Revolutionary circles at this time did not arise by chance. “The very appearance of circles,” wrote Herzen, “was a natural response to the inner need of Russian life.” The circles that arose united, on the one hand, the advanced noble youth, and on the other, the raznochintsy.
At this time, circles were formed: the Kritsky brothers, Sungurov, Herzen and Ogarev, the Ponosov circle, the circle of Belinsky and Stankevich.
The earliest was the circle of the Cretan brothers (Mikhail, Vasily and Peter), which arose in 1827 among students of Moscow University. The Kritsky brothers, together with other members of the circle (about a dozen people in total), declared themselves to be the continuers of the struggle of the Decembrists. The circle of the Cretan brothers was of a political nature. Michael of Crete called the Decembrists great, considered the people who are under monarchical rule unfortunate. Members of the circle made a seal with the inscription "Liberty and death to a tyrant", an imprint of which was found on one of the papers. The members of the circle stood for the constitutional order. In the field of tactics of the revolutionary struggle, the members of the circle of the Cretan brothers did big step ahead of the Decembrists. They were not talking about a military coup, but about the need to raise a mass uprising, to make a revolution. The circle was opened and destroyed in 1827. Vasily and Mikhail of Kritsky were imprisoned in the Solovetsky Monastery, where Vasily died. Mikhail and Peter were later demoted to the soldiers.
The circle of N. P. Sungurov, a native of the small estate nobility, arose in 1831. According to Herzen, the direction of this circle was also political. The members of the circle set themselves the task of preparing an armed uprising. The members of this organization hoped to anger the “rabble”, seize the arsenal and distribute weapons to the people. The uprising was planned in Moscow. They considered it necessary to introduce a constitutional system in Russia, to kill the tsar. The circle did not last long, and in the same 1831 the arrest of its members followed. Sungurov himself was sentenced to exile in Siberia. From the first stage on Sparrow Hills, he tried to escape, but he did not succeed. He died at the Nerchinsk mines.
The circle of Herzen and Ogarev was formed in 1831, almost simultaneously with the circle of Sungurov. This circle was also secret and had a political character. The members of the circle of Herzen and Ogarev were predominantly students of Moscow University. It included Sokolovsky, Utkin, Ketcher, Sazonov, V. Passek, Maslov, Satin and some other persons. They gathered at parties, sang revolutionary songs, made speeches and recited poems of revolutionary content, talked about the constitution.
One of the songs written by an active member of the circle Sokolovsky, who sang at parties, was as follows:
Russian emperor
Gone to eternity
him operator
Belly ripped open.
The state is crying
All the people are crying
Comes to our kingdom
Constantine is a freak.
But the king of the universe
God of higher powers
blessed king
He handed over the diploma.
Manifesto reading,
The creator took pity
He gave us Nikolai, -
Son of a bitch, bastard.
In the views of the members of the circle of Herzen and Ogarev, a protest was expressed against the reactionary, stick regime created in the country by Nicholas I.
“Ideas were vague,” Herzen writes in Past and Thoughts, “we preached French Revolution, we preached Saint-Simonism and the same revolution. We preached the constitution and the republic, the reading of political books and the concentration of forces in one society. But most of all, we preached hatred for any violence, for any arbitrariness.
Through a provocateur III, the department learned of the existence of Herzen's circle, and soon, in 1834, its members were arrested. Two of them, Sokolovsky and Utkin, were imprisoned in the Shlisselburg fortress. Utkin died two years later in the casemate, and Sokolovsky - in exile in Pyatigorsk. Herzen was exiled to Perm, Ogarev and Obolensky - to Penza.
In 1830, Belinsky's circle was formed and existed until 1832, called the "Literary Society of the 11th Number." It consisted of students Petrov, Grigoriev, Chistyakov, Protopopov, Prozorov and others. In this circle, Belinsky's drama "Dmitry Kalinin" was discussed, in which he condemns serfdom with all its sharpness. Belinsky and the members of his circle were interested in questions of philosophy, and consequently, when Belinsky later joined Stankevich's circle, he was by no means a novice in questions of philosophy, as many authors incorrectly asserted in relation to Belinsky.
Stankevich's circle had a "speculative", scientific and philosophical direction. Stankevich had little interest in politics; his circle had as its main task the study of the philosophical views of that time. The circle studied the philosophy of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. The positions taken by Stankevich were moderate, liberal.
Stankevich's circle included: Belinsky, Granovsky, Bakunin, Herzen, the Aksakov brothers, the Kireevsky brothers and others. In Stankevich's circle were revolutionary democrats, as well as Westernizers and Slavophiles; the views of the representatives of these three directions sharply diverged from each other, which subsequently led to their struggle among themselves.
The role of Stankevich's circle was that in his circle he aroused among his most prominent contemporaries an interest in the study of philosophy and united for some time many progressive people of his era around him. For a short time Bakunin played an important role in the circle. After Bakunin's departure abroad in the early 1940s, the activities of Stankevich's former circle revived in connection with Herzen's return from exile. Herzen and a number of people close to him took up the study of philosophy. But Herzen approached the study of questions of philosophy differently than Stankevich. Herzen connected the study of philosophy with the tasks of the revolutionary struggle.
Attention should be paid to the attempt to create a revolutionary circle of employees, carried out in 1836 by Pyotr Ponosov at the Lazarevs' Chermes plant in the Urals; the circle included six young people: Ponosov, Michurin, Desyatov, Romanov, Nagulny and Mikhalev. They secretly drew up a "paper", which was a kind of charter on the creation of a "Secret Society for the Destruction of the Power of the Landlords over the Peasants". In it they wrote: "The yoke of slavery in Russia becomes more intolerable from time to time, and it must be assumed that in the future it will be even more intolerable."
They set the task of society: “... to gather well-meaning citizens into one society, which would do its best to overthrow the power that had appropriated it unjustly, and to speed up freedom. For this, noble citizens, let us overthrow slavery with united forces, restore freedom and through this we will earn the gratitude of posterity !!! This document was published in full in the collection Labor Movements in Russia in the 19th Century (vol. I, edited by A. M. Pankratova). Shortly after the signing of this document, six participants in the attempt to create a secret circle at the plant were arrested and, by order of Benckendorff, were transferred to the rank and file of the Finnish battalions. There were other attempts to create secret anti-serf organizations - by Zherebtsov, Romashev, Appelrod and some other persons.
Thus, we see that all attempts to create secret revolutionary organizations were suppressed by tsarism with the most cruel measures. But Nicholas I pursued not only the creation of secret circles and organizations, but also any attempt at free thinking.
The brilliant Russian poets A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov, talented poets Polezhaev, Pecherin and others became victims of his repressions. The landowner Lvov, Brizgda, Raevsky, the high school student Orlov and some other persons were arrested for anti-government statements. P. Ya. Chaadaev, who was close to the Decembrists, was also a victim of Nikolaev's despotism.
Popular site articles from the section "Dreams and Magic"
If you had a bad dream...
If you had some kind of bad dream, then it is remembered by almost everyone and does not go out of your head. long time. Often a person is frightened not so much by the content of the dream itself, but by its consequences, because most of us believe that we do not see dreams in vain. As scientists have found out, a bad dream is most often a dream of a person already in the morning..."Culture of the XIX century" - Vereshchagin v.V. (1842-1904). "Mighty Bunch". big water". "What is truth?" (Pontius Pilate and Christ). Trading lines. Savrasov a. K. (1830-1897). Aivazovsky I.K. (1817-1900). Architect A. Pomerantsev. On the island of Valaam. "Rainbow". I. Levitan. "Vladimirka". Yaroslavsky railway station in Moscow. C. A. Cui. F.O. Shekhtel.
"Russia XIX-XX" - Only at the beginning of the XX century, Russia embarked on the path of industrial development. 1. State structure 2. Population 3. Cultural level 4. The need to modernize society. Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the state. White - peace, purity, perfection. What is an industrial society? fourteen.
"Russian culture in the XIX century" - Classicism. A.S. Pushkin (1799-1837) M.Yu. Lermontov (1814-1841) N.V. Gogol (1809-1852). There are statues of Kutuzov and Barclay de Tolly on the square in front of the Kazan Cathedral. A.N. Voronikhin. The generally recognized founder of Russian classical music. Romanticism. Jacobi Boris Semyonovich. (1801-1874) - Russian physicist, academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1847).
"India XIX-XX century" - India, by the middle of the XIX century. was finally captured by the British. INC leaders. India entered the 20th century as a backward agrarian country with a slowly developing industry. The leaders of the radicals, including Tilak, ended up in jail. Liquidation of the East India Company. National wealth was still pumped to England.
"Russian literature of the XIX-XX centuries" - The socio-economic and general cultural prospects of Russia began to be assessed in a completely different way. The pictures of artistic trends and trends have changed dramatically. And we have no other property! Innokenty Annensky. The established system of spiritual values, which had previously seemed unchanged, was radically revised.
"Germany XIX-XX centuries" - In 1862 he was appointed to the post of Chancellor. North German Confederation. Lesson plan. German Empire in late XIX- the beginning of the XX century. New story. GOVERNMENT (Reich Chancellor). 35 sovereign monarchies. The system of government of the German Empire. German Union. Social legislation.<<Железный канцлер>>.
The most famous of the circles of the late 20s of the XIX century. was a circle or secret society of the Cretan brothers, formed in Moscow in late 1826 - early 1827 and uniting 6 members. All were children of raznochintsy, university students. The members of the organization saw a future Russia free from serfdom and autocracy. On the day of the coronation of Nicholas I, they scattered proclamations on Red Square, which condemned the monarchical government and called for his overthrow. The group was discovered by the police. All its participants, without trial, by the personal order of the tsar, were imprisoned in the casemates of the Solovetsky Monastery, and after 10 years they were given into the soldiers.
Leading place in the revolutionary movement of the early 30s of the XIX century. belonged to Moscow University, among the students of which or with his participation numerous circles arose associated with the names of N. P. Sungurov, V. G. Belinsky, N. V. Stankevich, A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev.
A graduate of Moscow University N. P. Sungurov in 1831 organized a secret society, which considered its main goal the introduction of a constitutional order in Russia, which would limit the despotism of the monarchs and give freedom to citizens. It included 26 young students. There was a lot of naive and immature in the plan of the Sungurites. This illegal society was crushed at the very beginning.
At the very beginning of the 1930s, a “literary society of 11 numbers” was formed at Moscow University (the name came from the number of the room where its members lived and gathered). It was a friendly literary circle, in the center of which stood the future critic V. G. Belinsky. Real Russian life, the fate of the country, the horror of serfdom, the protest against the "vile Russian reality" - these were the main questions that worried the assembled like-minded people.
Belinsky was expelled from the university with a hypocritical wording "due to poor health and limited abilities" (the pretext was the duration of Belinsky's illness - from January to May 1832). Belinsky was forced to do proofreading work, rewrite papers, get through private lessons and at the same time engage in self-education. At this time, he entered a new circle of students and graduates of the university, grouped around N. V. Stankevich (1839). Stankevich's circle consisted of people who were mainly interested in questions of philosophy and ethics, and developed under the influence of the ideas of the German philosopher Schelling, preached by professors V. Pavlov, with whom Stankevich lived.
In the 40s of the 19th century, Belinsky became a popular publicist and literary critic in Russia. Belinsky gave reviews of Russian literature, with articles on Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Koltsov and other Russian writers. Otechestvennye Zapiski and Sovremennik, in which Belinsky collaborated, became well-known journals, and each article by Belinsky, as contemporaries noted, was perceived by the radicals as a holiday. F. Bulgarin in his denunciations to the III Department repeatedly wrote that Belinsky was preaching revolution, "communism" and "terrorism": "first minister" of the magazine - Belinsky - "apostle".
The result of all Belinsky's activities is his "Letter to Gogol", which he wrote in 1847, being seriously ill, not long before his death. Criticizing Gogol for his "Selected passages from correspondence with friends" as a "preacher of the whip", "an apostle of ignorance", Belinsky contrasts his conservative views with a program for the revolutionary transformation of Russia "... not in asceticism ... but in successes civilization, enlightenment, humanity... Russia sees its salvation"; "The most important, modern national questions in Russia now are: the abolition of serfdom, the abolition of corporal punishment, the introduction of the strictest possible implementation of at least those laws that exist."
In 1831, a circle of A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev was formed, which had a sharp political orientation. The goal of the circle, which included N. I. Sazonov, N. M. Satin, N. Kh. Ketcher, V. V. Passek and others, was the revolutionary transformation of Russia. "We shook hands with each other," Herzen recalled, "and went to preach freedom and struggle in all four directions of our young universe." The ideology of the circle was vague and politically immature. “Ideas were vague,” Herzen wrote, “we preached the de-Kembrists and the French revolution, constitutional monarchy and the republic reading political books and concentrating forces in one society, but most of all they preached hatred for any violence, for any governmental arbitrariness ... ".
A. I. Herzen was the first who in Russian social movement adopted the ideas of the popular in the 30-40s. 19th century Western European utopian socialism. Relying on the existence of a peasant community in Russia, believing that it in itself is the germ of socialism, he created the theory of Russian communal socialism, giving a powerful impetus to the development of socialist thought in Russia. Seeing no possibility of an active struggle against the gloomy reality in Russia, experiencing hard the oppression of censorship, Herzen left Russia in 1847 to become a "free Russian word" abroad. Leaving Russia and settling in England, Herzen and Ogarev became the first political emigrants. In the early 50s. In the 19th century, they founded the Free Russian Printing House in London. The newspaper "Kolokol" published by them and the magazine "Polyarnaya Zvezda" were read with great interest by the progressive people of Russia.
A special place in the social and liberation movement of those years is occupied by the Petrashevsky circle (1844-1849), which received its name from its leader, M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky. The members of the circle were influenced by the ideas of modern French socialism - the ideas of Fourier - and discussed social issues at their meetings. Petrashevsky called himself "the oldest propagandist of socialism." M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin and F. M. Dostoevsky attended the meetings of Petrashevsky. Most of the Petrashevites, in contrast to the liberals (Westerners and Slavophiles), advocated a republican system, the complete liberation of the peasants without ransom. All members of the Petrashevsky circle (including the great Russian writer F. M. Dostoevsky) were arrested and sentenced to death, but then pardoned and exiled to hard labor in Siberia.
The revolutionary upsurge of the early 30s of the XIX century. Western Europe was replaced by a period of decline, the triumph of reactionary forces. For this time, moods of pessimism, despair, disbelief in the possibility of fighting for a better future are especially characteristic. These sentiments were vividly reflected in the first "Philosophical Letter" by P. Ya. Chaadaev, published in 1836 in the journal "Telescope".
A friend of A. S. Pushkin and the Decembrists, an officer in the reign of Alexander I, P. Ya. Chaadaev, was very upset by the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, resigned. The works of Chaadaev testified that their author had come to the most pessimistic conclusions, which included passionate attacks on Russia, its backwardness, lack of culture, the insignificance of its history, the misery of its present. Having lost hope for the possibility of social progress in Russia, he wrote: “Look around all the centuries we have lived through ... you will not find a single memory that rivets you ... We live only in the most limited present, without the past and without the future, in the midst of flat stagnation... Lonely in the world, we gave nothing to the world, took nothing from the world...".
Chaadaev wrote about the different historical paths of Russia and other European countries. He emphasized that all the peoples of Europe had a "common physiognomy", a "successive ideological heritage". Comparing this with historical traditions Russia, Chaadaev comes to the conclusion that its past was different: "First wild barbarism, then gross superstition, then - foreign domination, cruel, humiliating, the spirit of which the national authorities subsequently inherited - this is the sad story of our youth."
Chaadaev believed that all the troubles of Russia came from her excommunication from the "worldwide education of the human race", from national complacency and the spiritual stagnation associated with it. He considered the separation from the Catholic world to be the main trouble.
P. Ya. Chaadaev believed that the reason for the lagging behind was the separation of Russia from Europe and, in particular, the Orthodox worldview. Chaadaev argued that "Russia has nothing to be proud of before the West, on the contrary, it has not made any contribution to world culture, remained uninvolved in the most important processes in the history of mankind. " Chaadaev's letter is "a pitiless cry of pain and despair", "it was a shot that rang out in dark night"," a gloomy indictment against Russia. "(A. I. Herzen). Chaadaev's letter, as Herzen noted, "shook all thinking Russia." In the famous letter to P. Ya. Chaadaev dated October 19, 1836, A. S. Pushkin wrote: “Although personally I am cordially attached to the sovereign (to Nicholas I - L.P.), I am far from delighted with everything that I see around me; as a writer - they annoy me, as a person with prejudices - I am offended, but I swear on my honor that for nothing in the world I would not want to change my fatherland, or have a different history than the history of our ancestors, such as God is to us gave her."
The government severely cracked down on both Chaadaev and the publishers of this letter: the Teleskop magazine was closed, its editor N. I. Nadezhdin was expelled from Moscow and deprived of the right to engage in publishing and teaching activities. Chaadaev was declared crazy and placed under police control.
Conclusion.
Due to the lack of decisiveness, all of Nicholas's legislation on the peasants remained without practical consequences, which must be distinguished from changes in law. It is difficult to explain this inconsistency and this indecision. Among the shocks caused by the April 2 law, Kiselyov's papers also contain one curious objection, which was then often repeated. A certain nobleman said: “Why are we being tormented by these half-measures? Is there no supreme power in Russia that can order landowners to release their peasants to freedom with land or without land? The supreme power has the right to do this. would fulfill it." What could be said against this objection, coming from among the landlords, who were against the emancipation of the peasants? One must think that the lack of determination and consistency, the fear of using supreme authority are explained by the lack of familiarity with the environment and the present of that class, whose interests were mainly associated with serfdom. The nobility under Nicholas inspired more fear than under Alexander. Examining the papers of the unofficial committee that met under Alexander at the beginning of his reign, we find there such judgments of Count Stroganov about the nobility, which show that the statesmen of that time did not at all consider him an environment capable of giving opposition to the government.
Crimean War which began on October 23, 1853, was lost in 1856. The main reason for Russia's failures in the Crimean War was the backward feudal-serf economy, which was unable to withstand the burden of a long war. Hence other reasons: poor equipment and armament of the army and navy. Inept and indecisive leadership in combat operations. The Crimean War exacerbated the crisis of the feudal-serf system in Russia and accelerated the realization by the ruling circles of the inevitability of reforms.
The image of Nicholas I in later literature acquired a largely odious character, the emperor appeared as a symbol of stupid reaction and obscurantism, which clearly did not take into account the diversity of his personality. The severe psychological shock from military failures undermined Nikolai's health, and an accidental cold became fatal for him. Nicholas died in February 1855 at the height of the Sevastopol campaign. The defeat in the Crimean War significantly weakened Russia, and the Vienna system, which was based on the Austro-Prussian alliance, finally disintegrated. Russia lost its leading role in international affairs, giving way to France.
By the middle of the XIX century. the lag of Russia in the economic and socio-political spheres, from the advanced capitalist countries, was clearly expressed. A number of international events have revealed a significant weakening Russian state in the foreign policy area. This was fully denounced by the Crimean War (1853-1856), which revealed all the internal inconsistency of our fatherland, and our former way of life. And as a result, the need to carry out a complete transformation of many spheres of public life appeared.
This need for reform has become more and more tangible and urgent every day. But in the way of any improvement stood an insurmountable obstacle - serfdom. Therefore, the main goal of the internal policy of the government in the second half of the XIX century. was bringing the economic and socio-political system of Russia in line with the needs of the time. At the same time, at least important task was the preservation of autocracy and the dominant position of the nobility.
The reign of Emperor Alexander II (1855-1881) was marked by a number of "great reforms" that significantly advanced Russian life. Of these transformations, the most important are: the liberation of the peasants, in 1861, and the publication of the "regulations on the organization of the peasants", the granting to citizens in 1864 of a public, right, speedy, gracious and native court for all, zemstvo and city self-government, the publication in 1874 of the charter of military service, mandatory for all classes of the state, the establishment of a number of universities, the opening of women's gymnasiums and pro-gymnasiums, and the improvement of communications.
The activities of Alexander II ceased due to his death on March 1, 1881 at the hands of the killers, but in history the name “Liberator” was assigned to him.
The era of political reaction under Nicholas I was not, however, an era of spiritual slumber and stagnation for Russian society 24 . Although after December 14, 1825, the positions of an independently thinking society were greatly weakened. “Thirty years ago,” wrote A.I. Herzen in the late 50s of the 19th century, “the Russia of the future existed exclusively between a few boys who had just emerged from childhood, and in them was the heritage of universal science and purely folk Russia. New life this one vegetated like grass trying to grow on the lips of a crater that has not caught a cold. " Such "boys ... who came out of childhood" were A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev, who, under the direct influence of the Decembrist uprising, took an oath on the Vorobyovs mountains in Moscow (in 1826) to fight against the autocracy for freedom, for the liberation of the people (later A. I. Herzen wrote that "the Decembrists on Senate Square did not have enough people") Leaving Russia and settling in England, Herzen and Ogarev became They founded the Free Russian Printing House in London in the early 1950s, and the Kolokol newspaper and the Polar Star magazine, published by them, were read with great interest by the progressive people of Russia.
Despite government repressions, already at the end of the 20s of the 19th century there were attempts to continue the revolutionary traditions of the Decembrists, expressed in the distribution of freedom-loving poems, in the creation of illegal revolutionary circles, in anti-government conversations. Characteristically, these attempts did not take place in St. Petersburg, where the government press exerted the strongest pressure, but in Moscow or on a distant periphery. Along with the poems of A. S. Pushkin, the poems of K. F. Ryleev, his poem "Nalivaiko" and a letter to his wife from the Peter and Paul casemate 25 were illegally distributed.
The illegal distribution of poems by student A. Polezhaev in Moscow acquired public significance. The hero of his comic poem "Sashka" was a freedom-loving student who loved freedom, condemned flattery and hypocrisy and dreamed of the time when the power of "despicable executioners" would be overthrown.
As a response to the Decembrist uprising, his poems "Evening Dawn" were perceived:
A. Polezhaev was expelled from the university and given to the soldiers, where he soon died of consumption.
The most famous of the circles of the late 20s of the XIX century. was a circle or secret society of the Cretan brothers, formed in Moscow in late 1826 - early 1827 and uniting 6 members. All were children of raznochintsy, university students. The members of the organization saw a future Russia free from serfdom and autocracy. On the day of the coronation of Nicholas I, they scattered proclamations on Red Square, which condemned the monarchical government and called for his overthrow. The group was discovered by the police. All its participants, without trial, by the personal order of the tsar, were imprisoned in the casemates of the Solovetsky Monastery, and after 10 years they were given into the soldiers.
The leading place in the revolutionary movement of the early 30s [XIX century. belonged to Moscow University, among the students of which or with his participation numerous circles arose associated with the names of N. P. Sungurov, V. G. Belinsky, N. V. Stankevich, A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev.
In 1831, a graduate of Moscow University, N. P. Sungurov, organized a secret society, which considered its main goal the introduction of a constitutional order in Russia, which would limit despotism; monarchs and give freedom to the citizens. It included 26 young students. There was a lot of naive and immature in the plan of the Sungurites. This illegal society was crushed at the very beginning.
At the very beginning of the 1930s, a “literary society of 11 numbers” was formed at Moscow University (the name came from the number of the room where its members lived and gathered). It was a friendly literary circle, in the center of which stood the future critic V. G. Belinsky. Real Russian life, the fate of the country, the horror of serfdom, the protest against the "vile Russian reality" - these were the main questions that worried the assembled like-minded people. Here the students read and discussed the works of Pushkin, Griboedov's comedy Woe from Wit, which was still unpublished, Polezhaev's poems, discussed the problems of philosophy, aesthetics, but most of all they were worried about real life. Belinsky read here his youthful drama "Dmitry Kalinin", in which he expressed a sharp protest against serfdom, the suppression of some people by others.
Belinsky was expelled from the university with a hypocritical wording "due to poor health and limited abilities" (the pretext was the duration of Belinsky's illness - from; January to May 1832) 27 . Belinsky was forced to do proofreading work, rewrite papers, get through private lessons and at the same time engage in self-education. At this time, he entered a new circle of students and graduates of the university, grouped around N. V. Stankevich (183-839). The circle (Stankevich) consisted of people who were mainly interested in questions of philosophy and ethics, and developed under the influence of the ideas of the German philosopher Schelling, preached by professors V Pavlov, with whom Stankevich lived, and Nadezhdin.
The Stankevich circle exerted a noticeable influence on the ideological life of society. From it came the future Slavophiles (K. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin), Westerners (T. N. Granovsky, V. P. Botkin), revolutionaries (V. G. Belinsky, M. A. Bakunin), K D. Kavelin. The views of the members of the circle were moderate: the spread of enlightenment, which by itself supposedly should lead to a change in "public life."
In 1831, a circle of A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev was formed, which had a sharp political orientation. The goal of the circle, which included N. I. Sazonov, N. M. Satin, N. Kh. Ketcher, V. V. Passek and others, was the revolutionary transformation of Russia. “We shook hands with each other,” Herzen recalled, “and went to preach freedom and struggle in all four directions of our young Universe.” The ideology of the circle was vague and politically immature 28 . “Ideas were vague,” Herzen wrote, “we preached the Decembrists and the French Revolution, constitutional monarchy and republic; reading political books and concentrating forces in one society, but most of all we preached hatred for any violence, for any governmental arbitrariness ... ". Later, Herzen and his friends turned to utopian socialism, and above all, to Saint-Simonism. Herzen and Ogarev did not renounce the political struggle either, and remained "children of the Decembrists."
In 1834, Herzen and Ogarev were arrested for singing songs filled with "vile and malicious" expressions against the tsar, and after a long prison investigation they were sent without trial: Herzen - to serve in Perm, Vyatka, and then to Vladimir, Ogarev - to Penza .
The revolutionary upsurge of the early 30s of the XIX century. in Western Europe was replaced by a period of decline, the triumph of reactionary forces. For this time, moods of pessimism, despair, disbelief in the possibility of fighting for a better future are especially characteristic. These sentiments were vividly reflected in the first "Philosophical Letter" by P. Ya. Chaadaev, published in 1836 in the journal "Telescope".
A friend of A.S. Pushkin and the Decembrists, an officer in the reign of Alexander I, P.Ya. The works of Chaadaev testified that their author had come to the most pessimistic conclusions, which included passionate attacks on Russia, its backwardness, lack of culture, the insignificance of its history, the misery of its present. Having lost hope for the possibility of social progress in Russia, he wrote: “Look around all the centuries we have lived through ... you will not find a single memory that rives you ... We live only in the most limited present, without a past and without a future, among a flat stagnation... Lonely in the world, we gave nothing to the world, took nothing from the world...".
Chaadaev wrote about the different historical paths of Russia and other European countries. He emphasized that all the peoples of Europe had a "common physiognomy", "successive ideological heritage". Comparing this with the historical traditions of Russia, Chaadaev comes to the conclusion that her past was different: "First, wild barbarism, then gross superstition, then - foreign domination, cruel, humiliating, the spirit of which the national authorities subsequently inherited - this is the sad story of our youth" .
Chaadaev believed that all of Russia's troubles stemmed from her excommunication from the "world-wide education of the human race," from national complacency and the spiritual stagnation associated with it. He considered the separation from the Catholic world to be the main trouble.
"By the will of fateful fate, we turned for moral teaching, which was supposed to educate us, to corrupted Byzantium, to the subject of deep contempt of all peoples ... then, freed from the foreign yoke, we could use the ideas that have blossomed during this time among our brothers in the West, if only we were not torn away from the common family, we fell into slavery, even more difficult ... ".
P. Ya. Chaadaev believed that the reason for the lagging behind was the separation of Russia from Europe and, in particular, the Orthodox worldview. Chaadaev argued that "Russia has nothing to be proud of before the West, on the contrary, it has not made any contribution to world culture, it has remained uninvolved in the most important processes in the history of mankind." v Chaadaev's letter is "a pitiless cry of pain and despair", "it was a shot that rang out on a dark night", "a gloomy indictment against Russia". (A. I. Herzen). Chaadaev's letter, as Herzen noted, "shocked all thinking Russia." In the famous letter to P. Ya. Chaadaev dated October 19, 1836, A. S. Pushkin wrote: “Although personally I am cordially attached to the sovereign (to Nicholas I - L.P.), I am far from delighted with everything that I see around me ; as a writer - they annoy me, as a person with prejudices - I am offended, but I swear on my honor that for nothing in the world I would not want to change my fatherland, or have a different history than the history of our ancestors, such as God gave it to us " 31 .
The government severely cracked down on both Chaadaev and the publishers of this letter: the Teleskop magazine was closed, its editor, N. I. Nadezhdin, was expelled from Moscow and deprived of the right to engage in publishing and teaching activities. Chaadaev was declared insane and placed under police control.
Forms of leisure activities and entertainment for representatives of various classes of Russian society in the 18th - early 20th centuries.
Leisure sphere of life of Russian society in the XVIII. early 20th century was a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, reflecting all the originality historical development countries. The isolation of estates, their clear placement on the steps of the hierarchical social ladder, the definition of their rights and privileges led to the formation of rather closed leisure communities, within which their own ideas, views on leisure, norms and rules of behavior were developed. The autocratic regime, established in Russia, ensured stability for the established forms and methods of leisure pastime for many years. From the second half of XIX in. after the reforms associated with the abolition of serfdom, the situation began to change. Socio-political and economic changes that have taken place in society have led to the blurring of class boundaries, which was not long in affecting the leisure sector.
Leisure of the peasants.
In the XVIII - first half of the XIX centuries. the leisure of the Russian peasantry largely retained its traditional features. Over the centuries, it has evolved under the influence of the communal mode of production and, accordingly, the communal way of life. Within the framework of communal existence, the forms of leisure activities were predominantly family-communal, that is, essentially public. They remained so throughout the period under review, since the presence of serfdom and the weak development of commodity-money relations contributed to the preservation of the community as the primary cell of the economic and social life of the peasants. Peasant Leisure in the 18th – First Half of the 19th Centuries performed the same role as in previous times: it was not only aimed at restoring the strength of the peasant, but also contributed to the consolidation of kindred communities, was one of the forms for realizing the function of the community as the bearer of public opinion, the guardian of cultural and labor traditions. As before, the time of leisure activities depended primarily on agricultural work. The largest number communal holidays, gatherings, games fell on the autumn-winter period and early spring. In the peasant environment, the tradition of holding joint festive "entertainments", feasts at a common table has been preserved. These are "brothers" who have come down from ancient times. Later, they became known as "skladchiny" and "spypchiny", since each peasant family contributed its share of the product to the common feast.
characteristic feature Peasant leisure was a combination of some of its forms with certain types of work, which was due to the intensity of peasant labor and the lack of free time. An expression of this was the so-called "help", "cabbages", "supryadki", "work" gatherings, which became widespread among the peasantry. They were a synthesis of work and leisure. Men and women, people different ages they created their own leisure communities: youth gatherings, women's gatherings, gatherings of middle-aged and older peasants were organized; a purely youth form of leisure were spring-summer round dances. At gatherings in which people of the older generation took part, conversations were held in different topics: peasants shared breaking news, plans, joys and failures, received and gave advice, "discussed" their fellow villagers.
At the get-togethers since late XVIII in. often held collective readings. special role performed gatherings in the life of young people: they contributed to the preparation of young people for the future family life. A festive gathering was called a "conversation", clothes, refreshments, and the content of conversations changed. At mixed youth gatherings, girls and boys got to know each other better, chose their future spouse. From the second half of the XIX century. after the abolition of serfdom, peasant leisure underwent a transformation. So, over time, the brotherhood turned into a more closed "guest". During the holidays, communal feasts were less and less common. Wealthy peasants were more willing to choose the form of "pooling" as a kind of their own way of collective leisure. Only the ritual-religious part of the holiday remained common to the members of the community. By the beginning of the XX century. "guest" has already completely replaced "brotherhood". It, as a rule, was a more intimate form of leisure communication, in which the communal element was almost completely absent, but the property factor played an important role.
From the end of the 19th century began to expand the contingent of peasant children studying in state primary schools. Growing, albeit at a very slow pace, the number of cultural and educational institutions working in the field of leisure: libraries, reading rooms, people's houses, the first amateur peasant theaters began to appear. Almost disappeared by the beginning of the 20th century. youth round dance as a traditional form of youth leisure. This form, the youth gathering, turned out to be more stable. But in it, along with such traditional components as song, dance, greater place various conversations of an informational nature began to occupy: city news, information about working conditions in factories, about city fashions, etc.
Leisure activities and entertainment of the nobility.
The 18th century was a turning point in the life of higher Russian class- nobility. Having struck at the old patriarchal orders, the transformations of Peter the Great marked the beginning of the reorientation of the nobility towards the European model of behavior in the sphere of leisure, first to the Dutch-German, and then to the French. Peter I tried to introduce elements of European culture, looseness, emancipation into the usual boyar life. This goal was met by the "assemblies" established in accordance with the tsar's decree of 1718. The "Assemblies" were supposed to teach people from the privileged classes to communicate according to the Western model, to instill in Russian women a taste for public life. The integral elements of the "assemblies" were music and dances. By introducing a system of public holidays, Peter I ordered the nobles to take Active participation. The nobles participated in various public entertainments, festivities, games. However, already in the 18th century, and especially in the subsequent time, the nobles sought to "isolate themselves" from the "common people". Representatives of the highest aristocratic circles were limited, as a rule, to the role of an observer at such holidays. In the post-Petrine era, public forms of leisure for the nobles were further developed. They were no longer introduced by royal decrees, with the use of administrative pressure. On the contrary, the environment of the nobility became more "open" to various borrowings, and gave rise to its own forms of entertainment and leisure activities.
During the reign of the successors of Peter I, especially Catherine II, "assemblies" gradually began to give way to all sorts of balls, which were held on the occasion of great celebrations or important family events. End of the 18th century marked by a particularly active role of the imperial court in holding balls, masquerades, dinners for the nobility. From the end of the XVIII century. in "Russia, purely club forms of pastime of nobles began to emerge. In 1770 in St. Petersburg, and two years later in Moscow, the first English clubs appeared, whose members could only include hereditary nobles. These clubs set themselves the task of organizing recreation, communication, entertainment for representatives of noble circles.In 1783, the "Moscow Noble (noble) Society (Noble Assembly)" was created in Moscow. Petersburg, which only representatives of the highest aristocracy had access to.The end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries was the time for the development of salons, circles, societies of various orientations: musical, literary, sports, etc. Salons and circles were both narrow class, noble, and more open in terms of class.The latter was especially characteristic of the provinces, where, within the framework of salons and circles, they united s and nobles, and representatives of the local intelligentsia, raznochintsy. The main difference between a circle and a salon was that the circle implied an association of interests around some single topic, subject. The salon, on the other hand, was a less thematically oriented association, the role of the hostess (or owner) increased in it, since the visitors of the salon were connected not only and not so much by a commonality of interests, but by the fact of acquaintance or family ties with the hostess or owner.
The formation of a system of cultural and educational institutions in Russia contributed to the development of social forms of noble leisure. Already in the XVIII century. the first museums began to appear (for example, the famous Peter's Kunstkamera, founded in 1719 in St. Petersburg, the creation of the Hermitage in the Winter Palace under Catherine II, etc.), public theaters, and art exhibitions were organized. Along with social forms, the types of individual leisure activities of the nobles began to differ in great variety. In the post-reform period, the decline in the strength and power of the Russian nobility began. The boundaries of the estate began to blur, the landowners' households increasingly fell into a period of crises, these processes significantly changed the collective forms of noble leisure. Disillusioned with the traditional class institutions, the aristocracy began searching for new, more intimate forms of leisure pastime and demonstrating their class unity.
At the end of XIX - beginning of XX centuries. aristocratic clubs and circles of interest in various areas became widespread: artistic, literary, musical, ballet lovers, etc., which united a narrow circle of people from the upper strata of the nobility. Some species became the lot of the aristocracy sports activities: tennis, equestrian sports, etc., requiring special, expensively paid conditions for their implementation (presence of specially equipped sports grounds, an arena, etc.). As a rule, lovers of such activities created their own associations. From the second half of the XIX century. clubs in the officer environment actively developed. Famous was, for example, a kind of club - the living room of the officers of the Izmailovsky regiment "Izmailovsky leisure" in St. Petersburg, which united officers involved in literary creativity. The state encouraged the creation of such officer clubs, considering them as a way to consolidate the officer corps. The middle and petty nobility in their leisure time communication turned out to be often more democratic, allowing into their midst rich merchants, and honorary citizens, and representatives of the various intelligentsia, who had the appropriate education and were of particular interest to members of noble associations. From the second half of the XIX century. in liberal-minded noble circles, the number of people who devoted their leisure time to social work aimed at developing public education began to increase. They created free schools for the poor, folk readings were organized in parks and gardens. They were members of public associations such as "committees and societies for literacy", "societies for the care of public education", etc.
Loading...