zemstvos existed next to the administration, without being connected with it into one common management system. In general, local government turned out to be permeated with dualism, based on the opposition of zemstvo and state principles.

When zemstvo institutions were introduced in 34 provinces of central Russia (from 1865 to 1875), the impossibility of such a sharp separation of state administration and zemstvo self-government was very soon revealed. According to the Law of 1864, the zemstvo was endowed with the right of self-taxation (that is, introducing its own tax system) and therefore could not be placed by law in the same conditions as any other legal entity of private law.

No matter how the legislation of the 19th century separated local government bodies from state government bodies, the system of community and zemstvo economy was a system of “forced economy”, similar in its principles to the financial economy of the state.

The regulations of 1864 defined the subjects of zemstvo management as matters related to local economic benefits and needs. Article 2 contained a detailed list of cases to be handled by zemstvo institutions.

Zemstvo institutions had the right, on the basis of general civil laws, to acquire and alienate movable property, enter into contracts, accept obligations, and act as plaintiff and defendant in zemstvo property courts.

The law, in a very vague terminological sense, indicated the attitude of zemstvo institutions to various subjects of their jurisdiction, speaking either of “management”, or of “organization and maintenance”, or of “participation in care”, or of “participation in affairs”. Nevertheless, systematizing these concepts used in the law, we can conclude that all cases under the jurisdiction of zemstvo institutions could be divided into two categories:

Those on which the zemstvo could make decisions independently (this included cases in which zemstvo institutions were granted the right to “manage”, “organize and maintain”); - those according to which the zemstvo had only the right to promote “government activities” (the right to “participate in care” and “involvement”).

According to this division, the degree of power granted by the Law of 1864 to the bodies of zemstvo self-government was also distributed. Zemstvo institutions did not have the right to directly coerce private individuals. If there was a need for such measures, the zemstvo had to turn to the assistance of police authorities (Articles 127, 134, 150). The deprivation of zemstvo self-government bodies of coercive power was a natural consequence of the recognition that zemstvos had only an economic character.

Hood. K. Lebedev "In the Zemstvo Assembly", 1907

Initially, zemstvo institutions were deprived of the right to issue regulations binding on the population. The law granted provincial and district zemstvo assemblies only the right to submit petitions to the government through the provincial administration on subjects related to local economic benefits and needs (Article 68). Apparently, too often the measures considered necessary by zemstvo assemblies exceeded the limits of the power granted to them. The practice of the existence and work of zemstvos showed the shortcomings of such a situation, and it turned out to be necessary for the zemstvo to effectively carry out its tasks to give its provincial and district bodies the right to issue mandatory resolutions, but first on very specific issues. In 1873, the Regulations on measures against fires and on construction in villages were adopted, which assigned the zemstvo the right to issue mandatory decrees on these issues. In 1879, zemstvos were allowed to issue mandatory acts to prevent and stop “endemic and contagious diseases.”

The competence of provincial and district zemstvo institutions was different, the distribution of subjects of jurisdiction between them was determined by the provision of the law that although both of them are in charge of the same range of affairs, the jurisdiction of the provincial institutions includes subjects relating to the entire province or several districts at once, and the jurisdiction of the district ones - relating only to this district (Articles 61 and 63 of the Regulations of 1864). Separate articles of the law determined the exclusive competence of provincial and district zemstvo assemblies.

Zemstvo institutions functioned outside the system of state bodies and were not included in it. Service in them was considered a public duty, members of the public did not receive remuneration for participating in the work of zemstvo assemblies, and officials of zemstvo councils were not considered civil servants. Payment for their labor was made from zemstvo funds. Consequently, both administratively and financially the zemstvo bodies were separated from the state ones. Article 6 of the Regulations of 1864 noted: “Zemstvo institutions act independently in the range of affairs entrusted to them. The law determines the cases and procedure in which actions and orders are subject to approval and supervision of general government authorities.”

Zemstvo self-government bodies were not subordinate to the local administration, but acted under the control of the government bureaucracy represented by the Minister of Internal Affairs and governors. Within the limits of their powers, zemstvo self-government bodies were independent.

It is safe to say that the law of 1864 did not assume that the state apparatus would participate in the functioning of zemstvo self-government. This is clearly seen in the situation of the executive bodies of zemstvos. Since they were seen not as state institutions, but only as public institutions, they did not recognize the possibility of endowing them with functions of power. The zemstvos were deprived of compulsory executive power and were unable to independently implement their orders, so they were forced to turn to the assistance of government bodies.

Judicial reform

The starting point of the Judicial Reform of 1864 was dissatisfaction with the state of justice and its inconsistency with the development of society of that era. The judicial system of the Russian Empire was inherently backward and had not developed for a long time. In the courts, consideration of cases sometimes dragged on for decades, corruption flourished at all levels of legal proceedings, since the salaries of workers were truly miserable. The legislation itself was in chaos.

In 1866, in the St. Petersburg and Moscow judicial districts, which included 10 provinces, jury trials were first introduced. On August 24, 1886, its first hearing took place in the Moscow District Court. The case of Timofeev, who was accused of burglary, was considered. The specific participants in the debate between the parties remained unknown, but it is known that the debate itself was held at a good level.

It was as a result of judicial reform that a court emerged, built on the principles of transparency and adversarialism, with its new judicial figure - a sworn attorney (a modern lawyer).

On September 16, 1866, the first meeting of sworn attorneys took place in Moscow. Member of the Judicial Chamber P. S. Izvolsky presided. The meeting made a decision: due to the small number of voters, to elect a Moscow Council of Sworn Attorneys consisting of five people, including a chairman and a fellow chairman. As a result of the elections, they were elected to the Council as chairman M.I. Dobrokhotov, fellow chairman Ya.I. Lyubimtsev, members: K.I. Richter, B.U. Benislavsky and A.A. Imberkh. The author of the first volume of “History of the Russian Bar,” I. V. Gessen, considers this very day to be the beginning of the creation of the class of sworn attorneys. Exactly repeating this procedure, the legal profession was formed locally.

The Institute of Sworn Attorneys was created as a special corporation attached to the judicial chambers. But it was not part of the court, but enjoyed self-government, albeit under the control of the judiciary.

Sworn attorneys (lawyers) in Russian criminal proceedings appeared along with the new court. At the same time, Russian sworn attorneys, unlike their English colleagues, were not divided into attorneys and legal defenders (barristers - preparing the necessary papers, and attorneys - speaking in court hearings). Often, assistant sworn attorneys independently acted as lawyers in court hearings, but at the same time, assistant sworn attorneys could not be appointed by the chairman of the court as defense attorneys. This determined that they could act in processes only by agreement with the client, but did not participate as intended. In Russia in the 19th century, there was no monopoly on the right to defend a defendant only by a sworn attorney in the Russian Empire. Article 565 of the Statutes of Criminal Proceedings provided that “defendants have the right to choose defense attorneys from both juries and private attorneys, and from other persons who are not prohibited by law from interceding in other people’s cases.” In this case, a person excluded from the jury or private attorneys was not allowed to carry out the defense. Notaries were not allowed to carry out judicial protection, but nevertheless, in some special cases, justices of the peace were not prohibited from being attorneys in cases considered in general court presences. It goes without saying that at that time women were not allowed as defenders. At the same time, when appointing a defense attorney at the request of the defendant, the chairman of the court could appoint a defense attorney not from among the sworn attorneys, but from among the candidates for judicial positions attached to the given court and, as it was especially emphasized in the law, “known to the chairman for their reliability.” It was allowed to appoint a court office official as a defense attorney if the defendant had no objections to this. Defenders appointed by the court, if it was discovered that they had received remuneration from the defendant, were subject to quite severe punishment. However, it was not forbidden for a sworn attorney, expelled administratively under the public supervision of the police, to act as a defense attorney in criminal cases.

The law did not prohibit a lawyer from defending two or more defendants if “the essence of the defense of one of them does not contradict the defense of the other...”.

Defendants could change their defense attorney during the trial or ask the presiding judge to change court-appointed defense attorneys. It can be assumed that the replacement of the defense attorney could occur in the event of a discrepancy between the positions of the defense attorney and the defendant, the professional weakness of the defense attorney, or his indifference to the client in the case of the defense attorney’s work as intended.

Violation of the right to defense was possible only in exceptional cases. For example, if the court did not have sworn attorneys or candidates for judicial positions, as well as free officials of the court office, but in this case the court was obliged to notify the defendant in advance in order to give him the opportunity to invite a defense attorney by agreement.

The main question that the jurors had to answer during the trial was whether the defendant was guilty or not. They reflected their decision in the verdict, which was announced in the presence of the court and the parties to the case. Article 811 of the Statutes of Criminal Procedure stated that “the solution to each question must consist of an affirmative “yes” or a negative “no” with the addition of the word that contains the essence of the answer. So, to the questions: was a crime committed? Is the defendant guilty of it? Did he act with premeditation? affirmative answers should accordingly be: “Yes, it is done. Yes, guilty. Yes, with premeditation." At the same time, it should be noted that the jurors had the right to raise the question of leniency. Thus, Article 814 of the Charter stated that “if, on the question raised by the jurors themselves about whether the defendant deserves leniency, there are six affirmative votes, then the foreman of the jury adds to these answers: “The defendant, based on the circumstances of the case, deserves leniency.” The jury's decision was heard while standing. If the jury's verdict found the defendant not guilty, then the presiding judge declared him free, and if the defendant was held in custody, he was subject to immediate release. If the jury returned a guilty verdict, the presiding judge in the case invited the prosecutor or private prosecutor to express their opinion regarding the punishment and other consequences of the jury finding the defendant guilty.

The gradual, systematic spread of the principles and institutions of the Judicial Charters of 1864 throughout all provinces of Russia continued until 1884. Thus, already in 1866, judicial reform was introduced in 10 provinces of Russia. Unfortunately, jury trials on the outskirts of the Russian Empire never began to operate.

This can be explained by the following reasons: the introduction of Judicial Statutes throughout the Russian Empire would require not only significant funds, which simply were not in the treasury, but also the necessary personnel, which were more difficult to find than finance. For this purpose, the king instructed a special commission to develop a plan for putting the Judicial Statutes into effect. V.P. Butkov, who had previously headed the commission that drafted the Judicial Statutes, was appointed chairman. The members of the commission were S.I. Zarudny, N.A. Butskovsky and other well-known lawyers at that time.

The commission did not reach a unanimous decision. Some demanded that the Judicial Statutes be put into effect immediately in 31 Russian provinces (with the exception of Siberian, western and eastern lands). According to these commission members, it was necessary to open new courts immediately, but in smaller numbers of judges, prosecutors and court officials. The opinion of this group was supported by the Chairman of the State Council P. P. Gagarin.

The second, more numerous group of commission members (8 people) proposed the introduction of Judicial Statutes in a limited territory, first 10 central provinces, but which would immediately have the entire full complement of persons, both exercising judicial power and guaranteeing the normal functioning of the court - prosecutors, officials judicial department, jurors.

The second group was supported by the Minister of Justice D.N. Zamyatin, and it was this plan that formed the basis for the introduction of Judicial Charters throughout the Russian Empire. The arguments of the second group took into account not only the financial component (there was always not enough money for reforms in Russia, which explains their slow progress), but also the lack of personnel. There was widespread illiteracy in the country, and those who had a higher legal education were so few that they were not enough to implement the Judicial Reform.

Hood. N. Kasatkin. "In the Corridor of the District Court", 1897

The adoption of the new court showed not only its advantages in relation to the pre-reform court, but also revealed some of its shortcomings.

In the course of further transformations aimed at bringing a number of institutions of the new court, including those with the participation of jurors, into line with other state institutions (researchers sometimes call them judicial counter-reform), while simultaneously correcting the shortcomings of the Judicial Statutes of 1864 that were revealed in practice, not a single of the institutions has not undergone as many changes as the jury trial. So, for example, soon after the acquittal of Vera Zasulich by a jury trial, all criminal cases related to crimes against the state system, attempts on government officials, resistance to government authorities (i.e. cases of a political nature), as well as cases of malfeasance. Thus, the state reacted quite quickly to the acquittal of the jurors, which caused a great public outcry, finding V. Zasulich innocent and, in fact, justifying the terrorist act. This was explained by the fact that the state understood the danger of justifying terrorism and did not want this to happen again, since impunity for such crimes would give rise to more and more new crimes against the state, the order of government and government officials.

Military reform

Changes in the social structure of Russian society showed the need to reorganize the existing army. Military reforms are associated with the name of D. A. Milyutin, appointed Minister of War in 1861.

Unknown artist, 2nd half of the 19th century. "Portrait of D. A. Milyutin"

First of all, Milyutin introduced a system of military districts. In 1864, 15 districts were created covering the entire country, which made it possible to improve the recruitment and training of military personnel. The district was headed by the chief commander of the district, who was also the commander of the troops. All troops and military institutions in the district were subordinate to him. The military district had a district headquarters, quartermaster, artillery, engineering, military medical departments, and an inspector of military hospitals. A Military Council was formed under the commander.

In 1867, a military-judicial reform took place, which reflected some provisions of the judicial statutes of 1864.

A three-level system of military courts was formed: regimental, military district, and main military court. Regimental courts had jurisdiction approximately the same as the magistrate's court. Large and medium-sized cases were administered by military district courts. The highest appellate and supervisory authority was the main military court.

The main achievements of the Judicial Reform of the 60s - the Judicial Charter of November 20, 1864 and the Military Judicial Charter of May 15, 1867 - divided all courts into higher and lower.

The lowest included justices of the peace and their congresses in the civil department, and regimental courts in the military department. To the highest: in the civil department - district courts, judicial chambers and cassation departments of the Government Senate; in the military department - military district courts and the Main Military Court.

Hood. I. Repin "Seeing off a recruit", 1879

Regimental courts had a special structure. Their judicial power extended not to the territory, but to a circle of persons, since they were established under regiments and other units, the commanders of which enjoyed the power of a regimental commander. When the deployment of the unit changed, the court was also relocated.

The regimental court is a government court, since its members were not elected, but appointed by the administration. It partially retained its class character - it included only headquarters and chief officers, and only the lower ranks of the regiment were subject to jurisdiction.

The power of the regimental court was broader than the power of the magistrate (the most severe punishment is solitary confinement in a military prison for lower ranks who do not enjoy special rights of state, for those who have such rights - punishments not associated with limitation or loss), but he also considered relatively minor offenses.

The composition of the court was collegial - a chairman and two members. All of them were appointed by the authority of the commander of the corresponding unit under the control of the division chief. There were two conditions for appointment, not counting political reliability: at least two years of military service and cleanliness in court. The chairman was appointed for one year, members - for six months. The chairman and members of the court were relieved from performing official duties in their main positions only for the duration of the meetings.

The regimental commander was in charge of supervising the activities of the regimental court, and he also considered and made decisions on complaints about its activities. Regimental courts considered the case almost immediately on its merits, but on the instructions of the regimental commander, in necessary cases, they themselves could conduct a preliminary investigation. The sentences of the regimental court came into force after they were approved by the same regimental commander.

Regimental courts, like magistrates, were not in direct contact with the highest military courts, and only in exceptional cases could their sentences be appealed to the military district court in a manner similar to the appeal.

Military district courts were established in each military district. They included a chairman and military judges. The Main Military Court performed the same functions as the Cassation Department for Criminal Cases of the Senate. It was planned to create two territorial branches under him in Siberia and the Caucasus. The Main Military Court consisted of a chairman and members.

The procedure for appointing and rewarding judges, as well as material well-being, determined the independence of judges, but this did not mean that they were completely irresponsible. But this responsibility was based on the law, and not on the arbitrariness of the authorities. It could be disciplinary and criminal.

Disciplinary liability arose for omissions in office that were not a crime or misdemeanor, after mandatory judicial proceedings in the form of a warning. After three warnings within a year, in the event of a new violation, the offender was subject to criminal trial. The judge was subject to him for any misdeeds and crimes. It was possible to deprive a judge of the title, including a magistrate, only by a court verdict.

In the military department, these principles, designed to ensure the independence of judges, were only partially implemented. When appointed to judicial positions, in addition to the general requirements for the candidate, a certain rank was also required. The chairman of the district military court, the chairman and members of the Main Military Court and its branches were required to have the rank of general, and members of the military district court - staff officer ranks.

The procedure for appointment to positions in military courts was purely administrative. The Minister of War selected candidates, and then they were appointed by order of the emperor. The members and chairman of the Main Military Court were appointed only personally by the head of state.

In procedural terms, military judges were independent, but had to comply with the requirements of the regulations in matters of honor. Also, all military judges were subordinate to the Minister of War.

The right of irremovability and immovability, as in the civil department, was used only by judges of the Main Military Court. The chairmen and judges of military district courts could be moved from one to another without their consent by order of the Minister of War. Removal from office and dismissal from service without a request was carried out by order of the Main Military Court, including without a verdict in a criminal case.

In military proceedings, there was no institution of juries; instead, an institution of temporary members was established, something between juries and military judges. They were appointed for a period of six months, and not to consider a specific case. The appointment was made by the Chief Commander of the military district according to a general list compiled on the basis of lists of units. In this list, officers were placed according to the seniority of their ranks. According to this list, the appointment was made (that is, there was no choice, even the Chief of the Military District could not deviate from this list). Temporary members of military district courts were released from official duties for the entire six months.

In the military district court, temporary members, along with the judge, resolved all issues of legal proceedings.

Both civilian and military district courts, due to the large territory under their jurisdiction, could create temporary sessions to consider cases in areas significantly remote from the location of the court itself. In the civil department, the decision on this was made by the district court itself. In the military department - the Chief Commander of the military district.

The formation of military courts, both permanent and temporary, took place on the basis of orders of military officials, and they also had a noticeable influence on the formation of its composition. In cases necessary for the authorities, permanent courts were replaced by special presences or commissions, and often by certain officials (commanders, governors general, minister of internal affairs).

Supervision over the activities of military courts (up to the approval of their sentences) belonged to the executive authorities in the person of the regiment commander, district commanders, the Minister of War and the monarch himself.

In practice, the class criterion for staffing the court and organizing the trial was preserved; there were serious deviations from the principle of competition, the right to defense, etc.

The 60s of the 19th century are characterized by a whole range of changes that occurred in the social and state system.

The reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century, starting with the peasant reforms, opened the way for the development of capitalism. Russia has taken a major step towards transforming an absolute feudal monarchy into a bourgeois one.

Judicial reform quite consistently implements bourgeois principles of judicial system and process. Military reform introduces universal military service for all classes.

At the same time, liberal dreams of a constitution remain only dreams, and the hopes of zemstvo leaders to crown the zemstvo system with all-Russian bodies meet decisive resistance from the monarchy.

Certain changes are also noticeable in the development of law, although smaller ones. The peasant reform sharply expanded the range of civil rights of the peasant and his civil legal capacity. Judicial reform has fundamentally changed the procedural law of Russia.

Thus, the reforms, large-scale in nature and consequences, marked significant changes in all aspects of the life of Russian society. The era of reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century was great, since the autocracy for the first time took a step towards society, and society supported the government.

At the same time, one can come to the unequivocal conclusion that with the help of reforms all the goals set were not achieved: the situation in society not only was not defused, but was also supplemented by new contradictions. All this will lead to enormous upheavals in the next period.