Ideological struggle and social movement in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. Ideological struggle and social movement in Russia in the first half of the 19th century The historical significance of the social movement of this period
The 30s of the 19th century is a special period in the development of Russian literary criticism. This is the heyday of the so-called "journal criticism", an era when criticism, as never before, is tightly intertwined with literature. It was during these years that social and political life intensified, and the works of liberal and democratically minded writers of the lower classes began to penetrate into purely noble literature.
In literature, despite the emerging realism (, ), continued to hold a firm position. But it no longer represents a single monolithic trend, but is divided into many trends and genres.
Keep creating:
- Romantic Decembrists A. Bestuzhev, A. Odoevsky, V. Kuchelbecker,
- poets of the Pushkin circle (E. Baratynsky, P. Vyazemsky, D. Davydov).
M. Zagoskin, I. Lazhechnikov, N. Polevoy come up with brilliant historical novels with pronounced romantic features. The historical tragedies of N. Kukolnik (“Torquato Tasso”, “Dzhakobo Sannazar”, “The Hand of the Most High Saved the Fatherland”, “Prince Mikhail Vasilievich Skopin-Shuisky”, etc.) retain the same romantic orientation, which were highly appreciated by Emperor Nicholas I himself. In the 1830s, a talent flourishes, forever included in Russian literature as one of the most "violent romantics" of the 19th century. All this required its reflection on the pages of critical publications.
"Journal Criticism" as a Reflection of the Struggle of Ideas
The era of the 30s of the 19th century is also sometimes called the era of the struggle of ideas. Indeed, the Decembrist uprising in 1825, the struggle between the “Westerners” and “Slavophiles” on the pages of literary almanacs and magazines forced society to take a fresh look at traditional problems, raised questions of national self-determination and the further development of the Russian state.
Cover of the magazine "Northern Bee"
Decembrist magazines - "Polar Star", "Mnemosyne" and a number of others - for obvious reasons, ceased to exist. The previously quite liberal "Son of the Fatherland" N. Grech became close to the semi-official "Northern Bee"
Made a roll towards conservatism under the editorship of M. Kachenovsky and the authoritative journal "Bulletin of Europe", founded by N. Karamzin.
Cover of Vestnik Evropy magazine
The main purpose of the magazine was educational. It consisted of 4 major sections:
- science and art,
- literature,
- bibliography and criticism,
- news and mixture.
Each section provided readers with a wealth of diverse information. Criticism was of fundamental importance.
The history of the publication of the Moscow Telegraph is usually divided into 2 periods:
- 1825-1829 - cooperation with noble liberal writers P. Vyazemsky, A. Turgenev, A. Pushkin and others;
- 1829-1834 (after the publication of Karamzin's "History of the Russian State") - speeches against the "dominance" of the nobles in the cultural and public life Russia.
If in the first period the Moscow Telegraph expressed the concepts exclusively, then in the 40s the beginnings appeared in the work of Xenophon Polevoy.
Critical activity of Nikolai Polevoy
N. Polevoy in his review-review of the 1st chapter of "Eugene Onegin" (1825), on the book by A. Galich "Experience in the Science of Fine" (1826) defends the idea of creative freedom of the romantic poet, his right to the subjectivity of creativity. He criticizes the views and promotes the aesthetic views of the idealists (Schelling, the Schlegel brothers, and others).
In the article "On the novels of Victor Hugo and in general on the latest novels" (1832), N. Polevoy interpreted romanticism as a radical, "anti-noble" trend in art, opposed to classicism. Classicism he called ancient literature and imitations of it. Romanticism for him is modern literature, rooted in the nationality, i.e. true reflection of the "soul of the people" (the highest and purest aspirations of the people), and "the truth of the image", i.e. vivid and detailed depiction of human passions. Nikolai Polevoy proclaimed the concept genius as an "ideal being".
A true artist is one in whose heart "heavenly fire" burns, who creates "by inspiration, freely and unconsciously."
These and subsequent articles reflect the main methods of N. Polevoy's critical approach - historicism and the desire to create comprehensive concepts.
For example, in the article “Ballads and Tales” (1832), reviews of the work of G. Derzhavin and A. Pushkin, the critic gives a detailed historical analysis of the work of poets, considers their works in connection with the facts of their biographies and the upheavals of public life. The main criterion for the creativity of poets is the correspondence of their works to the "spirit of the times". The series of these articles published in the Moscow Telegraph became the first attempt to build a unified concept for the development of Russian literature in Russian criticism.
Closing of the Moscow Telegraph
However, following the principle of historicism eventually caused the closure of the magazine. In 1834, N. Polevoy made a review of N. Kukolnik's drama "The Hand of the Most High Saved the Fatherland."
Being consistent in his judgments, the critic came to the conclusion that in the drama
“There is nothing historical at all - neither in events, nor in characters<…>Drama in its essence does not withstand any criticism.
His opinion did not coincide with the enthusiastic response to the play by Emperor Nicholas I. As a result, the publication of the review served as an official reason for closing the magazine.
Shaken by the closure of the Moscow Telegraph, N. Polevoy changed his place of residence from Moscow to St. Petersburg and joined the reactionary criticism in the person of Grech and Bulgarin. Until the end of his critical career, Polevoy remained faithful to the principal of romanticism. Therefore, the appearance of works in the style of Gogol's "natural school" aroused their ardent rejection in him.
Critical activity of Xenophon Polevoi
In 1831-1834, Xenophon Polevoy, the younger brother of Nikolai Polevoy, actually took over the management of the journal. He writes articles about the work of Griboedov, the lyrics of Pushkin and the poets of the Pushkin circle, historical tragedies (in particular, the tragedy of A. Khomyakov "Ermak"), stories by M. Pogodin and A. Bestuzhev, romantic novels by V. Scott and his imitators.
In the article "On Russian Novels and Tales" (1829), the critic speaks of the tilt of Russian literature towards prose. He attributes this to the growing popularity of novels by W. Scott and other Western romantics. At the same time, Xenophon Polevoy spoke out against "exoticism" in short stories and novels, calling for the description of "acute modernity". Pushkin with his fairy tales and Zhukovsky with romantic ballads fell under his critical pen.
But the main merit of Xenophon Polevoy is that in his speeches, reflecting on the differences between literary "parties", he introduced the concept « literary direction. Literary direction Polevoy called that "inner desire of literature", which allows you to combine several works according to some leading feature. The critic noted that the journal cannot be a spokesman for the ideas of various authors -
Did you like it? Do not hide your joy from the world - shareit "should be the expression of a certain kind of opinion in literature" ("On Directions and Parties in Literature", 1833).
Compiled by Igor Borev
Notes:
* To compare the events that took place in Russia and in Western Europe, in all chronological tables, starting from 1582 (the year of the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in eight European countries) and ending with 1918 (the year of the transition of Soviet Russia from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar), the DATE column indicates date only according to the Gregorian calendar , and the Julian date is shown in brackets along with a description of the event. In chronological tables describing the periods before the introduction of a new style by Pope Gregory XIII, (in the column DATES) dates are in the Julian calendar only . At the same time, the translation into the Gregorian calendar is not done, because it did not exist.
Literature and sources:
Russian and world history in tables. Author-compiler F.M. Lurie. St. Petersburg, 1995
Chronology Russian history. Encyclopedic reference book. Under the direction of Francis Comte. M., "International relations". 1994.
Chronicle of world culture. M., " White City", 2001.
Colonial policy of the Russian Empire in Northern Azerbaijan. Commandant form of government
The northern Azerbaijani khanates were gradually liquidated in the course of their conquest by Russia and after it. Baku, Guba, Sheki, Shirvan, Karabakh, Lankaran provinces, Elizavetpol and Jaro-Balaken districts, Kazakh and Shamshadil distances were created in their places. At the head of each district or province was a commandant - a Russian officer, so this form of government went down in history as a commandant form of government (military control system). By introducing such a system in Azerbaijan, Russia tried to cross out the traditions of statehood that existed here before.
The commandant had a wide range of powers, he only did not have the right to pass a death sentence. His powers included:
- to give land allotments to the beks or to take away their lands;
- determine the amount of state taxes and duties;
- lease oil wells, salt lakes, fisheries, etc.
The provinces were divided into mahals, headed by naibs - trusted beks appointed by the commandant. The magal naibs distributed taxes among the peasants, ensured the timely collection of duties, and resolved disputes. The peasants cultivated the lands of the naibs and helped in the harvest.
At the lowest rung of the administrative ladder under the commandant form of government were village elders (kenthuda) and centurions (yuzbashi). Each kenthuda had several onbashi (tiers) and esauls (guards) with him.
Like the magal naibs, the kenthuda did not receive a state salary, but kept a part of the tax collected from the peasants. Kentkhuda was responsible for the order in the village, for the fulfillment of duties, for the collection of taxes in money, for the safety of roads, bridges, and irrigation canals.
Courts (in Karabakh and Sheki - provincial courts, in Baku, Guba and Ganja - city courts) were considered collegiate, but all decisions were made personally by the commandant.
Serious crimes were considered by a military court. A chief qadi was placed at the head of the spiritual administration of each province. He dealt with family and marriage issues, resolved issues of inheritance and other civil cases.
In the 20-30s of the 19th century, violations in the collection of taxes and the performance of duties in the South Caucasus, the lack of control of officials forced the ruling circles of Russia to send a commission of high-ranking officials here. In 1829-1830, senators R.I. Kutaisov and Yu.I. Mechnikov discovered numerous facts of abuse in the financial and tax system of Muslim regions. The senators were horrified by the arbitrariness of the commandants.
The management of the financial and tax system by military methods plunged Northern Azerbaijan into a heavy colonial oppression.
Mass resettlement of Armenians in Northern Azerbaijan
The mass resettlement of Armenians from the Ottoman Empire and Iran to the occupied regions of Northern Azerbaijan was not accidental. Even in the decree of Peter I of 1724, the settlement of Armenians in the occupied territories was envisaged. Favorable conditions for the implementation of the Peter's plan were created only in the 20-30s of the XIX century.
After the capture of the Irevan Khanate during the second Russian-Iranian war (1826-1828), measures began to be taken to legally support the resettlement plan. Armenian Catholicos Nerses prepared a special project for the implementation of the resettlement plan, and Russian Ambassador to Iran A.S. Griboedov played a significant role in the implementation of this project.
Thanks to the efforts of A.S. Griboyedov and General I.F. Paskevich, when preparing the articles of the Turkmenchay Treaty, the issue of the resettlement of Armenians from Iran to Azerbaijan was taken into account. For this purpose, special resettlement commissions were established in Nakhchivan, Karabakh and Irevan. Benefits for immigrants were provided. For six years after the resettlement, they were exempted from all taxes and duties. Armenian migrants were even given benefits from reparations paid by Iran.
In 1828-1829, 40-50 thousand Armenians moved to Azerbaijan from Iran, and 90 thousand from Turkey.
Russian researcher N. Shavrov wrote in 1911 that out of one million 300 thousand Armenians living in the South Caucasus, more than one million people do not belong to the local population and were resettled here by Russians. During the two post-war years, 120,000 Armenians resettled from Iran and Turkey received part of the land belonging to the Azerbaijani beks and 200,000 acres of state land.
As a result of the process of relocation to ethnic composition regions of Nakhchivan, Iravan and the mountainous part of Karabakh significant changes. Only 2,551 Armenian families moved to Nakhchivan.
With the intensification of the process of placing Armenians on Azerbaijani lands, the displacement of the indigenous population from their original places of residence began. Even at the beginning of this process, A.S. Griboyedov wrote that some time would pass and the Armenians settled in the Azerbaijani lands would begin to prove that this was their land, the land of their ancestors. The arrogant claims of the Armenians to the land served as a pretext for skirmishes with the indigenous - the Azerbaijani population. Over time, these clashes escalated into an armed confrontation.
Settlement of Russians. Establishment of German colonies
The resettlement of Russian colonists in the conquered territories was supposed to be carried out in stages:
- at the first stage, it was planned to create farms and military settlements around military headquarters;
- later sectarians and heretics began to be resettled here;
- with the transformation of the South Caucasus into a colony of the Russian Empire, most of the Russian colonies were located in Azerbaijan.
Russian servicemen who completed their service did not want to stay in the Caucasus, but wanted to return home. Therefore, the decree of January 3, 1821 on the creation of farms around the military headquarters was never implemented. Due to the failure of this plan, the civilian population had to be resettled in the conquered territories.
The first Russian settlements in Northern Azerbaijan were established in the early 1830s. On October 20, 1830, a state decree was issued on the resettlement of sectarians and heretics in the region of the South Caucasus.
Commander-in-Chief I.F. Paskevich ordered to settle the exiled Russian sectarians on the lands of Karabakh. About 30 out of 34 Russian villages created in the South Caucasus in the 30-40s of the 19th century were located on the territory of Azerbaijan. Of the 8,600 sectarians and heretics, 7,000 settled in Azerbaijan.
Wishing to turn these sectarians into its social base, tsarism stopped subjecting them to religious persecution and even expanded their rights. The location of Russian villages in the territories of yaylags and gyshlags caused significant damage to the economy of the local population.
The Napoleonic wars in Europe had a heavy impact on the economic life of the Germans, many of them were driven from their homes. When settling the Germans in Azerbaijan, the tsarist government argued that the settlers would teach the local population the industriousness and culture of agriculture. In 1817 the first group of Germans arrived in the Caucasus. In 1817-1818, 8 German colonies were founded in the Caucasus, of which two - Helenendorf (in the modern Khanlar region) and Annenfeld (near modern Shamkir) were founded in Azerbaijan.
The social composition of the population
The Russian-Iranian war caused a decrease in the population in Azerbaijan. After the end of the war, the economic life of Northern Azerbaijan began to revive and most of the refugees returned to their native lands. In addition, the resettlement policy of tsarism (settlement of Armenians, Russians, Germans in Northern Azerbaijan) affected the increase in the population. Most of the population lived in rural areas. Urban population accounted for 10% of the total number of people living in Azerbaijan.
In the 30-50s of the 19th century, the social composition of the population of Northern Azerbaijan was represented by the ruling stratum (khans, beks, agalars, sultans; the clergy - seids, qadis, etc.), the lower stratum (raiyats, ranjbars, elyats, etc.). ). There was also a "third estate" - merchants and artisans.
The tsarist government tried in every possible way to weaken the still significant authority of the Muslim nobility, but took into account their influence on the population. On July 13, 1830, Nicholas I issued a decree according to which all those expelled without trial for resistance Russian government and for political views now returned to their places of residence, and the confiscated possessions were again returned to their owners.
The clergy played an important role in the policy of tsarism. In 1829 a committee was set up to determine the rights and duties of the Muslim clergy. In Northern Azerbaijan, the position of Sheikh-ul-Islam was established to manage the affairs of Shiite Muslims, and the position of Mufti was established to manage the affairs of Sunni Muslims.
In 1823-1852, the post of sheikh-ul-islam was occupied by the Salyan akhund Muhammad Ali. The lower layer of the Muslim clergy (mullahs, dervishes, etc.) gradually decreased. By the middle of the 19th century, the privileged strata made up 5-6 percent of the total population.
In 1836, under the pressure of the Armenian clergy, the Albanian Catholicosate was officially liquidated.
In the social composition of the population of Northern Azerbaijan, the main place in terms of number was occupied by peasants, who accounted for more than 90% of the total population of the country. They were mostly state peasants. The second group of feudally dependent peasants were the master's peasants. Conditionally called the third layer, merchants and artisans lived in cities
Economic policy of the Russian Empire in Northern Azerbaijan
After the colonization of Northern Azerbaijan by Russia, two main forms of feudal ownership of land were formed here - state and private property. Together with the new ones, the old forms of land ownership continued to exist - tiyul, mulk, mulki - khalis and vaqf.
Under the new conditions, the tiyul lands were still given out for military and civil merits, as well as on the condition of loyalty to the tsarist regime. Tiyul was not private property, but taking into account the merits of the heirs, it could be passed down from generation to generation.
Mulk was a form of feudal land ownership. Mulk could be sold or donated. Waqf is the land property of spiritual institutions.
Peasants living on state lands accounted for more than two-thirds of the total number of peasants. State rayats paid numerous taxes and performed various duties.
Up to 35 various payments and taxes were levied from peasants living on landowners' lands.
All peasants were obliged to pay the “bahr” tax for the use of water. AT agriculture In northern Azerbaijan, the main place was occupied by agriculture and cattle breeding.
Increased interest in technical types agriculture. In connection with the growing demand of Russia for raw silk in the Nukhinsky, Shusha, Shamakhinsky counties, Dzharo-Balakensky district, silk weaving actively developed.
Two thirds of the silk produced in the South Caucasus came from the Nukhinsky district. In the spread of sericulture in Northern Azerbaijan, a special role belongs to the “Society for the Promotion of Sericulture and Trade Industry of the South Caucasus” established in 1836 and the “Practical School of Sericulture” established in 1843 in Nukha. All the mulberry gardens in the Nukhinsky district, which belonged to the treasury, were given free of charge to the “Society”.
In connection with the increased needs of the Moscow weaving industry in 1840-1850 there was a jump in the production of madder. Only in Guba province 335 thousand poods of madder were produced. And interest in cotton growing and saffron production has fallen significantly.
The production of a part of agricultural products directly for sale contributed to the transition from the former isolation to commodity-money relations. This created the conditions for the transition in 1852 from a tax in kind to a cash tax.
After the war, handicraft industries were also revived: carpet weaving, weaving, pottery, silk-weaving, metalworking, etc. Products of Karabakh and Guba carpet weaving - kilims, rugs, mafrashi, khurjuns, kheiba, etc. were in great demand.
In Shusha, Ganja, Nukha and Shamakhi, silk fabrics and kelagai were woven. With the exception of carpet weaving and silk weaving, other branches of the craft served to satisfy the everyday needs of the population. In 1827, a manufactory type enterprise, the Khanabad factory, was opened in the city of Nukha. In 1836, the Khanabad manufactory was transferred to the “Society for the Propagation of Sericulture and Trade Industry in the Caucasus” established by the state. Not only in Nukha, but also in other localities and other branches of industrial production, manufactory-type enterprises began to appear.
In Azerbaijan, manufactory developed under the dominance of feudal production relations, but according to the development trends, these enterprises were truly capitalist enterprises.
During this period, Azerbaijan was characterized by a colonial economy (i.e. half-heartedness, incompleteness of the production cycle).
The export of Russian goods to the periphery (including Northern Azerbaijan) slowed down the production of similar products locally. As a result, the economy developed one-sidedly.
Fish products occupied a special place in the production of food products in Azerbaijan. In 1829, all fisheries passed into the ownership of the state, a commercial company was established under the name “Salyan state guardianship”. Hired workers worked here.
In the field Food Industry The production of edible salt stood out in particular: finely ground salt in the Javad district, in Absheron, and rock salt in Nakhchivan.
Interest in wealth increased in the 1930s and 1950s earth's interior. The farming out of the oil fields continued. The farming system hampered the development of the extraction of oil, salt, alum, and other minerals. It was unprofitable for tenants to import new technology. The use of forced labor of peasants also had a negative effect on the results of production. In 1848, on Bibi-Heybat near Baku, technician F.A. Semenov drilled the world's first oil well.
In the 30-50s of the 19th century, the mining industry also began to develop. In 1855, a small copper smelter was built in Gadabay.
The existence in the country of various measures of weight, length, monetary systems, as well as the instability of the trade and customs policy of tsarism in the South Caucasus had a negative impact on the development of trade in Northern Azerbaijan. However, gradually the obstacles to the development of trade were removed. In order to introduce the Russian monetary system in Azerbaijan, local, Iranian and Turkish money began to be withdrawn from circulation. As a result of the monetary reform of 1839-1843, the old banknotes were replaced by silver coins. The introduction of Russian units of measure and weight has begun.
On October 8, 1821, preferential trade tariffs were introduced by royal rescript. Under these tariffs, customs duties were levied on only five percent of imported foreign goods. After that, trade in Northern Azerbaijan flourished. But the products of Russian weaving mills created serious competition, so in June 1831 a new tariff (“forbidden tariff”) was introduced, according to which European goods were heavily taxed. In general, the South Caucasus turned out to be closed to high-quality European goods. The Russian weaving industry got rid of international competition. On June 6, 1836, by royal decree, internal duties - “rakhdar” were also eliminated. As a result of these measures, internal trade in Azerbaijan expanded.
The city of Baku played an important role in Azerbaijan's trade with Russia. Gradually, Azerbaijan turned into a source of raw materials and a market for Russian industry.
Thus, in the 30-50s of the 19th century, the volume of marketable products increased in Northern Azerbaijan, there was an increase in commodity capital, and commodity-money relations expanded.
Revolts against Russian colonialism
As a result of the conclusion of the Gulistan and Turkmenchay treaties, South Azerbaijan went to Iran, and North Azerbaijan became a colony of Russia. In the late 20s - early 30s of the 19th century, the situation of the population of Northern Azerbaijan deteriorated sharply, and a series of uprisings began in the 30s. The reasons for dissatisfaction were:
- national and religious oppression;
- the collection of heavy taxes and the execution of duties in favor of the treasury and large feudal lords;
- arbitrariness and bribery of tsarist officials;
- resettlement policy (resettlement of Armenians, Russians, Germans);
- replacement of tax in kind with cash tax.
The economic, political and administrative measures of the commandant's system overwhelmed the people's patience. Most of the uprisings that took place in the 30s of the 19th century were led by former khans, beks, large feudal lords and the clergy, who were ruined and humiliated by tsarist officials. Directed against the colonial oppression of tsarism, these uprisings lasted intermittently for 10 years.
Jaro-Balaken uprising
In 1830, the Djaro-Balaken jamaats, which were of great military and strategic importance and consisted of 6 communities, still retained internal autonomy. The goal of tsarism was to eliminate internal autonomy and then to use this area as a military stronghold to suppress the national liberation movement of the highlanders. Quite unexpectedly for the local population in February 1830, General I.F. Paskevich sent troops to Jaro-Balaken. Before the start of the offensive, he addressed the local population with an appeal in the Azerbaijani language. Concealing his true intentions, he declared that the Jamaat would now be governed on the basis of new "Rules" different from the "Oath Commitment" of 1803. Now the jamaat will be headed by the Provisional Department, consisting of 9 people, including the head of the department, two authorized officials appointed by Paskevich himself, and six representatives elected by the local population. In fact, all powers of authority were concentrated in the hands of the chief and two officials. The six representatives elected by the people had no rights. This meant that jamaats were losing their internal autonomy and were turning into ordinary peasant assemblies.
On February 24, 1830, Russian troops crossed the Alazan River and on March 3 entered Jar. On the basis of the new “Rules”, the Provisional Administration was created and the end of the Jaro-Balaken internal autonomy was put. As a result, in the 30s of the 19th century, the first uprising in Azerbaijan against the colonial oppression of tsarism took place in Jaro-Balaken.
The main reasons for the uprising in Jaro-Balaken:
- application of new "Rules" in the management of the region;
- strengthening of the colonial regime;
- collection of arrears for previous years;
- liquidation of internal autonomy, etc.
One of the main factors that gave impetus to the uprising was the national liberation struggle of the highlanders against tsarism and the call of Sheikh Shaban to the population of the jamaat to join this struggle.
After some preparation, the uprising began on 12 June. The first clash ended with the victory of the Russian troops. By order of the Russian generals, the collection of tax arrears for previous years began, and labor service was introduced for the construction of the Zagatala fortress. Such actions caused even greater indignation of the people with the new authorities. In September, Gamzat bek arrived in Jar from Dagestan with two thousand horsemen. He was joined by armed detachments of Dagestan feudal lords. The preponderance of forces was on the side of the rebels. Capturing soon
Kateh, the rebels interrupted the connection of the Russian troops in the Yeni Zagatala fortress with Balaken. In October, the rebels achieved a new victory and completely took over the Jar region. To suppress the uprising, the tsarist officers bribed Sheikh Shaban and Gamzat bek. After the highlanders left, the rebels lost their unity.
On November 14, Russian troops counterattacked and captured Jar, Kehne Zagatala, Goyem. 32 leaders of the uprising were brought to court martial. In December of the same year, an uprising began again in Balakan, which the Russian troops brutally suppressed.
Reasons for the defeat of the uprising:
- betrayal of the leaders of the uprising;
- the rebels were opposed by regular troops;
- the rebels had no combat experience;
- the rebels were poorly armed, and so on.
Lankaran uprising
After the liquidation of the Lankaran Khanate in 1826, according to a new administrative division, the lands of the Khanate became a province. Unlike other provinces in Lankaran (Talysh) there were few lands suitable for cultivation. Many taxes and duties, lack of land, the greed of tax collectors and officials, the oppression of the commandant's office and, in general, the colonial yoke brought the population to its extreme.
The former khan of Lankaran, Mir Gasan khan, wishing to return his possessions, which the commandant Ilyinsky appropriated, crossed the Astara River with 30 horsemen on March 5 and began to move towards the Talysh mountains. The peasants, in the hope of improving their lot, joined him. In the ranks of the rebels were representatives of all social strata.
The cavalry detachment, made up of the inhabitants of the Erchivan Magal, joined the rebels on March 10. The number of rebels exceeded two thousand.
The main part of the Russian army in the Caucasus was involved in battles with the highlanders, so there was only one infantry battalion in the Lankaran fortress. This increased the chances of the rebels to win.
On March 12, the rebels attacked the tsarist soldiers in the fortress. Paskevich sent a 5,000-strong army here from neighboring provinces. When Mir Hasan Khan with the rebels reached the outskirts of the city, he was met by regular military units of up to 500 people with two guns. The attempt of the rebels to capture the fortress ended in failure. After that, part of the rebels, led by the Khan, retreated to the village of Seles, the rest - to the village of Badalan. When, in early April, Russian troops ousted Mir Hasan Khan from the village of Selesh, most of the beks and kenthuds, as well as some of the peasants, left the ranks of the rebels.
On April 22, Russian troops attacked the last refuge of the rebels - Emburan. Paskevich promised complete forgiveness to all who lay down their arms. Therefore, many obeyed and stopped fighting. On May 5, Mir Hasan Khan and 20 of his supporters returned to Iran. The Lankaran (Talysh) uprising, which lasted two months, ended in defeat.
The main reasons for the suppression of the uprising:
- disorganized movement;
- betrayal of the beks, clergy and other representatives of the ruling circles;
- Mir Gasan khan failed to use his influence and opportunities properly;
- at decisive moments, the rebels hesitated and missed their chance;
- the rebels were poorly armed compared to the regular army;
- the rebels quickly lost faith in victory.
Guba uprising
The most powerful of the performances of the 30s was the Guba uprising. The reasons for the uprisings in Jaro-Balaken and Lankaran were the same as those that caused the Guba uprising. One of the main reasons for the uprising in the Guba province was the use of the system of farming out.
The reason for the uprising was the news of the recruitment of horsemen in the Muslim cavalry regiment stationed in Warsaw. 38 riders had to arm themselves at the expense of the population, buy horses and clothes. This news spread throughout the mahals. The beks and kentkhuds who gathered in the village of Gundyuzgala put forward a number of demands to the authorities:
- stop recruiting horsemen in the province;
- reduce the number of state duties;
- remove the commandant of Gimbut and his closest associates - Jafargulu agha Bakikhanov, Muhammad Khan of Alpan from the province, etc.
With these conditions put forward in April 1837, the Guba uprising began. At the first stage, in order to gain time, the government satisfied all the demands of the peasants, except for the reduction of taxes and duties.
The second stage of the uprising began in August-September 1837. Sheikh Shamil sent a letter to the leaders of the uprising - Haji Muhammad, Ilyas bey, Khurshud bey, Hasan bey and others with a call to take up arms. This call has been successful. On August 20, in the village of Khulug, at the wedding of Haji Mohammed's son, it was decided to start an uprising, Haji Mohammed was elected leader of the rebels. Yarali became his assistant.
In the village of Yasan, the rebels killed Apipash Agha Bakikhanov, the envoy of the acting commandant Ishchenko. The number of rebels exceeded 12 thousand people. Unlike other uprisings, a Military Council was created here to prepare a plan for storming the fortress. According to the plan, three assault detachments of 4 thousand people each were created. The driving forces of the uprising were peasants, townspeople, dissatisfied with the policy of the government, beks, naibs and kenkhuds.
On the night of September 4-5, the rebels, acting according to the plan, attacked the city of Guba. Led by Yarali, a thousand rebels seized the courthouse. There were also women in the ranks of the townspeople who joined the rebels. 10 September Russian army launched a counteroffensive, the rebels were defeated. The defeat caused distrust in the leaders of the uprising, the peasants and beks moved away from Haji Muhammad. His former comrade-in-arms Muhammad Mirza of Kazikumukh treacherously betrayed Haji Muhammad and his son to the authorities. The number of rebels was reduced to a minimum. Yarali and 6 people from among the leaders of the uprising went to the mountains and continued to fight there.
To find out the reasons for the uprising, the government sent Count Vasilchikov to Guba. A military field court was established in Baku, according to which 37 people were severely punished. Haji Mohammed was executed, his son Novruz was exiled to Kaluga, and the rest to Siberia. In 1838, the Russian mountain expeditionary force in the town of Adzhyakhur defeated the forces of the rebels.
The leaders of the movement, including Yarali, took an oath of allegiance to Russia and, having paid a fine, escaped punishment. Part of the rebels took refuge in the mountains. The reasons for the suppression of the Guba uprising coincide with the reasons for the defeat of other uprisings.
Sheki uprising
One of the uprisings of the 30s took place in 1838 in Sheki. In 1835, the supreme judge of the Caucasus, Baron Rosen, ordered to tax the maafs, who had previously been exempted from taxes and duties, which caused indignation among the population. Although Rosen canceled his order, the maafs were dissatisfied with the government. In 1837, Mashadi Mohammed arrived in Sheki on behalf of Selim Khan's son Haji Khan. Posing as the Khan's heir, he began agitation against tsarism, for which he ended up in prison. In the summer of 1838, Mashadi Muhammad escaped from prison to Dagestan, where he gathered a detachment of 5 thousand people. In August 1838, the rebels entered the Sheki province. They were joined by the urban poor. Having superiority, the rebels captured the entire city of Sheki, except for the fortress. Additional detachments of Russian troops from other provinces began to arrive in Sheki. On September 3, the rebels were ousted from Sheki. Like other uprisings, the Sheki uprising of 1838 was suppressed.
Despite the defeats, the uprisings of the 1830s, they played their part. Under their influence, administrative, judicial and agrarian reforms were carried out in the 40s of the 19th century.
Reforms of the 40s of the XIX century
Despite the uprisings of the 30s that gave rise to them socio-economic and political reasons continued to exist. Tsar Nicholas I, after lengthy discussions, approved the project for the abolition of the commandant form of government and the implementation of an administrative and judicial reform.
On April 10, 1840, a law was issued on administrative and judicial reform in the South Caucasus, according to which provincial, regional and district courts were created. Sharia courts dealt only with divorce and inheritance matters. District courts consisted of judges and assessors representing taxpayers. Now criminal cases were considered not by military, but by civilian courts.
According to the law of April 10, 1840, from January 1, 1841, the commandant form of government was abolished. The South Caucasus was divided into the Georgian-Imereti province with the center in Tiflis and the Caspian region with the center in Shamakhi. Provinces and regions were divided into counties, and counties into sections. Magals were abolished. Beks - former magal naibs - were removed from the administration. The new administrative division violated the historically established traditional borders of Azerbaijan. At all levels of administrative and judicial administration, Azerbaijani officials were replaced by Russians.
The supreme power in the Caucasus belonged to the commander-in-chief, who headed the Main Council of Management. The Council had the right to control administrative, judicial and other matters.
On April 25, 1841, the tsar signed a decree according to which the agalars of Gazakh, Shamshadil and Borchaly, and on May 28 and the beks of the Caspian region, lost their tiyul lands.
The beks who lost their lands became enemies of tsarism and joined the armed detachments of the people.
To get acquainted with the situation in the Caucasus, Nicholas I sent here the Minister of War, Count Chernyshev, and the chairman of the Caucasian Committee, Posen. Having met with representatives of the local population, they were convinced on the basis of irrefutable facts that local customs and traditions were not taken into account in the preparation of the draft reforms and that the reforms were doomed to failure.
As a result of this revision, in 1842, the seizure of the lands of the Beks and Agalars was suspended, land property was declared inviolable, and a Special Committee was created under the chairmanship of the Minister of War.
In the 1940s, peasant uprisings against the colonial oppression of tsarism took place in a number of districts and districts in Northern Azerbaijan (Shamshadil, Borchaly, Gazakh, Elizavetpol, Shusha, Nukha, Guba, etc.). But this only strengthened the tendency of the government to come closer to the local feudal lords.
The administrative and judicial reforms of the 1940s did not produce the desired result. In 1844, the supreme power passed to the governor in the Caucasus. All military and civil power belonged to him. The viceroy reported only to the king. The first governor of the king in the Caucasus was Count S.M. Vorontsov.
In 1846, the Georgian-Imereti province and the Caspian region were abolished. Instead of them, Tiflis, Kutaisi, Shamakhi and Derbend were created, and in 1849 the Irevan province.
As soon as he took up the position of governor, Vorontsev took up the problem of the land rights of the beks and agalars. After two years of discussions, on December 6, 1846, Nicholas I signed a rescript on the rights of beks and agalars. Of the 12 articles of this rescript, 10 were devoted to the land law of the beks, and only two articles were devoted to relations between landowners and peasants.
For the first time, the right of beks and agalars to hereditary land ownership was confirmed. Not only mulki and mulki-khalise, but also tiyuli were officially recognized as the property of beks and agalars. Beks and Agalars were free to dispose of their land, but they could sell or donate it only to representatives of their class. The “upper Muslim estate” of Northern Azerbaijan was equalized with the Russian nobility in terms of its land rights, but did not receive political and administrative rights. In its attitude towards the nobility, tsarism made distinctions along national and religious lines.
The royal rescript gave the beks and agalars the right to exercise police functions among the peasants.
By a rescript of December 6, 1846, the government made important step to strengthen the alliance with local feudal lords. Established on the basis of the decree of Nicholas I of March 10, 1843, the “upper Muslim estate” came close to the central government.
The main essence of the rescript was expressed in its final part, where it was prescribed for the highest Muslim class to appear in the army ranks at the first call. The division of peasants into rayyats, ranjbars, elyats and nukers was abolished. All of them now received one name - mulkadar tabelisi.
"Peasant provisions" of 1847.
The main points of the “Poselyansky Provisions”, published on April 20, 1847 and relating to the peasants of the Shamakhi, Shusha, Nukhinsky, Lankaran, Baku and Guba districts, and published on December 28, 1847 and concerning the Kazakh, Shamshadil and Borchaly sections, read:
- Each male peasant who reached the age of 15 was supposed to receive 5 acres of fertile land for use.
- As a payment, the peasant was obliged to give the owner of the land in the form of the maljahat tax a tenth of the grain harvest and one third of the harvest of fruits and vegetables.
- If a peasant cultivated the land with the help of draft cattle and agricultural tools belonging to the bek, then maljahat was determined in the amount of one fifth of the crop.
- For the use of the Bek pasture, the peasants had to pay a special fee - chepbashi.
According to the "Regulations", every 10 houses allocated one man to perform work in the bek's house, and one woman was allocated every 15 houses. The work of women as servants caused particular discontent among the peasants, and this rule was soon abolished.
Each peasant family allocated one man to work on the bek's farm for a period of no more than 18 days. All the peasants of the village were supposed to go out together for evrez (subbotnik) for farm work at the landowner two days a year.
Peasants living on private lands had the right to transfer to another owner.
"Regulations" provided the feudal lords with police and judicial power over the peasants.
State peasants
There were two categories of peasants in Azerbaijan: state and landowners. Most of the peasants lived on state lands. Previously, peasants had the right to move from one place to another. In 1853, the state abolished this right, but this did not interfere with the process of resettlement. According to the new tax system introduced in Northern Azerbaijan in 1852, state peasants had to pay taxes to the treasury not in kind, but in money. Therefore, the new tax reform complicated the position of the peasants.
South Azerbaijan in the 30-50s of the XIX century.
Socio-economic situation. In the 30-50s of the 19th century, the basis of the economy in South Azerbaijan was cattle breeding and agriculture. Using artificial irrigation, both cereals and industrial crops (cotton, tobacco) were grown. Crafts played an important role in the socio-economic life of cities. Finished products imported from Europe caused damage to weaving, but industries such as the production of carpets and felt products had no competition and developed according to market laws.
Manufactory-type enterprises also developed in the cities of South Azerbaijan. The cities of South Azerbaijan (Tabriz, Maraga, Urmia, etc.) played a significant role in expanding trade relations with Asia. European companies have opened their shopping center. About half of all goods exported from Tabriz in 1833-1851 were exported to Russia.
Socio-political structure
Feudal relations continued to exist in South Azerbaijan in the middle of the 19th century. The main part of the country's population were peasants. In the middle of the 19th century, the following forms of land ownership existed: tiyul, mulk, ilati, vakf, khirdamalik, etc. Tiyul lands were granted for civil or military merits; it was impossible to sell or donate these lands.
The lands of the ilati (Elyat lands) were allocated by the shah to the entire tribe, leading a sedentary or semi-nomadic lifestyle, for military services to the state.
Mülk is land that is privately owned by a feudal lord.
Waqf is a form of land ownership of spiritual institutions.
Khirdamalik is the own land of a small part of the peasants of South Azerbaijan.
Peasants, as a rule, in accordance with the conditions of production, gave more than half of the harvest to the owner of the land as rent and to the state as a tax.
The privileged part of the population of the cities were ayans and ashrafs. Only craftsmen and merchants who united in unions (guilds) paid the tax to the state. The richest and most respected of the merchants headed the union and bore the title of Melikuttujar.
After the conclusion of the Gulistan Treaty, South Azerbaijan became one of the four regions of Iran. In South Azerbaijan, a number of khanates were liquidated, with the exception of the powerful khanates of Maku, Urmia, Namin, Gerger, who retained their internal independence. Provinces were created on the site of the former khanates.
During the reign of the Qajar dynasty, special attention was paid to South Azerbaijan. From the time of Fatali Shah (1797-1834), South Azerbaijan was called “valiahdneshin” (place of residence of the heir), and Tabriz was called “daryus-saltan” (residence of the heir).
Babid movement
In the middle of the 19th century, the political and economic situation in South Azerbaijan, the arbitrariness of state officials continued to worsen life ordinary people, merchants and artisans. These factors led to massive unrest in the country.
The basis of the popular movement was the teachings of the Babid sect headed by Seyid Ali Mohammed. The main goals of the Baba were set forth in his work "Bayan", which reflected the dreams of merchants, artisans and peasants. The Babid movement was directed against the feudal lords, the higher clergy and foreign capital. According to the teachings of the Bab, in order to get rid of the oppression of feudal lords and foreign capital, the time has come to appear to Imam Mehdi. Seyid Ali Mohammed at first declared himself an intermediary of Imam Mehdi. The teachings of the Baba proclaimed the equality of men and women. This idea attracted many women to participate in the movement. Mujtahid Qazvin's daughter Zarrintaj was an activist in this movement. The followers of Zarrintaj called her Gurretulein (Light of the Eyes), and the people called her Tahira (Pure of the Pure). In 1852, she was secretly assassinated by supporters of the Iranian government. The Babid movement, which spanned 1848-1852, reached its peak in Zanjan. In 1850, the rebels occupied the city fortress. Babid families also participated in the uprising. But the Zanjan uprising led by Molla Mohammed in December 1850 was crushed.
The Babid uprising was one of the first armed uprisings on the eve of Iran's transition from feudalism to capitalism.
Federal Agency for Education
Volgograd State Technical University
Department of History, Culture and Sociology
Essay on national history
“The social movement of the 30-50s. 19th century"
Volgograd 2010
Content
2.1Slavophilism 6
2.2Westernism 8
Introduction
In the first half of the XIX century. ideological and socio-political struggle has intensified all over the world. Russia was no exception. However, if in a number of countries this struggle ended in the victory of bourgeois revolutions and national liberation movements, then in Russia the ruling elite managed to maintain the existing economic and socio-political system.
During the reign of Alexander I, a situation developed that contributed to the emergence of reformist projects and constitutional sentiments among the advanced and educated part of Russian society, prompting them to draw up radical plans for state reforms. This contributed to the emergence of the activities of the Decembrists, which became a significant event in Russian history. However, the insufficient preparedness of society for transformations, inconsistency in actions, and expectant tactics led to the defeat of the Decembrists.
The new period of Russian history, which came after the defeat of the Decembrists, is associated with the personality of Nicholas I. The Nikolaev government took a number of measures to strengthen the police and strengthen censorship. In a society terrorized by the massacre of the Decembrists, they looked for the slightest manifestations of “sedition”. The initiated cases were inflated in every possible way, presented to the tsar as a “terrible conspiracy”, the participants of which received exorbitantly heavy punishments. But it didn't lead to a decline. social movement. It revived. Various St. Petersburg and Moscow salons, circles of officers and officials, higher educational institutions, literary magazines, etc. became centers for the development of social thought. In the social movement of the second quarter of the 19th century, three ideological directions emerged: conservative (adherents of government ideology), liberal and radical (adherents of revolutionary ideology).
conservative ideology.
The Decembrist uprising was suppressed, but it emphasized the inevitability of change, forced the social movement of subsequent decades to seek their own solutions to the pressing problems of Russian life. A new stage in the social movement in Russia begins in the 1830s, when A.I. Herzen and N.V. Stankevich. Outwardly, they looked like literary and philosophical associations, but in reality they played an important practical role in the ideological life of the empire.
The Nikolaev government tried to develop its own ideology, introduce it into schools, universities, the press, and educate the young generation devoted to the autocracy. Uvarov became the main ideologist of the autocracy. In the past, a freethinker who was friends with many Decembrists, he put forward the so-called “theory of official nationality” (“autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality”). Its meaning consisted in opposing the noble-intellectual revolutionary spirit and the passivity of the masses, observed from the end of the 18th century. Liberation ideas were presented as a superficial phenomenon, common only among the “corrupted” part of an educated society. The passivity of the peasantry, its patriarchal piety, and steadfast faith in the tsar were portrayed as “original” and “original” traits of the people's character. Other peoples, Uvarov assured, “do not know peace and are weakened by diversity of thought,” and Russia “is strong with unparalleled unanimity - here the tsar loves the Fatherland in the person of the people and rules them like a father, guided by laws, and the people do not know how to separate the Fatherland from the king and sees in him his happiness, strength and glory.
The social task of the “official nationality” was to prove the “originality” and “legitimacy” of serfdom and monarchical rule. Serfdom was declared a “normal” and “natural” social condition, one of the most important foundations of Russia, “a tree that overshadows the church and the throne.” Autocracy and serfdom were called "sacred and inviolable." Patriarchal, “calm”, without social storms, revolutionary upheavals, Russia was opposed to the “rebellious” West. In this spirit, it was prescribed to write literary and historical works, and all education was to be permeated with these principles.
The main "inspirer" and "conductor" of the theory of "official nationality" was undoubtedly Nicholas I himself, and the Minister of Public Education, reactionary professors and journalists acted as its zealous conductors. The main "interpreters" of the theory of "official nationality" were professors of Moscow University - philologist S.P. Shevyrevi historian M.P. Po-godin, journalists N.I. Grech and F.V. Bulgarin. So, Shevyrev in his article “The History of Russian Literature, Mostly Ancient” (1841) considered humility and humiliation of the individual to be the highest ideal. According to him, “our Russia is strong with three fundamental feelings and its future is certain”: this is “an ancient feeling of religiosity”; “a sense of its state unity” and “awareness of our nationality” as a “powerful barrier” to all “temptations” that come from the West. Pogodin argued the “beneficence” of serfdom, the absence of class enmity in Russia and, consequently, the absence of conditions for revolutionary upheavals. According to him, the history of Russia, although it did not have such a variety of major events and brilliance as the Western one, it was “rich in wise sovereigns”, “glorious deeds”, “high virtues”. Pogodin proved the primordiality of autocracy in Russia, starting with Rurik. In his opinion, Russia, having adopted Christianity from Byzantium, established “true enlightenment” thanks to this. From Peter the Great, Russia had to borrow a lot from the West, but, unfortunately, it borrowed not only useful things, but also “delusions”. Now "it's time to return it to the true principles of nationality." With the establishment of these principles, "Russian life will finally settle down on the true path of prosperity, and Russia will assimilate the fruits of civilization without its delusions."
The theorists of the “official nationality” argued that the best order of things dominated in Russia, consistent with the requirements of religion and “political wisdom”. Serfdom, although in need of improvement, retains much of the patriarchal (i.e., positive), and a good landowner guards the interests of the peasants better than they could do it themselves, and the position of the Russian peasant is better than that of the Western European worker.
Uvarov's theory, which at that time seemed to rest on very solid foundations, nevertheless had one major flaw. She had no perspective. If the existing order in Russia is so good, if there is complete harmony between the government and the people, then there is no need to change or improve anything. The crisis of this theory came under the influence of military failures during the years of the Crimean War, when the failure of the Nikolaev political system became clear even to its adherents (for example, M.P. Pogodin, who criticized this system in his “Historical and Political Letters” addressed to Nicholas I , and then Alexander II).
liberal direction
Slavophilism
Since the end of the 30s. the liberal direction took the form of the ideological currents of Westernism and Slavophilism . They did not have their own printed organs (until 1856), and discussions took place in literary salons.
Slavophiles - mostly thinkers and publicists (A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky. I.S. and K.S. Aksakov, N.Ya. Danilevsky) idealized pre-Petrine Russia, insisted on its identity, which they saw in the peasant community, alien to social hostility, and in Orthodoxy. These features, in their opinion, should have ensured a peaceful path of social transformation in the country. Russia was supposed to return to the Zemsky Sobors, but without serfdom.
Westerners - predominantly historians and writers (I.S. Turgenev, T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin, M.N. Katkov) were supporters of the European path of development and advocated a peaceful transition to a parliamentary system.
However, the main positions of the Slavophiles and the Westerners coincided: they advocated political and social reforms from above, against revolutions.
The starting date of Slavophilism as an ideological trend in Russian social thought should be considered 1839, when two of its founders, Alexei Khomyakov and Ivan Kireevsky, published articles: the first - "On the Old and the New", the second - "In response to Khomyakov", in which the main provisions of the Slavophil doctrine were formulated. Both articles were not intended for publication, but were widely circulated in the lists and were animatedly discussed. Of course, even before these articles, various representatives of Russian social thought expressed Slavic-Nophile ideas, but they had not yet acquired a coherent system. Finally, Slavophilism was formed in 1845 by the time of the publication of three Slavophile books of the Moskvityanin magazine. The journal was not Slavophile, but M.P. was its editor. Pogodin, who willingly provided the Slavic-Nophiles with the opportunity to publish their articles in it. In 1839 - 1845. a Slavophile circle also formed. The soul of this circle was A.S. Khomyakov - "Ilya Muromets of Slavophilism", as he was then called, is an intelligent, energetic, brilliant polemicist, unusually gifted, possessing a phenomenal memory and great erudition. Brothers I.V. also played a big role in the circle. and P.V. Ki-reevsky. The circle included the brothers K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, A.I. Koshelev, Yu.F. Samarin. Later, it included the father of the Aksakov brothers S.T. Aksakov, famous Russian writer, F.V. Chizhov and D.A. Valuev. The Slavophiles left a rich legacy in philosophy, literature, history, theology, and economics. Ivan and Peter Kireevsky were considered recognized authorities in the field of theology, history and literature, Aleksey Khomyakov - in theology, Konstantin Aksakov and Dmitry Valuev were engaged in Russian history, Yuri Samarin - in socio-economic and political problems, Fedor Chizhov - in the history of literature and art. Twice (in 1848 and 1855) the Slavophiles tried to create their own political programs.
The term "Slavophiles" is essentially accidental. This name was given to them by their ideological opponents - Westerners in the heat of controversy. The Slavophils themselves initially denied this name, considering themselves not Slavophiles, but “Russo-lovers” or “Russophiles”, emphasizing that they were mainly interested in the fate of Russia, the Russian people, and not the Slavs in general. A.I. Koshelev pointed out that they should most likely be called "natives" or, more precisely, "original people", because their main goal was to protect the originality of the historical fate of the Russian people, not only in comparison with the West, but also with the East. The early Slavophilism (before the reform of 1861) was also not characterized by pan-Slavism, which was inherent in the already late (post-reform) Slavophilism. Slavophilism as an ideological and political trend in Russian social thought leaves the stage around the middle of the 70s of the 19th century.
The main thesis of the Slavophiles is proof of the original ways of Russia's development, more precisely, the demand to "follow this path", the idealization of "original" institutions, primarily the peasant community and the Orthodox Church.
The government was wary of the Slavophiles: they were forbidden to wear demonstrative beards and Russian dresses, some of the Slavophiles were imprisoned for several months in the Peter and Paul Fortress for harshness of statements. All attempts to publish Slavophile newspapers and magazines were immediately suppressed. The Slavophils were subjected to persecution in the context of the strengthening of the reactionary political course under the influence of the Western European revolutions of 1848-1849. This forced them to curtail their activities for a while. In the late 50s - early 60s, A.I. Koshelev, Yu.F. Samarin, V.A. Cherkassky are active participants in the preparation and implementation of the peasant reform.
Westernism
Westernism , like Slavophilism, arose at the turn of the 30s - 40s of the XIX century. The Moscow circle of Westerners took shape in 1841-1842. Contemporaries interpreted Westernism very broadly, including among Westerners in general all those who opposed the Slavophiles in their ideological disputes. The Westernizers, along with such moderate liberals as P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, N.Kh. Ketcher, V.F. Korsh, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev. However, Belinsky and Herzen called themselves "Westerners" in their disputes with the Slavophiles.
In terms of their social origin and status, most Westerners, like the Slavophiles, belonged to the noble intelligentsia. Among the Westerners were well-known professors of Moscow University - historians T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Solovyov, jurists M.N. Katkov, K.D. Kavelin, philologist F.I. Buslaev, as well as prominent writers I.I. Panaev, I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov, later N.A. Nekrasov.
The Westerners opposed themselves to the Slavophiles in disputes about the ways of Russia's development. They argued that although Russia was “belated”, it was following the same path of historical development as all Western European countries, they advocated its Europeanization.
Westerners glorified Peter I, who, as they said, "saved Russia." They considered the activities of Peter as the first phase of the renewal of the country, the second should begin with reforms from above - they will be an alternative to the path of revolutionary upheavals. Professors of history and law (for example, S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin) great importance gave the role of state power in the history of Russia and became the founders of the so-called state school in Russian historiography. Here they were based on the scheme of Hegel, who considered the state to be the creator of the development of human society.
Westerners propagated their ideas from university departments, in articles published in the Moscow Observer, Moskovskie Vedomosti, Otechestvennye Zapiski, and later in Russkiy Vestnik and Ateney. Readable T.N. Granovsky in 1843 - 1851. cycles of public lectures on Western European history, in which he proved the commonality of the laws of the historical process in Russia and Western European countries Ah, according to Herzen, "he made propaganda history." Westernizers also made extensive use of Moscow salons, where they “fought” with the Slavophiles and where the enlightened elite of Moscow society gathered to see “who will finish whom and how they will finish him himself.” Heated debates broke out. Speeches were prepared in advance, articles and treatises were written. Herzen was especially sophisticated in polemical fervor against the Slavic-nofils. It was an outlet in the deadly atmosphere of Nikolaev Russia.
Despite differences in views, Slavophiles and Westernizers grew up from the same root. Almost all of them belonged to the most educated part of the noble intelligentsia, being prominent writers, scientists, publicists. Most of them were students of Moscow University. The theoretical basis of their views was German classical philosophy. Both those and others were worried about the fate of Russia, the ways of its development. Both those and others acted as opponents of the Nikolaev system. “We, like the two-faced Janus, looked in different directions, but our hearts were the same,” Herzen would later say.
It must be said that all directions of Russian social thought, from the reactionary to the revolutionary, advocated for “nationality”, putting completely different content into this concept. The revolutionary considered “people” in terms of the democratization of national culture and enlightenment of the masses in the spirit of advanced ideas, saw in the masses the social support of revolutionary transformations.
revolutionary direction
The revolutionary direction was formed around the magazines Sovremennik and Domestic Notes, which were led by V.G. Belinsky with the participation of A.I. Herzen and N.A. Non-beautiful. Supporters of this direction also believed that Russia would follow the European path of development, but, unlike the liberals, they believed that revolutionary upheavals were inevitable.
Until the mid 50s. the revolution was a necessary condition for the abolition of serfdom for A.I. Herzen . Separating themselves in the late 40s. from Westernism, he came to the idea of \u200b\u200b"Russian socialism", which was based on the free development of the Russian community and artel in conjunction with the ideas of European socialism and assumed self-government on a national scale and public ownership of land.
A characteristic phenomenon in Russian literature and journalism of that time was the distribution of “seditious” poems, political pamphlets and journalistic “letters” in the lists, which, under the then censorship conditions, could not appear in print. Among them, the written in 1847 Belinsky “ Letter to Gogol ”. The reason for his writing was the publication in 1846 by Gogol of the religious and philosophical work “Selected passages from correspondence with friends”. In a review of the book published in Sovremennik, Belinsky wrote in harsh terms about the author's betrayal of his creative heritage, about his religiously “humble” views, and self-humiliation. Gogol considered himself insulted and sent a letter to Belinsky, in which he regarded his review as a manifestation of personal hostility towards himself. This prompted Belinsky to write his famous Letter to Gogol.
The “Letter” sharply criticized the system of Nicholas Russia, which, according to Belinsky, “is a terrible sight of a country where people traffic in people where there are not only no guarantees for personality, honor and property, but there is not even a police order, but there are only huge corporations of various official thieves and robbers”. Belinsky also attacks the official church - the servant of the autocracy, proves the "deep atheism" of the Russian people and questions the religiosity of church pastors. He does not spare the famous writer either, calling him “a preacher of the whip, an apostle of ignorance, a champion of obscurantism and obscurantism, a panegyrist of Tatar morals.”
The most immediate, urgent tasks facing Russia at that time, Belinsky formulated as follows: “The abolition of serfdom, the abolition of corporal punishment, the introduction, if possible, of strict enforcement of at least those laws that already exist.” Belinsky's letter was distributed in thousands of lists and caused a great public outcry.
P. Ya. became an independent figure in the ideological opposition to the Nikolaev rule. Chaadaev (1794 - 1856). A graduate of Moscow University, a participant in the battle of Borodino and the "battle of the peoples" near Leipzig, a friend of the Decembrists and A.S. Pushkin, in 1836 he published in the journal Teleskop the first of his Philosophical Letters, which, according to Herzen, "shook all thinking Russia." Rejecting the official theory of Russia's "wonderful" past and "magnificent" present, Chaadaev gave a very gloomy assessment of Russia's historical past and its role in world history; he was extremely pessimistic about the possibilities of social progress in Russia. Chaadaev considered the main reason for Russia's separation from the European historical tradition to be the rejection of Catholicism in favor of the religion of serf slavery - Orthodoxy. The government regarded the "Letter" as an anti-government speech: the magazine was closed, the publisher was sent into exile, the censor was fired, and Chaadaev was declared insane and placed under police supervision.
A prominent place in the history of the liberation movement of the 1940s is occupied by the activities of the Petrashevsky circle. . The founder of the circle was a young official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a graduate of the Alexander (Tsarskoye Selo) Lyceum M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky. Starting from the winter of 1845, teachers, writers, petty officials, senior students, that is, mostly young intelligentsia, gathered at his St. Petersburg apartment every Friday. F.M. Dostoevsky, A.N. Maykov, A.N. Pleshcheev, M.E. Saltykov, A.G. Rubinstein, P.P. Semenov. Later, advanced military youth began to appear on Petrashevsky Fridays.
First of all, Petrashevsky himself and many members of his circle were interested in the then fashionable problems of socialism. Petrashevsky even made an attempt to propagate socialist and materialist ideas in the press.
Since the winter of 1846/47, the nature of the circle began to change noticeably. From the discussion of literary and scientific novelties, the members of the circle moved on to the discussion of pressing political problems and criticism of the existing political system in Russia. The most moderate in views members of the circle move away from him. But there are new people, more radical views, for example, I.M. Debu, N.P. Grigoriev, A.I. Palm, P.N. Filippov, F.G. Tol, who spoke in favor of violent measures (“to produce a rebellion inside Russia through a peasant uprising”) to overthrow the autocracy, liberate the peasants from the land, introduce a parliamentary republic with universal suffrage, an open and equal court for all, freedom of the press, speech, religion . The group of people who shared these ideas was headed by Speshnev. Petrashevsky took a more moderate position: a constitutional monarchy, the emancipation of the peasants from above, giving them the land they owned, but without any ransom for it.
By 1848, meetings at Petrashevsky's were already taking on a pronounced political character. The circle discusses the future political structure of Russia and the problem of revolution. In March-April 1849, the Petrashevites set about creating a secret organization and even began to make plans for an armed uprising. N.P. Grigoriev drafted a proclamation to the soldiers - "Soldier's Conversation". A printing press was purchased for the secret printing house. At this, the activities of the circle were interrupted by government repressions. The Ministry of Internal Affairs had been following the Petrashevites for several months through an agent sent to them, who gave detailed written reports on everything that was said at the next “Friday”.
In April 1849, the most active members of the circle were arrested; death penalty. At the last moment, the condemned were announced that the death penalty would be replaced by hard labor, prison companies and exile to the settlement.
The period called by Herzen "the era of excitement of intellectual interests" , lasted until 1848. Reaction came in Russia, Herzen went abroad, Belinsky died. A new revival came only in 1856.
Conclusion
A new stage in the social movement in Russia begins in the 1830s, when A.I. Herzen and N.V. Stankevich. Outwardly, they looked like literary and philosophical associations, but in reality they played an important practical role in the ideological life of the empire.
European revolutions 1848-1849 had a huge impact on the Russian revolutionary movement. Many of its participants were forced to abandon their former views and beliefs, primarily from the hope that Europe would show all mankind the path to universal equality and fraternity.
Herzen believed that a revolution in Russia, if needed, did not necessarily have to result in a bloody act. From his point of view, it was enough to free the community from the supervision of the landowners and officials, and the communal order, supported by 90% of the country's population, would have triumphed.
It is probably superfluous to say that Herzen's ideas were a beautiful utopia, since the implementation of his plan would open the way for the rapid development of capitalism in Russia, but not the socialist order. However, the theory of communal socialism became the banner of a whole revolutionary direction, since its implementation depended not on the support of those in power or wealthy patrons, but on the determination and activity of the revolutionaries themselves. Ten years later, Herzen's theory gathered Russian revolutionary populism under its banner.
In the early 1850s the Russian populist, revolutionary-democratic camp was just beginning to take shape, and therefore was far from unity and did not have a noticeable influence on the political affairs of the country. It included three types of actors. Some (Herzen, Ogarev) recognized the revolution only as the last argument of the oppressed. The second (Chernyshevsky, N. Serno-Solovyevich) believed in revolution as the only method of social reorganization, but believed that certain socio-economic and political prerequisites should ripen for it to be carried out.
All the leaders of the revolutionary camp, of course, were waiting for the all-Russian peasant uprising in 1861-1863. (as a response to the difficult conditions for the masses of the peasant reform), which could develop into a revolution. However, they waited for him with different feelings. The first two directions in the revolutionary movement could not part with the anxiety that at one time made the Decembrists hope for a military revolution and not try to win the masses over to their side. The essence of this anxiety was that the politically illiterate, unorganized peasant masses, as history shows, easily become a blind weapon in the hands of the most reactionary forces.
List of used literature
Social and economic development of Russia in the second and third half XIX century
Coursework >> HistoryUniversities gradually fractured public opinion. In 1830- ... as a result, a general traffic. Except for a few... S. Ivanovo. In the middle 50 -X gg. XIX century in Shuisky district, there was ... a phase of its development ( 30 -50 -e gg.) passed under conditions...
conservative traffic in the Russian Empire in the 2nd half XIX century
Coursework >> History... publicly-political movements in Russia in the second half XIX century"6. General development public movements in XIX century... Alexander II 30 March 1856 ... at the end 50 's, ... XIX century/ Comp. A.A. Utkin. - Elabuga: Publishing House of YSPU, 2006. - Part 2. 1825 - 1855 gg ...
Legal regulation of industrial production in the second half XIX early XX centuries
Abstract >> State and lawIndustry was hindered by feudal foundations. Russia 30 -50 -X gg. XIX century could be characterized as a country... XX century trade relations among the Russian bourgeoisie prevailed over industrial ones. Climb public movements ...
Korshelov V.A. Domestic history of the XIX century. M.: AGAR, 2000. - 522p.
Kuznetsova F.S. History of Siberia. Part 1. Novosibirsk, 1997.
Miller G.F. History of Siberia. M., L., 1977.
second half 30 -s XX century England and... Broad socio-political and ideological public traffic in Western and Central Europe... Veche. 65. Representatives publicly-political trend at 40 - 50 gg. XIX c., adhering to the doctrine...
The first half of the 19th century is characterized by the aggravation of the ideological and political situation in Russia. This was due to the lag in development from European countries. The understanding of the situation was present not only among the entire progressive part of society, the landlords also adhered to the same opinion. The sovereigns, Alexander I and Nicholas I, also realized the need for reforms. But no changes were made during their reign. Ideas for improving society were also present in Europe, but there it was expressed in the improvement of the bourgeoisie. Russian ideologists, on the other hand, focused on breaking autocracy and serfdom, since industry was only in its infancy.
The origin of the ideological movement took place only in the advanced part of the nobility. In other estates, such ideas did not arise for the following reasons:
The feudal peasantry was uneducated and could not understand the situation.
The understanding of this issue only reached the landlords, since they were closely connected with the land.
The bourgeoisie as a class has not yet formed.
Under these conditions, the progressive nobility did not always find a response in their views from the rest of the class.
The social movement at the beginning of the 19th century began to manifest itself in the formation of political circles and organizations, which are presented in the table.
Name of the organization | Description of activity |
---|---|
Circle "Choka" | In 1811 it was created by Muravyov. It consisted of 7 people. Had an illusory goal to form a republic on Sakhalin Island |
Union of Salvation | This is a political organization of future Decembrists, formed in 1816. Its founders were Pestel, Muravyov, Trubetskoy. Its program included the overthrow of the autocracy and the elimination of serfdom. However, some members held different views. They wanted a constitutional monarchy. |
Welfare Union | The organization existed from 1818 to 1821. The leaders were Muravyov, Muravyov-Apostles, Yakushkin and Lunin. It had its own program, recorded in the "Green Book". It spoke of the need to overthrow the autocracy and eliminate serfdom by force. The organization operated semi-legally. In order to implement the program, the serfs were bought out with their subsequent release into the wild. |
northern society | Educated in St. Petersburg since 1821. Muravyov was its leader. The organization operated jointly with the Southern Society. She advocated the formation of a parliament and vesting it with legislative power. At the same time, the executive branch was given to the monarch. Gave impetus to the uprising of the Decembrists in St. Petersburg |
Southern Society | It was formed in 1821 by Pestel in Ukraine. This man was of the opinion of building a republican system. It was this organization that paved the way for the uprising of the future Decembrists in the south |
Decembrist revolt
By 1825, anarchy was formed in the state for a certain period. After the death of Alexander I, Constantine was to ascend the throne. However, he refused such a high position. Nicholas I for a long time did not dare to take the place of his elder brother. This time was the best suited for the Decembrist uprising.
Causes of the uprising
After the war of 1812 with France, Russian officers crossed the border and saw the European standard of living. This produced a turning point in the ideology of the progressive part of society, which led to the future uprising of the Decembrists.
The reasons for it were as follows:
- Industrial backwardness of Russia. In Europe, manual labor was replaced by machines.
- Lack of democracy and freedom of speech.
- The repressive actions shown by the emperors in relation to the peasantry.
The leaders of the Northern Society issued a Manifesto demanding the elimination of autocracy and serfdom. This document was sent to the Senate.
The course of the uprising in St. Petersburg
- Moscow regiment.
- Sailors of the Guards crew.
- Some units of the Petersburg garrison.
- Simple people.
If the number of soldiers among the rebels reached 3,000 people, then more than 10,000 thousand ordinary people gathered. Nicholas I, who had already managed to take power into his own hands, put up government troops in the amount of 12,000 people.
An appeal to the rebels with a demand to disperse did not lead to anything. Then, from the side of the sovereign, an order was given to give a blank artillery shot. He didn't get any results either. A volley of grapeshot followed, followed by an offensive by government troops. The rebels were pushed back from the square. A mass exodus began. Many fell on the fragile ice of the Neva and drowned. The uprising was put down.
Reasons for the defeat
The main causes of failure include:
- Insufficient preparedness of society for a revolution.
- Weak propaganda.
- Poor coordination of actions during the uprising.
The main stake was placed on a conspiracy and a subsequent military coup. This was clearly not enough.
Movement in the second quarter of the 19th century
Despite the defeat of the Decembrists, the social movement continued to develop. It was divided into 3 directions, which are presented in the table.
Directions | Policy |
---|---|
Conservatives | They preached the idea of strengthening autocracy and serfdom. It was believed that only a monarchy could rule in Russia, and serfdom is a blessing to the people. |
liberals | They were divided into Slavophiles and Westerners. Both currents wanted to eliminate the monarchy and serfdom. However, there were also differences in ideological views. The Slavophils were guided by the originality of Russia, relying on the times of the pre-Petrine era. Westerners, on the other hand, saw the development of the state in line with European countries. |
Radicals | They fully supported the ideology of the Decembrists. We saw the mistakes they made and had a program to overcome them. |
Petrashevtsy
So the members of the circle began to be called, which was formed in the 40s of the 19th century by Butashevich-Petrashevsky. This included such prominent writers as Dostoevsky and Saltykov-Shchedrin. Together they created the first library on humanities. It could be used not only by residents of St. Petersburg, but also by the population of the provinces. Members of the circle held regular meetings, which were called "Friday". They discussed political issues related to the future of Russia. In order to convey their views to wide circles of society, the Petrashevites published a Pocket Dictionary of Foreign Words. It contained a description of European socialist doctrines.
In 1849 the circle was opened. The leaders were sentenced to death, but later the punishment was commuted to life imprisonment.
Socialist ideas in Russia
The beginning of the development of socialist ideas in Russia is inextricably linked with Herzen. Being engaged in literary activity in the period of 30-40 years, he realized that he would not have the opportunity for fruitful work due to the lack of freedom of speech. The works he published were directed against violence and enslavement. Therefore, in 1847, he moved abroad, where he published the newspaper "The Bell" and published a collection of books "Polar Star".
In his vision, Russia was to take the socialist path of development. He believed that the abolition of private ownership of land would be a boon to the peasants. Working in the peasant community, they will create a strong cell of socialist society.
He did not have clear explanations of how this would happen. However, his theory became the starting point for the future activities of the revolutionary Narodniks of the 70s.
The historical significance of the social movement of this period
Despite the failure of the December uprising, the social movement of the first half of the 19th century left its mark on the history of Russia. It consisted of the following:
The authorities heard the demands of the people and were frightened by them.
Changes have taken place in the army. The soldiers had their service life reduced.
The Decembrists sent to Siberia influenced the cultural development of the territory.
At the end of the first half of the 19th century, the prerequisites were created for fundamental reforms carried out by the new Tsar Alexander II.
The results of the social movement
The result of the social movement in the first half of the 19th century was an intensified censorship terror. If during the time of Alexander I a liberal policy was observed here, then immediately after his death, Nicholas I adopted a new censorship charter. In the people, he received the name "cast iron". Its implementation was aimed at combating dangerous political organizations.
Especially censorship terror developed in the last 7 years of the reign of Nicholas I. A network of censorship institutions was created that suppressed any sprouts of dissent. Demandingness exceeded all reasonable measures.
Such actions of the authorities were aimed at retaining the autocracy by any means.