The reforms of the 60s of the 19th century occupy a special place in the history of reforming Russia.

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

The most important of these reforms were: Peasant (the abolition of serfdom in 1861), Zemstvo and Judicial (1864), Military reform, reforms in the press, education, etc. They went down in the history of the country as the "epoch of great reforms" .

The reforms were difficult and contradictory. They were accompanied by a confrontation between various political forces of the society of that time, among which ideological and political trends 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 had reached its apogee.

The fortress system has exhausted all its possibilities and reserves. The peasants were not interested in their work, which ruled out the possibility of using machines and improving agricultural technology in the landlord economy. A significant number of landlords still saw the main way to increase the profitability of their estates in the imposition of all more duties for the peasants. The general impoverishment of the countryside and even famine led to an even greater decline in the landed estates. The state treasury did not receive tens of millions of rubles in arrears (debts) on state taxes and fees.

Dependent serf relations hindered the development of industry, in particular, mining and metallurgical industries, where the labor of sessional workers, who were also serfs, was widely used. Their work was inefficient, and the owners of the factories did their best to get rid of them. But there was no alternative, since it was practically impossible to find a civilian force, society was divided into classes - landowners and peasants, who were mostly serfs. There were also no markets for the nascent industry, since the impoverished peasantry, which constitutes the vast majority of the country's population, did not have the means to purchase the goods produced. All this exacerbated the economic and political crisis in 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 impotence of Russia. Recruitment, excessive taxes and duties, trade and industry, which are in their infancy, exacerbated the need and misery of the slavishly dependent peasantry. The bourgeoisie and the nobility finally began to understand the problem and became a weighty opposition to the feudal lords. 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 succeeded Nicholas I, who died in February 1855), speaking in Moscow to the leaders of noble societies, said, referring to the abolition of serfdom, which is better, so that it happens from above rather than from below.

Abolition of serfdom

Training peasant reform started in 1857. For this, the tsar created a Secret Committee, but already in the autumn of that 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 admitted to lawmaking.

On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the Manifesto, the General Regulations on the Peasants who Abandoned Serfdom, and other acts on the 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 the peasants; 2) on land allotments and duties of the liberated peasants; 3) on the redemption 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 allotment and the procedure for making redemption payments for it.

According to the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, the land was allocated to the peasants, but the use of land plots was significantly limited by the obligation to buy them out 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, leveling the rights of appanage, state and landlord peasants, thereby legislating the concept of "peasant class".

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

The landlords could no longer resettle the peasants to other places, they also lost the right to interfere in the private life of the peasants. It was forbidden to sell people to other persons with or without land. The landowner retained only some rights to supervise the behavior of peasants who emerged from serfdom.

The property rights of the peasants also changed, first of all, their right to land, although the former serfdom was preserved for two years. It was assumed that during this period the transition of the peasants to a temporarily liable state was to take place.

The allocation of land took place in accordance with local regulations, in which for various regions of the country (chernozem, steppe, non-chernozem) the upper and lower limits of the amount of land provided to the peasants were determined. These provisions were concretized in the statutory letters containing information on 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"

Conciliators were supposed to draw up charters, the contents of which were brought to the attention of the relevant peasant gathering (gatherings, if the charter concerned several villages). Charters could be amended in accordance with the comments and proposals of the peasants, the same conciliator resolved controversial issues.

After reading the text of the charter, it came into force. The conciliator recognized its content as complying with the requirements of the law, while the consent of the peasants to the conditions provided for by the charter was not required. At the same time, it was more profitable for the landowner to obtain such consent, since in this case, with the subsequent redemption 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, the peasants in the country as a whole received less land than they had until then. They were infringed 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.

A temporarily liable peasant received land only for use, and not property. Moreover, he had to pay for the use of duties - corvee or dues, which differed little from his previous serf duties.

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

The government, in order to ensure the reality of the ransom, organized a ransom operation. Under this scheme, the state paid the redemption 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 surrounded by various restrictions. The peasant became the full owner only after the payment of all redemption payments.

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

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

For some time, one of the methods of conducting landowner economy was the economic enslavement of the peasantry. Using the peasant land shortage, the landowners provided the peasants with land for working off. In essence, feudal relations continued, only on a voluntary basis.

Nevertheless, capitalist relations gradually developed in the countryside. 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 the landowners and the kulaks for influence in the countryside.

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

The city attracted more and more former peasants. As a result, they found work in industry, and then their families moved to the city. In the future, these peasants finally broke with the countryside and turned into professional 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 state system. The reform of 1861, having freed and robbed the peasants, opened the way for the development of capitalism in the city, although it placed certain obstacles in its path.

The peasant received just enough land to tie him to the countryside, to restrain the outflow of the labor force 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 former master, which actually meant serf relations, only on a voluntary basis.

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

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

On May 18, 1882, the Peasant Land Bank was founded. His role was to somewhat simplify the receipt (acquisition) of land plots by peasants on the basis of the right of personal ownership. However, prior to the Stolypin reform, the Bank's operations did not play a significant role in expanding ownership of peasant lands.

Further legislation up to the reform of P. A. Stolypin at the beginning of the twentieth century, special qualitative and quantitative changes did not contribute 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 landlords much more than the peasants, and had a very short "resource of time." Then the need for new reforms in the same direction should have arisen.

And yet the peasant reform of 1861 had a huge historical meaning, not only creating for Russia the possibility of a broad development of market relations, but giving the peasantry liberation from serfdom - the 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, formed as a result of the reform of 1864, with certain changes, lasted until 1917.

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

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

The structure of zemstvo self-government bodies according to the Regulations of 1864 was as follows: the district zemstvo assembly elected for three years the zemstvo council, which consisted of two members and the chairman and was the executive body of zemstvo self-government (Article 46). The appointment of monetary allowance to members of the zemstvo council was decided by the county zemstvo assembly (Article 49). The provincial zemstvo assembly was also elected for three years, but not directly by the voters, but by the vowels of the county zemstvo assemblies of the province from among them. It elected the provincial zemstvo council, which consisted of a chairman and six members. The chairman of the zemstvo council of the province was approved in his position by the Minister of the Interior (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 classes on matters entrusted to the management of councils” with the appointment of remuneration for them by mutual agreement with them. This article marked the beginning of the formation of the so-called third element of the zemstvos, namely, the zemstvo intelligentsia: doctors, teachers, agronomists, veterinarians, statisticians, who carried out practical work in the lands. 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 20th century.

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

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

The high property qualification in 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 a developed grain economy. Opinions were often heard from there about the urgency of granting the right to large landowners to participate in the activities of zemstvo assemblies on the rights of vowels without elections. This was rightly justified by the fact that each large landowner is most interested in the affairs of the zemstvo because he has 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 refer 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 existence of zemstvos, the focus was on "optional" expenses. It is very indicative that, on average, the zemstvo for the entire time of its existence spent a third of the funds collected from the population on public education, a third on public health, and only a third on all other needs, including compulsory duties.

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

When, in addition to the distribution of duties, the zemstvos were responsible for taking care of public education, education, food affairs, by necessity put by life itself above worries about the layout of duties, people who receive huge incomes could not objectively be interested in these affairs, while for middle- and low-income people these subjects of zemstvo institutions were an urgent need .

The legislators, 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 the rights to supervise them.

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

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

The Regulations of 1864 granted 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 regulation of 1890 were, they were only minor improvements in the system that was created in 1864.

The law of 1864 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 assigned by the Regulations of 1864 to zemstvo institutions.

Since they were seen not as state, but only public institutions, they did not recognize the possibility of endowing them with the functions of power. Zemstvos not only did not receive police power, but were generally deprived of coercive executive power, could not independently put their orders into effect, but were forced to turn to the assistance of government bodies. Moreover, initially, according to the Regulations of 1864, zemstvo institutions were not entitled to issue decrees binding on the population.

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

When zemstvo institutions were introduced in 34 provinces of central Russia (in the period from 1865 to 1875), the impossibility of such a sharp separation of state administration and zemstvo self-government was very soon discovered. According to the Law of 1864, the Zemstvo was endowed with the right of self-taxation (that is, the introduction of its own system of taxes) 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 the bodies of local self-government from the bodies of state administration, the system of the economy of the community and the zemstvo was a system of "compulsory economy", similar in its principles to the financial economy of the state.

The regulation of 1864 defined the subjects of the zemstvo as matters relating to local economic benefits and needs. Article 2 provided 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, conclude contracts, incur obligations, act as a plaintiff and defendant in courts in property cases of the Zemstvo.

The law, in a very vague terminological sense, indicated the attitude of zemstvo institutions to various subjects of their jurisdiction, speaking either of “management”, then of “organization and maintenance”, then of “participation in care”, then 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 given the right to “manage”, “arrange and maintain”); - those for which the zemstvo had only the right to promote "government activities" (the right to "participate in care" and "rehabilitation").

Accordingly, the degree of power granted by the Law of 1864 to zemstvo self-government bodies was distributed according to this division. 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 the police authorities (Articles 127, 134, 150). The deprivation of the organs of zemstvo self-government of coercive power was a natural consequence of the recognition of only an economic nature for the zemstvo.

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

Initially, zemstvo institutions were deprived of the right to issue decrees 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 relating to local economic benefits and needs (Article 68). Apparently, too often the measures deemed necessary by the zemstvo assemblies exceeded the limits of the power granted to them. The practice of the existence and work of the zemstvos showed the shortcomings of such a situation, and it turned out to be necessary for the fruitful implementation of the zemstvos of their tasks to endow their provincial and district bodies with the right to issue binding decisions, but first on quite specific issues. In 1873, the Regulations on measures against fires and on the construction part in the villages were adopted, which secured the right of the zemstvo to issue binding decisions on these issues. In 1879, the Zemstvos were allowed to issue mandatory acts to prevent and stop "generalized and contagious diseases."

The competence of the 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, but the jurisdiction of the provincial institutions are items relating to the entire province or several counties at once, and in the jurisdiction of the county - relating only to this county (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, vowels did not receive remuneration for participating in the work of zemstvo meetings, and officials of zemstvo councils were not considered civil servants. Their wages were paid 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 in the circle of affairs entrusted to them act independently. The law determines the cases and procedure in which their actions and orders are subject to the approval and supervision of the 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 the Interior and the governors. Zemstvo self-government bodies were independent within their powers.

It can be stated with certainty 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 example of the position of the executive bodies of the zemstvos. Since they were seen not as state, but only public institutions, they did not recognize the possibility of endowing them with the functions of power. Zemstvos were deprived of coercive 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, 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, the consideration of cases sometimes dragged on for decades, corruption flourished at all levels of the judiciary, since the salaries of workers were truly beggarly. Chaos reigned in the legislation itself.

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

It was as a result of the judicial reform that a court appeared, built on the principles of publicity and competitiveness, 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. PS Izvolsky, a member of the Judicial Chamber, presided. The meeting made a decision: in view of the small number of voters, to elect the Moscow Council of Attorneys at Law in the amount of five people, including the chairman and deputy chairman. As a result of the elections, M. I. Dobrokhotov was elected Chairman of the Council, Ya. I. Lyubimtsev, Deputy Chairman, members: K. I. Richter, B. U. Benislavsky and A. A. Imberkh. The author of the first volume of "History of the Russian Advocacy" I. V. Gessen considers this very day to be the beginning of the creation of the estate of sworn attorneys. Exactly repeating this procedure, the advocacy was formed in the field.

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

Sworn attorneys (lawyers) in the Russian criminal process appeared along with the new court. At the same time, Russian sworn attorneys, unlike their English counterparts, were not divided into solicitors and defenders (barristers - preparing the necessary papers, and attorneys - speaking in court sessions). Often, assistants to sworn attorneys independently acted as lawyers in court sessions, but at the same time, assistants to a sworn attorney could not be appointed by the chairman of the court as defenders. Thus, it was determined that they could act in the processes only by agreement with the client, but did not participate as intended. AT Russia XIX For centuries, there was no monopoly on the right to defend a defendant only by a barrister in the Russian Empire. Article 565 of the Statutes of Criminal Procedure provided that “defendants have the right to choose defense counsel both from jurors and private attorneys, and from other persons who are not forbidden by law to intercede in other people's cases” . At the same time, a person excluded from the composition of the jury or private attorneys was not allowed to defend. Notaries were also not allowed to exercise judicial protection, but nevertheless, in some special cases, justices of the peace were not forbidden to be attorneys in cases considered in general judicial presences. It goes without saying that at that time women were not allowed as protectors. At the same time, when appointing a defense counsel, at the request of the defendant, the chairman of the court could appoint a defense counsel not from among the sworn attorneys, but from among the candidates for judicial positions held by this court and, as it was especially emphasized in the law, “known to the chairman by their reliability”. It was allowed to appoint an official of the office of the court as a defender in the event that the defendant had no objections to this. Defense lawyers appointed by the court, in the event that the fact of receiving remuneration from the defendant, were subjected to quite severe punishment. However, it was not forbidden for sworn attorneys, exiled administratively under the open supervision of the police, to act as defense counsel 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 ...".

The defendants could change their defense counsel during the trial or ask the presiding judge in the case to change the defense counsel appointed by the court. It can be assumed that the replacement of the defender could take place in the event of a discrepancy between the position of the defender and the defendant, the professional weakness of the defender or his indifference to the client in the case of the defender'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 defense counsel 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 proclaimed in the presence of the court and the parties to the case. Article 811 of the Statutes of Criminal Procedure stated that “the solution of 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: has a crime been committed? Is the defendant guilty? Did he act with intent? affirmative answers, respectively, should be: “Yes, it happened. Yes, guilty. Yes, with intent." However, it should be noted that the jurors had the right to raise the issue 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 deserves leniency due to the circumstances of the case.” The decision of the jurors was heard standing. If the jury declared 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. In the event of a guilty verdict by the jury, the presiding judge in the case invited the prosecutor or private prosecutor to express his 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 the provinces of Russia continued until 1884. Thus, as early as 1866, judicial reform was introduced in 10 provinces of Russia. Unfortunately, the trial with the participation of jurors on the outskirts of the Russian Empire never began to operate.

This can be explained by the following reasons: the introduction of the Judicial Charters 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 finances. To do this, the king instructed a special commission to develop a plan for the introduction of the Judicial Charters into action. V. P. Butkov, who previously headed the commission that drafted the Judicial Charters, was appointed chairman. S. I. Zarudny, N. A. Butskovsky and other well-known lawyers at that time became members of the commission.

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

The second, larger group of commission members (8 people) proposed the introduction of Judicial Statutes in a limited area, first 10 central provinces, but which will immediately have the entire full complement of persons both exercising judicial power and guaranteeing the normal operation of the court - prosecutors, officials judiciary, 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 the Judicial Charters throughout the Russian Empire. The arguments of the second group took into account not only the financial component (there was never enough money for reforms in Russia, which explains their slow progress), but also the lack of personnel. There was rampant 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 with the participation of jurors, in line with other government institutions(researchers sometimes call them a judicial counter-reform), while at the same time correcting the shortcomings of the Judicial Charters of 1864 that emerged in practice, none of the institutions underwent as many changes as the court with the participation of jurors. Thus, for example, shortly after acquittal by a jury Vera Zasulich all criminal cases related to crimes against the state system, attempts on government officials, resistance to public authorities (that is, cases of a political nature), as well as cases of malfeasance were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the jury and transferred to the competence of military courts. Thus, the state responded quite quickly to the acquittal of the jurors, which caused a great public outcry, found V. Zasulich not guilty and, in fact, justified the terrorist act. This was explained by the fact that the state understood the full danger of justifying terrorism and did not want a repetition of this, since impunity for such crimes would give rise to more and more crimes against the state, government and statesmen.

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, who was 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 territory of the country, which made it possible to improve the conscription and training of military personnel. At the head of the district was the chief 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. Under the commander, a Military Council was formed.

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

A three-level system of military courts was formed: regimental, military district, and the main military court. Regimental courts had jurisdiction about the same as the magistrate's court. Large and medium-sized cases were under the jurisdiction of the military district courts. The highest court of appeal and review was the chief military court.

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

The lower ones included magistrates and their congresses in the civil department, regimental courts in the military department. To the highest: in the civil department - district courts, judicial chambers and cassation departments of the Governing Senate; in the military department - the military district courts and the Main Military Court.

Hood. I. Repin "Seeing the recruit", 1879

Regimental courts had a special arrangement. Their judicial power did not extend to the territory, but to a circle of people, since they were established under the regiments and other units, the commanders of which used the power of the regimental commander. When changing the dislocation of the unit, the court was also relocated.

The regimental court is a government court, since its members were not elected, but appointed by the administration. It partly preserved the class character - it included only staff and chief officers, and only the lower ranks of the regiment were under jurisdiction.

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

The composition of the court was collegiate - the chairman and two members. All of them were appointed by the authority of the commander of the corresponding unit under the control of the head of the division. There were two conditions for appointment, apart from political reliability: at least two years of military service and integrity in court. The chairman was appointed for one year, the members - for six months. The chairman and members of the court were released from the performance of official duties in the main position only for the duration of the sessions.

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

The regimental courts, like the justices of the peace, were not in direct contact with the higher military courts, and only in exceptional cases their sentences could still be appealed to the military district court in a manner similar to that of 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 composition of the Chief Military Court included the 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 their complete irresponsibility. But this responsibility was based on the law, and not on the arbitrariness of the authorities. It could be disciplinary and criminal.

Disciplinary liability came for omissions in office that were not a crime or misdemeanor, after a mandatory trial in the form of a warning. After three warnings within a year, in the event of a new violation, the perpetrator was subject to a criminal court. The judge was subject to him for any misconduct and crimes. It was possible to deprive the title of judge, including the world one, 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 office, other than general requirements the candidate also required a certain rank. The chairman of the district military court, the chairman and members of the Main Military Court and its branches were to have the rank of general, the members of the military district court were to be staff officers.

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

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

The right of irremovability and non-movability, as in the civil department, was enjoyed only by judges of the Main Military Court. The chairmen and judges of the 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 petition was carried out by order of the Chief Military Court, including without a verdict in a criminal case.

In military justice, there was no jury institution; instead, the institution of temporary members was established, something in between jurymen and military judges. They were appointed for a period of six months, and not to consider a specific case. The appointment was carried out 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 in order of seniority. According to this list, the appointment was made (that is, there was no choice, even the Chief Commander of the military district could not deviate from this list). Temporary members of the military district courts were released from official duties for all six months.

In the military district court, temporary members, on an equal footing with the judge, decided all issues of legal proceedings.

Both civil and military district courts, due to the large jurisdictional territory, could create temporary meetings to consider cases in areas far removed from the location of the court itself. In the civil department, the decision was made by the district court itself. In the military department - Chief of the military district.

The formation of military courts, both permanent and temporary, took place on the basis of orders from military officials, who also had a significant 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, the minister of the interior).

Supervision over the activities of military courts (up to the approval of their sentences) belonged to the executive authorities represented by the regiment commander, district commanders, the minister of war and the monarch himself.

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

60s XIX years centuries are characterized by a whole range of changes that have occurred in the social and state system.

The reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century, starting with the peasant reform, 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 pursues quite consistently the bourgeois principles of the judiciary and process. The military reform introduces an all-class universal conscription.

At the same time, liberal dreams of a constitution remain only dreams, and the hopes of zemstvo leaders for the crowning of the zemstvo system by all-Russian bodies are met with resolute opposition from the monarchy.

In the development of law, certain shifts are also noticeable, although smaller ones. The peasant reform dramatically expanded the range of civil rights of the peasant, his civil legal capacity. The judicial reform fundamentally changed the procedural law of Russia.

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

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

· After the massacre of the Decembrists, the entire social life of Russia was placed under the strictest supervision by the state. This was the reason for the decline of the social movement.

· A few circles tried to continue the work of the Decembrists.

· AT 1827. at Moscow University, the brothers P., V. and M. Kritsky organized a secret circle, the goals of which were the destruction royal family and constitutional changes in Russia.

· AT 1831 N.P. Sungurov’s mug was opened and destroyed, the members of which were preparing an armed uprising in Moscow.

· AT 1832 at Moscow University there was a "Literary Society of Number 11", a member of which was V. G. Belinsky.

· In 1834 the circle of A.I. Herzen was opened.

· After the suppression of the Decembrist uprising, the reaction intensifies in the country. In the struggle against new ideas, the government used not only repression, but also weapons of an ideological nature. Such was the theory of S.S. Uvarov "official nationality". Its main slogans were: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.

· However, the Uvarov triad did not receive wide support in Russian society. Despite official opposition, the social movement developed.

In the 1940s, the main directions were formed public thought, proceeding from the need for transformations in Russia: Slavophiles, Westerners and revolutionaries.

· Westerners- this is the first bourgeois-liberal trend in Russia. Its prominent representatives were Kavelin, Granovsky, Botkin, Panaev, Annenkov, Katkov and others. They believed that Russia and the West go the same way - the bourgeois, and the only salvation of Russia from revolutionary upheavals was seen in borrowing through gradual reforms of bourgeois democracy. Westerners believed in the indivisibility of human civilization and argued that the West leads this civilization, showing examples of the implementation of the principles of freedom and progress, which attracts the attention of the rest of mankind. Therefore, the task of Russia is to join the European West as soon as possible and thus enter into a single universal civilization. As liberals, they were alien to the ideas of revolution and socialism. Until the mid-1940s, Belinsky and Herzen acted together with the Westerners, constituting the left wing of this trend.

Opponents of the Westerners became Slavophiles, who were hostile to the West and idealized pre-Petrine Russia, who relied on identity of the Russian people who believed in a special way of its development. Prominent Slavophiles were Khomyakov, Samarin, the Aksakov brothers, the Kireevsky brothers, Koshelev and others. The Slavophiles argued that there is no single human civilization and cannot be. Each nation lives by its own "originality", which is based on the ideological principle that permeates all aspects of people's life. For Russia, the Orthodox faith was such a beginning, and its embodiment was the community, as a union of mutual help and support. In the Russian countryside, you can do without the class struggle, this will save Russia from revolution and bourgeois "deviations". Being convinced monarchists, they nevertheless advocated freedom of opinion and the revival of Zemsky Sobors. They are also characterized by the rejection of the revolution and socialism. Neither the principles nor the organizational forms of Western life were acceptable to Russia.

The ideological differences between the Westernizers and the Slavophiles, however, did not interfere with their rapprochement in the practical issues of Russian life: both currents denied serfdom; both performed against existing public administration; both demanded freedom of speech and press.

In the 1940s, having broken away from the Westerners, the third trend of social thought took shape - revolutionary democratic. It was represented by Belinsky, Herzen, the Petrashevites, the then young Chernyshevsky and Shevchenko.

· Belinsky and Herzen did not agree with the Westerners in relation to the revolution and socialism. But, unlike the Western socialists, they not only did not rule out the revolutionary path to socialism, but even relied on it. The revolutionaries also believed that Russia would follow the Western path, but unlike the Slavophiles and Westerners, they believed that revolutionary upheavals were inevitable.

· In the rudimentary state in which the Russian proletariat was, they did not understand its revolutionary future and hoped for a peasant revolution.

Bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s of the XIX century.

1855-1881

The first steps towards the abolition of serfdom in Russia were taken by Emperor Alexander I in 1803 publication Decree on free cultivators, which spelled out the legal status of released peasants.

· During the reign of Nicholas I, about a dozen different commissions were created to resolve the issue of the abolition of serfdom, but all of them turned out to be ineffective due to the opposition of the nobility.

Upon reaching adulthood, Alexander II /was killed by terrorists/ replaces his father Nicholas I on the throne. He went down in Russian history as a conductor of large-scale reforms. He was awarded a special epithet in Russian pre-revolutionary historiography - the Liberator (in connection with the abolition of serfdom according to the manifesto on February 19, 1861)

· February 19, 1861 Alexander II signed the "Regulations" and "Manifesto" on the abolition of serfdom. The main result of the reform was personal emancipation of the peasant, the landowners lost the right to dispose of it. According to the Manifesto a legal document that formulated the conditions for the exit of peasants from serfdom became charter. The peasants have found legal entity rights and status of free rural dwellers endowed with land. They got the opportunity own property, engage in commercial and industrial activities, move to other classes, litigate.

· Some historians consider the reason that serfdom has become an insurmountable brake on the further development of the country; others consider it impossible for Russia to claim the role of a leading European power and remain serf-owning at the same time.

· A natural continuation of the abolition of serfdom in Russia were zemstvo, urban, judicial, military and other reforms. Their main goal is to bring the state system and administrative management in line with the new social structure (multi-million peasantry received freedom). This is a continuation of the modernization. countries.

Judicial Reform of 1864. The "New Judicial Charters" introduced a fundamentally new system of legal proceedings in Russia.

The court became classless (formal equality of all estates)

Publicity and competitiveness of legal proceedings (prosecutor - lawyer)

Senate became the highest court

Established a bar

An institution of jurors was created to consider complex criminal cases

Electiveness of some judicial bodies (magistrates)

Simplified judicial system

The preliminary investigation was carried out forensic investigator not the police

· BUT! The peasants were subject to their class court

Zemstvo reform of 1864.

· Zemstvos (zemstvos) (elected bodies from all classes) were created in provinces and districts.

Zemstvos deprived of political functions

It was allowed to deal exclusively with economic issues of local importance (means of communication, schools, hospitals, trade, industry)

The zemstvos controlled the central and local authorities, which had the right to suspend any decision of the zemstvo assembly

Results: played a special role in the development of enlightenment, education, health care.

Military reform 1861-1874.

· Law 1874 about the all-class conscription men over the age of 20.

The period of active service was set - up to 6 years in ground forces, in the Navy - 7.

Persons who have higher education, served six months.

Implementation of the rearmament of the army

Introduction of new military regulations

Established a system of military districts for military administration

Educational institutions were created for the training of military personnel

Reduced the size of the army in peacetime and increased its combat capability

Reforms in education and printing 1863-1864.

In fact, an accessible all-class education was introduced

Private zemstvo, parochial, Sunday schools appeared

1863. New statutes returned autonomy to the universities

· 1865. Introduced "Provisional Rules" for printing. Abolished pre-censorship

financial reform

The right to dispose of all the financial resources of the country was received by the Minister of Finance, whose activities were subject to accounting by State control.

· Established National Bank, which began to lend to commercial and industrial enterprises.

SIGNIFICANCE OF REFORM:

All changes were progressive. The foundation is being laid for the evolutionary development of the country along the path of the European socio-political model. The first step has been taken to expand the role of the public in the life of the country.

The reforms were inconsistent and incomplete. The process of modernization in Russia had a specific character - the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie, the actions of radicals, the strengthening of conservative forces - all this hampered the reformist aspirations of the government.

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

So, in the first half of the XIX century. the high social status 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 personal element, the authority of a leader, occupies a lot of space. The literary critic becomes the main figure of the press. Not the publisher and editor, but the leading critic-publicist determines the direction, meaning and authority of the publication.

As before, few private newspapers are published, although the Gubernskiye Vedomosti (from 1838) and some special editions appear.

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

Russian defeat in Crimean War exposed the extreme backwardness of the country, which was in conditions of serfdom and autocracy. The second half of the 1950s was marked by an increase revolutionary movement in the country, the need for socio-economic changes is becoming more and more tangible. under pressure freedom movement and the needs of economic development, many representatives of the ruling class are beginning to express ideas about the abolition of serfdom through reforms from above.

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

There was still a large stratum of conservatives among the landowners who wanted to keep the old relations intact. The liberals sought to free the peasants from serfdom, while ensuring maximum privileges for the landowners and capitalists. And only revolutionary democrats aspired to such an order after the abolition of serfdom, when the people receive land, political freedom, when the interests of the people, especially the peasantry, are reliably protected.

Each of these directions had its own printed organs: magazines and newspapers.

"Russian messenger"

The organ of the liberal-conservative direction, first of all, was the journal M.N. Katkova "Russian Bulletin" organized in 1856, on the eve of the reforms, the Journal advocated the abolition of serfdom, the elimination of the old bureaucracy, but while maintaining the autocracy and the dominant position in the country of noble landowners.

After the peasant reform, Katkov turned more and more to the right. He actively opposes the democrats (especially Herzen and Chernyshevsky), condemns the Polish uprising of 1863, declares himself a patriot-statist. In magazine and newspaper "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 unrest of the liberals, and exposes sedition. “It is only through a misunderstanding that they think that the 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. Such a position found many supporters, the authority of Katkov as a 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, influence on society was the democratic magazine "Contemporary", whose editor was still N. Nekrasov. Having gone through the years of the "gloomy seven years" (1848-1855), a cruel 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 journal, attracted prominent writers: I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharova, L.N. Tolstoy, etc., opens the humorous department "Yeralash" (where the literary parody character Kozma Prutkov first appears), seeks and finds new employees.

In 1854, N.G. began to collaborate in Sovremennik. Chernyshevsky is a great revolutionary democrat, first as a literary critic, and then as a publicist, politician and organizer of all the revolutionary forces in the country. Chernyshevsky began by resurrecting Belinsky's principles in both literary criticism and journalism. With the support of the 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). Gives battle to representatives of noble aesthetics, liberal writers who appeared in the magazine during the years of reaction. Great importance had the ideas of his dissertation “On the Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality”, philosophical works “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy”, etc. Nekrasov supports the young employee, and gradually the liberals, including Turgenev, one by one begin to leave Sovremennik.

With the advent of the journal in 1858, N.A. Dobrolyubov, the positions of the revolutionary democrats are greatly strengthened.

By 1859, the contradictions in Russian life had become so aggravated 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 the center of progressive ideology, the ideological headquarters of the liberation movement. The journal is undergoing internal and external restructuring in order to carry out the most successful revolutionary propaganda. Issues related to the discussion of the peasant reform, the conditions for the emancipation of the peasants from the landowners, which have been constantly discussed in the journal since 1857, are actually removed from the agenda. They give way to the propaganda of the revolution, the uprising as the most radical means of overcoming the oppression of the landlords.

Chernyshevsky already at that time realized that the reform, which, in fear of the onslaught of the revolution, was being prepared by the autocratic government and the landlords, would be a deception: the fundamental interests of the people would not be satisfied. Proceeding from this, he begins the ideological preparation of a peasant uprising.

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

Dobrolyubova. Analyzing in the Politics section the events of European history, the facts of the class struggle of peoples, Chernyshevsky convinces his readers of the inevitability of a revolution, the need to isolate the 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, reproaches the liberals for indecisiveness and betrayal of people's interests, instills faith in the liberating forces of the people, who cannot endure their oppressors endlessly. Using the plot of Turgenev's novel "On the Eve", the critic urges to fight against the "internal Turks", not to believe in the reforms of the government. 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 bearers of reactionary, anti-popular ideas. Here Dobrolyubov showed himself as a talented satirist poet.

In political articles, Dobrolyubov, analyzing the experience historical development 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 resolute and consistent struggle against exploitation, liberal-bourgeois conciliation.

Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov achieve great perfection in the methods of revolutionary propaganda. An example of revolutionary propaganda under the conditions of tsarism and cruel censorship is Chernyshevsky's article "Is it the beginning of a change?" In form, this is a literary-critical article devoted to the folk stories of the writer N. Uspensky. But in this form of 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 meet the just demands of the Russian people. In the course of the analysis of literary sources, Chernyshevsky quotes in the article the poem "The Song of the Wretched Wanderer" from Nekrasov's poem "Peddlers", which contains the following words:

I'm in the village: man! do you live warmly?

Cold, wanderer, cold,

Cold, dear, cold!

I'm in another: man! do you eat well, do you drink well?

Hungry, wanderer, hungry,

Hungry, dear, hungry! Etc.

And then he asks the imaginary peasant: “Can't you live warmly? Isn’t it possible for you to live well, is the land bad if you live on black soil, or is there little land around you if it is not black soil - what are you looking at? (PSS T.7. S. 874). But the question of land is one of the fundamental questions of the Russian (and not only Russian) revolution.

In an effort to break the idea of ​​the Russian peasant as a downtrodden and passive creature, Chernyshevsky resorts to allegory in the article, comparing the people with a meek, meek horse, on which they carry water all their lives. But “the horse rides, rides calmly and prudently - and suddenly it rears up or neighs and carries ...”. So in the life of the humblest person, the people, there are moments when it is impossible to recognize him, because "he cannot have the strength to stay cold in an unpleasant position for a century." The meek activity of the meekest horse will not do without such antics. Such an impulse is a revolution that “in five minutes will move you (and yourself, of course) so far forward that for an hour it would not be possible to move with a measured, quiet step” (ibid., pp. 881-882). And so that the reader does not have any doubts 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. The article “Russian Man on Rendez Vous” and many other. Allegory, allegory very often turned out to be a reliable means of revolutionary propaganda.

Undeniable is the skill of Chernyshevsky, who knew how to talk about the revolution in the censored press, to educate real revolutionaries with his articles.

The ideas of the revolution were no less vividly reflected in Dobrolyubov's articles and reviews. An example is 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 1960s was exceptionally great. The circulation of the magazine reached 6-7 thousand copies. Chernyshevsky printed special reports on the distribution of the magazine and reproached those cities and towns where they did not subscribe to the magazine, did not receive a single copy, although he understood that not everyone who wished 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. Its main virtues were complete ideological unity, strict adherence to direction, devotion to the interests of the people, progress and socialism. Journalism acquired unprecedented importance. The best articles of Russian journalism, many of Nekrasov's poems, Chernyshevsky's novel What Is to Be Done? were printed here, the satirical activity of the great Russian writer M.E. began here. Saltykov-Shchedrin.

All the years of the publication of Sovremennik, the censorship vigilantly followed him, in 1862 the magazine was suspended for a 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 legislation on the press on personal grounds. the order of the king.

The leaders of the magazine - Nekrasov, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov had exceptional authority and influence on contemporaries. The articles of Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Nekrasov's poems were read with enthusiasm by leading figures of other peoples who inhabited 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, the Transcaucasus, the Volga region, and partly of Central Asia, 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 the bourgeois liberals, revolutionary animation, selflessness, disinterestedness predetermined this influence.

« Russian word»

The second journal of revolutionary democracy of the 60s of the XIX century. appeared "Russian word". The journal was organized in 1859, but it acquired a democratic character only in 1860 with the advent of a new editor, G.E. Blagosvetlov. Blagosvetlov is a typical commoner. The son of a poor priest, left early without financial support, independently graduated from St. Petersburg University, but due to democratic convictions and political unreliability, he did not find a place in the public service.

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, the facts of scientific life. He was very popular among young students and in the Russian provinces. By changing the staff, Blagosvetlov managed to raise the circulation of the magazine from 3 to 4.5 thousand copies. The most successful decision of the editor was an invitation to the journal for the role of the leading critic D.I. Pisarev.

Entering Russian journalism at a crucial moment in Russian social life in the 1960s, the critic had to determine his place among the main contending trends. And he defined 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 Russkoye Slovo, 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 ties. First of all, he defended the mental emancipation of man from the dogmas and moral concepts generated by serfdom. The 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 speaks in defense of the authority of Herzen, speaks 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 the articles “On the brochure Shedo-Ferroty” , "Bees"). Pisarev is a defender of materialism.

In an article about the pamphlet of the hired writer Shedo-Ferroti, Pisarev directly called for the overthrow of the Russian autocracy. For trying 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 masses of the people a great shortcoming and strove for the propaganda of knowledge to the maximum extent, believing that knowledge in itself is such a power that a person who has mastered it will inevitably come to recognize socially useful and revolutionary activity directed against tsarism and exploitation.

Pisarev acts as a talented critic, 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, benefit people at any time, are able to become leaders of the revolution during the direct struggle of the masses for social justice and renewal (articles "Bazarov", "Realists", "Thinking Proletariat"). Known for his talented defense of the image of Bazarov and the entire novel "Fathers and Sons" by I.S. Turgenev in a polemic with the critic of Sovremennik M.A. Antonovich.

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

Pisarev most emphatically condemned the so-called "pure art".

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

Pisarev had an exceptional talent as a polemist, and therefore many works cannot be considered without taking this circumstance into account. A number of Pisarev's so-called delusions were only a deliberate polemical sharpening of the problems. Pisarev also loved the paradoxical posing of questions.

On the whole, Pisarev was no less staunch and consistent fighter against feudalism and its offspring in all spheres of life, its remnants in Russian life after 1861, than the leading contributors to Sovremennik. The publicist was deeply versed in social processes and the question of the driving forces of the Russian revolution, especially in the conditions 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, in the Russkoye Slovo magazine they defended the “hungry and naked” N.V. Shelgunov, V.A. Zaitsev, N.V. Sokolov, P.N. Tkachev. Elie Reclus, a French reporter and publicist, worked fruitfully as a permanent foreign observer.

The journal's anti-monarchist, anti-feudal position more than once provoked tsarist repressions. Simultaneously with Nekrasov's Sovremennik, the Russian Word was suspended for 6 months in 1862 and was finally closed in 1866.

"Time"

In the 60s, the Russian writer F.M. Dostoevsky.

Together with his brother Mikhail in 1861-1863. he published a magazine "Time". Here were published "Notes from the Dead House", "Humiliated and Insulted" by F.M. Dostoevsky, "Everyday Scenes" by N.A. Pleshcheeva, “Sin and trouble does not live on anyone” A.N. Ostrovsky and others. A great place was given to the French criminal chronicle, masterfully processed in the editorial office; the articles dealt with the education of young people; there were departments of internal news and foreign news. The magazine was diverse and interesting for the public and collected up to four thousand subscribers.

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

An essential 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 soil movement as opposed to Westernism, speculative Western European utopian socialism. The magazine argued that Russia's trouble was not in serfdom (especially since it was abolished), but in the separation of the intelligentsia from the people. He accused Sovremennik of groundlessness, of striving to instill Western European diseases in the Russian people, and although the Pochvenniks were not homogeneous in their views, they were united precisely by their disagreement with the revolutionary democrats.

Strakhov objected especially vehemently to the material approach to improving the life of the people. The change in the position of the masses must go through moral, 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 virtue worthy of approval, F.M. 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 ideas of the article "The Public - the People" about the extreme opposition of the ideals and habits of the people and the privileged part of the population, gentlemen.

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

In 1863, in connection with the coverage of the causes of the Polish uprising in the journal, the journal was closed by the government. But F.M. Dostoevsky continued his publishing activities, undertaking a monthly called "Era", which was published for two years (1864-1865). The Epoch magazine continued to defend the ideas of pochvenism, discussed a new judicial reform and intensified polemics on a number of issues with the democratic journals Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo.

"Spark"

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

The feuilletons in verse and prose of the poet V.I. Bogdanov (the author of the famous song "Hey, club, let's go"), 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, such satirical magazines as Alarm Clock, Gudok, and some others deserve attention.

Review questions

1. When M.N. Katkova, renting the Moskovskiye Vedomosti newspaper, organizing the Russky Vestnik magazine?

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

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

4. What is 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 the magazine "Russian Word" G.E. Blagosvetlov as an ally of Sovremennik?

7. What are the features of D.I. Pisarev?

8. What is the difference in the assessment of the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" in "Sovremennik" and in "Russian Word"?

9. What place did the magazine of the Dostoevsky brothers "Vremya" occupy in the system of Russian journalism of the 60s? What was the theory of "soil"?

10. F.M. Dostoevsky’s controversy with N.A. Dobrolyubov on issues of art.

11. Indicate the advantages of the satirical magazine Iskra.

Texts for analysis

N.G. Chernyshevsky . Is buying land difficult? Is it 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 entire social life of Russia was placed under the strictest supervision by the state, which was carried out by the forces of the 3rd branch, its extensive network of agents and scammers. This was the reason for the decline of the social movement.

A few circles tried to continue the work of the Decembrists. In 1827, the Kritsky brothers organized a secret circle at Moscow University, whose goals were the destruction of the royal family, as well as constitutional reforms in Russia.

In 1831, the tsarist guards discovered and destroyed the circle of N.P. Sungurov, whose members were preparing an armed uprising in Moscow. In 1832, the “Literary Society of the 11th Number” operated at Moscow University, of which V.G. Belinsky. In 1834, the circle of A.I. Herzen.

In the 30-40s. three ideological and political trends emerged: reactionary-protective, liberal, and revolutionary-democratic.

The principles of the reactionary-protective direction were expressed in his theory by the Minister of Education S.S. Uvarov. Autocracy, serfdom, Orthodoxy were declared the most important foundations and a guarantee against upheavals and unrest in Russia. The conductors of this theory were professors of Moscow University M.P. Pogodin, S.P. Shevyrev.

The liberal opposition movement was represented by social movements of Westerners and Slavophiles.

The central idea in the concept of the Slavophiles is the belief in a peculiar way of Russia's development. Thanks to Orthodoxy, harmony has developed in the country between different strata of society. The Slavophiles called for a return to pre-Petrine patriarchy and the true Orthodox faith. They subjected the reforms of Peter the Great to particular criticism.

Slavophiles left numerous works on philosophy and history (I.V. and P.V. Kirievsky, I.S. and K.S. Aksakov, D.A. Valuev), in theology (A.S. Khomyakov), sociology, economics and politics (Yu.F. Samarin). They published their ideas in the magazines Moskovityanin and Russkaya Pravda.

Westernism emerged in the 1930s and 1940s. 19th century in the circle of representatives of the nobility and the raznochintsy intelligentsia. The main idea is the concept of common historical development of Europe and Russia. Liberal Westerners advocated a constitutional monarchy with guarantees of freedom of speech, the press, a public court and democracy (T.N. Granovsky, P.N. Kudryavtsev, E.F. Korsh, P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin). reform activity They considered Peter the Great to be the beginning of the renewal of old Russia and offered to continue it by carrying out bourgeois reforms.

Huge popularity in the early 40's. acquired the literary circle of M.V. Petrashevsky, which over the four years of its existence was visited by leading representatives of society (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, F.M. Dostoevsky, A.N. Pleshcheev, A.N. Maikov, P.A. Fedotov, M.I. Glinka, P. P. Semenov, A. G. Rubinstein, N. G. Chernyshevsky, L. N. Tolstoy).

Since the winter of 1846, the circle was radicalized, its most moderate members withdrew, forming a left revolutionary wing headed by N.A. Speshnev. Its members advocated the revolutionary transformation of society, the elimination of the autocracy, the liberation of the peasants.

The father of the "theory of Russian socialism" was A.I. Herzen, who combined Slavophilism with the socialist doctrine. He considered the peasant community to be the main cell of the future society, with the help of which one could come to socialism, bypassing capitalism.

In 1852 Herzen left for London, where he opened the Free Russian Printing House. Bypassing censorship, he laid the foundation for the Russian foreign press.

The initiator of the revolutionary-democratic movement in Russia is V.G. Belinsky. He published his views and ideas in Otechestvennye Zapiski and in a Letter to Gogol, where he sharply criticized Russian tsarism and proposed a path of democratic reforms.

Culture of post-reform Russia (60s - 90s of the XIX century).

Russian culture second half of XIX century developed in conditions when new, capitalist relations were established in the country, various reforms were carried out. But at the same time, the remnants of the feudal system were preserved, the labor movement was born, the general social protest against the autocracy was expanding, and serious changes were taking place in the social structure. All this had an impact on the cultural development of Russia.

After the abolition of serfdom in society and the state, the need for broad education of the people was realized. The development of industry and technology required competent workers. Real schools were opened for children of all classes. In the 1980s, the number of parochial schools increased. The first Sunday schools appeared. More than 10 thousand zemstvo schools (elementary) were opened. main type high school there were gymnasiums in which the main subjects were literature, languages, history. There were also men's real schools; in the 90s, 300 women's educational institutions. The growth of higher education institutions continued. In the 60s there were 7 universities, after the reform 2 more were opened (in Odessa and Tomsk). The number of technical universities has increased. A foundation was laid for women's higher education: Higher Women's Courses were opened in St. Petersburg and Moscow. However, in general, the level of literacy of the population in Russia still remained one of the lowest in Europe (Balakina T.I. History of national culture. Part 2. - M., 1995, p. 72-76).

Russian science in the second half of the 19th century achieved major successes. Russian physiologist I.N. Sechenov in 1863 published the work "Reflexes of the brain"; his research in the field of physiology and higher nervous activity was continued by I.P. Pavlov, who created the doctrine of conditioned reflexes. Biologist I.I. Mechnikov created the theory of development of multicellular organisms, discovered the phenomenon of phagocytosis.

Mathematicians P.L. Chebyshev, Sofia Kovalevskaya; physicist A.G. Stoletov contributed to the development mathematical science and physics.

The great scientist-chemist D.I. Mendeleev created the periodic system of elements, founded agricultural chemistry.

A.N. Lodygin invented the incandescent electric light bulb. P.N. Yablochkov created a transformer and an electric arc lamp.

The works of the ethnographer N.N. Miklukho-Maclay, who studied the nature and peoples of Oceania and New Guinea. Humanities have been widely developed. Professor-historian S.M. Solovyov in 1851 published the first volume of "The History of Russia from Ancient Times" (a total of 29 volumes were published), which brought the presentation up to 1775. Historian V.O. Klyuchevsky created the five-volume "Course of Russian History".

The literature of this period reflected the social problems of post-reform Russia, socio-political trends, and people's life. The leading trend in literature was critical realism, the principle of which was the image real life, turn to life common man. A striking example of accusatory literature is the work of the satirist writer M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (“History of a City”, “Lord Golovlevs”). A huge place in the literature of this period is occupied by the work of F.M. Dostoevsky ("Poor People", "Crime and Punishment", "The Brothers Karamazov"). The second half of the 19th century saw the flowering of L.N. Tolstoy (novels "War and Peace", "Anna Karenina", "Sunday"). In the 60s - 70s, the literary activity of I.S. Turgenev - masters of the classic Russian novel ("On the Eve", "Fathers and Sons", "Smoke").

The leader of the heterogeneous youth was the poet N.A. Nekrasov (" Railway”,“ Russian women ”,“ Coma in Russia to live well”). In the late 70s, the literary activity of A.P. Chekhov (story " boring story”, “Lady with a Dog”, “Duel”, “Ward No. 6”, “Man in a Case”; plays "The Seagull", "The Cherry Orchard", "Three Sisters"). During these years, M. Gorky, I.A. Bunin, V.V. Veresaev, V.G. Korolenko (Essays on the history of Russian culture of the second half of the 19th century. / Edited by N.M. Volynkin. - M., 1976, p. 148-169).

In the second half of the 19th century, the main types of printed publications remained the following magazines: Sovremennik (Saltykov-Shchedrin), Domestic Notes (Nekrasov), Russkiy Vestnik. A great contribution to the development of national culture was made by the book publisher D.I. Sytin. He published textbooks, popular science books, cheap editions, collected works of the classics of Russian literature, dictionaries, encyclopedias. In the following years of the 19th century, volumes began to appear in Russian encyclopedic dictionary» Brockhaus and Efron. The release of 12 main and 4 additional volumes was completed in 1907.

AT fine arts the second half of the 19th century, the dominant trend was critical realism. The ideologist and organizer of the artists of this trend was I.P. Kramskoy. In 1870, the Association of Art Traveling Exhibitions was created, which included members of the Artel, as well as almost all major realist artists of that time. One of the most prominent representatives of critical realism in Russian painting was the artist V.G. Perov (paintings "Rural peasant march at Easter", "Troika", "Hunters at rest"). Russian nature was sung in their paintings by landscape painters I.I. Shishkin, A.K. Savrasov, V.D. Polenov, A.I. Kuindzhi, I.I. Levitan. The pinnacle of realism in Russian painting is the work of I.E. Repin (“Barge haulers on the Volga”, “They didn’t wait”, “Refusal of confession”; historical paintings “Princess Sophia”, “Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan”) and V.I. Surikov ("Morning of the Streltsy Execution", "Boyar Morozova"). V. Vasnetsov turned to the genre of folklore, he took fairy-tale plots as the basis for his paintings: “Alyonushka”, “Bogatyrs”, “The Knight at the Crossroads”. Many paintings by artists of the second half of the 19th century ended up in the collection of the Tretyakov Gallery. In 1898, the Russian Museum was opened in St. Petersburg.

The architecture and sculpture of this period is characterized by a mixture of styles: modern and antique stylization. The outstanding sculptor M.M. Antokolsky created a series of sculptural portraits: "Peter I", "Yaroslav the Wise", "Yermak". In 1880, a monument to A.S. Pushkin (on Tverskaya), its author is the sculptor A.I. Opekushin. Under the leadership of M.O. Mikeshin, dozens of sculptors created the Millennium of Russia monument in Novgorod.

In architecture, classicism finally outlived itself. Now, in accordance with the requirements of life, industrial and administrative buildings, railway stations, banks, bridges, theaters, shops were built. The "neo-Russian" style becomes widespread - antique styling. The Historical Museum (architect V.O. Sherwood), the City Duma building (architect D.I. Chichagov), the Upper Trading Rows - now GUM (architect A.I. Pomerantsev) were built in this style in Moscow. Multi-storey and multi-apartment buildings were built. In Russia, the construction of shopping arcades began. Theater buildings were built in Rybinsk, Irkutsk, and Nizhny Novgorod. The Polytechnic Museum (architect Shokhin) was opened in Moscow.

The second half of the 19th century is the heyday of the Russian musical art. The composers of the "Mighty Handful" created a number of great works: operas by Mussorgsky ("Boris Godunov", "Khovanshchina"), Rimsky-Korsakov ("The Maid of Pskov"), Borodin ("Prince Igor", the symphony "Bogatyrskaya"). During this period, the greatest Russian composer P.I. Tchaikovsky. He created 6 symphonies, symphonic poems "Romeo and Juliet", "Manfred", ballets "Swan Lake", "The Nutcracker", "Sleeping Beauty", operas "Eugene Onegin", "Mazepa", "Iolanthe" and others, 100 romances . At the end of the century, young composers entered the musical life - S.I. Taneev, A.K. Lyadov, S. Rachmaninov, A.N. Scriabin. Composer, conductor, pianist A. Rubinstein creates the "Russian Musical Society" in St. Petersburg.

Theater plays a special role in the life of post-reform Russia. Theaters operated in 100 cities of Russia. The main centers of theatrical culture were the Maly Theater in Moscow and the Alexandrinsky Theater in St. Petersburg. The glory of the Maly Theater is associated with the names of brilliant Russian actors: Maria Yermolova, Prov Sadovsky, Ivan Samarin, Alexander Lensky. In the 60s - 70s, private theaters and theater circles began to appear in Moscow and other cities of Russia (Balakina T.I. History of national culture. Part 2, - M., 1995, pp. 90-96).

The growth of capitalist production in post-reform Russia set serious practical and theoretical tasks before science and technology, education. The level of literacy of the population increased significantly, there was an unprecedented rise in scientific creativity and an increase in interest in science in society, the expansion of book publishing and journalism. During this period, there was a revival of social thought, literature and art, the establishment of democratic principles in them.