To use the preview of presentations, create a Google account (account) and sign in: https://accounts.google.com
Slides captions:
Public life of Russia under Nicholas I, teacher of history and social science Kirilina N.A. MOU Opochenskaya secondary school of the Dubensky district of the Tula region
Annotation The presentation is intended for a lesson in the 8th grade on the topic “Public life in Russia under Nicholas I. In preparing the presentation, materials from the Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius 2007, thematic diagrams on the history of Russia (A.F. Kuzmenko), National history in diagrams and tables (V.V. Kirillov) were used. Size: 1.50 MB. Number of slides: 20.
LESSON OBJECTIVES: Educational: to acquaint students with the views of conservatives and oppositional public opinion of the Nikolaev era. Developing: to develop the ability of students to make a comparative analysis, solve problems, draw conclusions, prove their point of view, analyze the opponent's thought. Educational: education of a personal patriotic position in relation to the events of the past.
OUTLINE: 1. Classification of social movements in the second quarter of the 19th century. 2. The theory of official nationality. 3. Circles 20-40 - ies. XIX century. 4. Slavophiles and Westernizers. 5. Controversy between Slavophiles and Westernizers. 6. Petrashevtsy. Russian socialism.
Questions facing Russia in the second quarter of the 19th century What is the present and future of Russia? What path should Russia follow in its development?
Social movement Main ideological currents Conservative Liberal opposition Revolutionary socialist
Conservative (autocratic-protective) trend Theory of official nationality S.S. Uvarov, N.I. Grech, M.P. Pogodin F.F. Bulgarin, S.P. Shevyrev, N.V. Puppeteer, M.P. Zagoskin and others Autocracy Nationality Orthodoxy
Analyze the text Shevyrev Stepan Petrovich (1806-1864) literary critic, historian, poet. Professor at Moscow University since 1837. Member of the Petersburg Academy of Sciences. “... We have kept three fundamental feelings pure in ourselves, in which the seed and pledge of our future development. We have preserved our ancient religious feeling. The second feeling, by which Russia is strong and her future prosperity is ensured, is the feeling of her state unity, which we also learned from our entire history. Our third fundamental feeling is the awareness of our nationality and the confidence that any education can only put down a firm root in our country when it is assimilated by our people's feeling and is reflected in people's thought and word.
Enlightenment circles of the 20-40s Name of the circle, place and years of existence Leaders Program and activities Circle of the Kritsky brothers, 1826-1827, Moscow Peter, Mikhail, Vasily Kritsky, 6 people in total. An attempt to continue the Decembrist ideology and tactics. Propaganda of revolutionary ideas among students, officials, officers. Regicide must become a prerequisite for revolutionary transformations. Literary society of the 11th number, 1830-1832, Moscow V.G. Belinsky Reading and discussion of literary works. Discussion of the problems of Russian reality.
Revolutionary circles Name of the circle, place and years of existence Leaders Program and activities Circle of Herzen and Ogarev, 1831-1834, Moscow A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev N.M. Savin, M.I. Sazonov Studied the works of the French enlighteners. Followed the revolutionary events in the West. Circle of Petrashevists, 1845-1849, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Rostov M.P. Butashevich-Petrashevsky, F.M. Dostoevsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin and others Criticism of autocracy and serfdom. Propaganda of revolutionary ideas through the press. The need to overthrow the autocracy, the introduction of democratic freedoms.
Liberal-opposition social trend Liberal trend Slavophiles Westerners
Slavophiles A.S. Khomyakov I.S. Aksakov I.V. Kireevsky Yu.F. Samarin
Westerners S.M. Solovyov K.D. Kavelin T.N. Granovsky I.S. Turgenev
Ideological views of Westerners and Slavophiles Differences 1. Views on the historical development of Russia. 2. Views on the political system SIMILARITIES The need for changes in Russian reality. Abolition of serfdom. Hope for the peaceful and evolutionary nature of the transformations under the leadership of the supreme power. Belief in the possibility of Russia moving towards prosperity.
Analysis of the poem to Peter I. Mighty husband! You wished well, You nourished a great thought, In you both strength and courage And a lofty spirit dwelt; But destroying evil in the homeland, You offended the whole homeland; Chasing the vices of Russian life, You ruthlessly crushed life... All Russia, all its life hitherto was despised by You, And on your great deed The seal of the curse lay. (K.S. Aksakov) Try to determine which social camp the author of the poem belonged to. Give arguments in favor of your point of view.
Petrashevites The "Petrashevites" circle united those interested in social doctrines and their application to the transformation of Russia. This circle included the poet A.G. Maikov, writer F.M. Dostoevsky. All the activities of the circle were systematically reported by the provocateur Antonelli who entered it. On April 22, 1849, the arrests of members of the circle began, an investigation was launched into 122 people, a sentence was passed on 28, 21 were sentenced to death. The execution was carried out on December 22, 1849 on Semyonovskaya Square in St. Petersburg, at the last moment the sentence was replaced by exile.
Herzen's Russian socialism Leadership in the revolutionary reorganization of the world is passing to Russia, which has retained many untouched, fresh forces. While the desire for enrichment prevailed in Europe, in Russia the community was preserved, ensuring the existence of collective forms of life and work. The community is the cell on the basis of which a new socialist society could be built. The Russian peasant was a collectivist by instinct, and this made it possible to expect that the socialist idea would be positively perceived by him and put into practice. Two serious obstacles stood in the way of the realization of the socialist ideal: 1. the "German" monarchy; 2. The patriarchal structure of the community. Revolution is needed to overcome these obstacles.
Work with the document Determine to which social movement the authors of the following statements belonged. 1. “At first, Russia was in a state of wild barbarism, then gross ignorance, then ferocious and humiliating foreign domination, and finally serfdom ... in order to move forward ... the main thing is to destroy the Russian slave.” 2. "The past of Russia was amazing, its present is more than magnificent, as for the future, it is higher than anything that the most daring imagination can draw for itself." 3. “Our antiquity provides us with an example and the beginning of everything good… Western people have to put aside everything that was before as bad and create everything good in themselves; it is enough for us to resurrect, to understand the old, to bring it into consciousness and into life. 4. “In Russia, it is necessary to preserve the community and free the individual, extend rural and volost self-government to cities, the state as a whole, while maintaining national unity, develop private rights and preserve the indivisibility of the land.” 5. “Not without some envy, we look ... at Western Europe. And there is something to envy!”
Conclusion The era of political reaction under Nicholas I was not an era of spiritual hibernation and stagnation for Russian society. On the contrary, in the second quarter of the 19th century, Moscow became the main center of intellectual life in Russia. Behind the external slowness and everyday conservatism of the second capital, an intense ideological search was hidden, carried out by representatives of the "educated minority". Almost every day, "friends" - "enemies" Westerners and Slavophiles gathered to interbreed in the next ideological dispute. The defeat of the Decembrist organizations significantly weakened the revolutionary movement in Russia, but it was not completely destroyed. In the era of the reign of Nicholas I, a number of associations of radical youth arose, who considered themselves the heirs of the ideas and continuers of the Decembrists. As B.N. Chicherin noted in his memoirs, “the stale atmosphere of a closed circle, no doubt, has its disadvantages; but what to do when people are not allowed into the fresh air? These were the lungs with which Russian thought, squeezed from all sides, could breathe at that time.
Lesson over Thank you for your work
In the 30-50s, Russia was moving from an agrarian society to an industrial one (machines, production, factories, became in the first place). In this regard, social movements did not adhere to a single direction.
Conservatives(aspiring to foundations and traditions) followed the ideology of S.S. Uvarov (future minister of public education). In his vision, the basis of the Russian state was Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. Those. the people are a single whole, with a single view of the common good and justice, and the king is one with the people.
liberals divided into Westerners(V.P. Botkin, I.S. Turgenev, ...) and Slavophiles(brothers Aksakov, brothers Kireevsky, etc.).
For Westerners the unity of all the peoples of the world was important, since the separation of the country leads to its isolation and decay. Actually, the breakthrough of Russia, in their opinion, occurred only after the reforms of Peter I, respectively, it is necessary to continue in this vein and join Western culture in order to create a single cultural field.
Slavophiles on the contrary, they talked about the independent path of Russia and the uselessness of Western borrowings. It was even supposed to exclude borrowed words (boat, barge, flag, sailor, fleet, act, rent, globe and many others).
At the same time, both Westerners and Slavophiles had a negative attitude towards serfdom and bureaucracy; sought gradual but serious reforms on the part of the authorities; and sincerely believed in Russia and its prosperity.
revolutionary student circles also gained momentum, and now they included not only the highest military strata of the population (as was the case with the Decembrists), but also other representatives of society. The police actively uncovered these circles and prevented them from establishing themselves as serious organizations.
National movements also came up with revolutionary ideas, for example, in Ukraine, where leaders demanded the same things: the abolition of serfdom, estates and equality for all peoples.
The ideological inspirers of the revolutionary moods were A.I. Herzen, who developed the theory of Russian socialism, where the community of peasants has equal rights and collectively builds a socialist society without any autocrats.
By the 1940s, the first organizations were formed socialists discussing the ideas of the revolution in Russia, since the hope of changes "from above" was lost. The basis of the discussion was also the revolutions in Europe, which could show how to carry it out in Russia. But in 1849 the organization was crushed, some of the people were executed, and some were exiled to hard labor.
P.Ya.Chaadaev had a special place among the thinkers of that time. He spoke about Russia's excommunication from the history of the world, about spiritual stagnation, national complacency and other problems that prevent Russia from developing. Soon he was declared insane, and the magazine where his letters were published was closed. But Chaadaev responded to these accusations and continued to express hope for the renewal of Russia and its inclusion in Western Christendom.
The first half of the nineteenth century became a kind of maturation period for the Russian social movement. At this time, the country was ruled by Nicholas I (1825-1855). In this period, the positions of the most popular political camps are finally concretized. Monarchist theory is being formed, and a liberal movement is also emerging. The circle of leaders of revolutionary positions is expanding significantly.
The social movement during the reign of Nicholas 1 said goodbye to the philosophy of fashionable education as the basis of ideology. Hegelianism and Schellingism come to the fore. Of course, these German theories were applied taking into account the peculiarities of the Russian state and mentality. The revolutionaries not only mastered what came from Europe, but also put forward their own idea of community. The indifference of the government to these new trends and the struggle of power circles with the freedom to express living thought became a catalyst that released dangerous and very powerful forces.
Social movement during the reign of Nicholas 1 and social life
Like any direction of philosophical and political thought, freethinking in Russia was characterized by certain features that were unique to this period of time. The social movement during the reign of Nicholas I developed under the conditions of an authoritarian and extremely rigid regime, which suppressed any attempts to express one's opinion. The movement took place under the significant influence of the Decembrists. The idea of the first noble revolutionaries and their bitter, tragic experience, on the one hand, disappointed, and on the other, inspired them to search for new ways to improve the philosophical spirit.
The realization begins to come that it is necessary to attract the broad masses of the population, including peasants, because the main goal of all movements was the equality of all classes. The social movement during the reign of Nicholas 1 was started mainly by the nobles, but later the raznochintsy also joined it. During these years, completely new trends were formed. These are Slavophiles, Westerners and Narodniks. It became very popular. All these concepts fit into the norms and principles of liberalism, conservatism, socialism and nationalism.
Since there was no opportunity to express one's opinion freely, the social movement in the era acquired mainly the form of circles. People secretly agreed on the place and time of the meeting, and for a pass to the society it was required to name one or another password, which was constantly changing. Much more important than in previous eras, painting, art and literary criticism acquired. It was at this time that a distinct relationship between power and culture was observed.
The German philosophers Hegel, Fichte and Schelling had a great influence on social thought. It was they who became the progenitors of many political trends in Russia.
Features in the 30-50s of the nineteenth century
If we consider this period, it should be noted that after the events of December 14, 1825, the power of the intelligentsia was extremely weakened. After the cruel massacre of the Decembrists, the social movement in Russia under Nicholas 1 practically stopped. The entire flower of the Russian intelligentsia was either defeated or sent to Siberia. Only ten years later, the first university circles began to appear, in which the younger generation was grouped. It was then that Schellingism became more and more popular.
Causes of social movements
Like any other direction, this direction had its weighty reasons. They were the unwillingness of the authorities to admit that the time has changed and it is no longer possible to stand still, as well as strict censorship and the suppression of any resistance, even expressed peacefully.
Main directions of movement
The defeat of the Decembrists and the introduction of a regime of repression led only to a temporary lull. The social movement during the reign of Nicholas 1 revived even more a few years later. Petersburg and Moscow salons, circles of officials and officers, as well as higher educational institutions, Moscow University in the first place, became centers for the development of philosophical thought. More and more popular are such magazines as Moskvityanin and Vestnik Evropy. The social movement during the reign of Nicholas 1 had three clearly defined and divided branches. This is radicalism.
conservative direction
The social movement during the reign of Nicholas 1 was associated with the development of several political and social movements. Conservatism in our country was based on theories of autocracy and the need for strict government. The importance of serfdom was also emphasized. These ideas arose as early as the 16th and 17th centuries and reached their apogee at the beginning of the 19th century. Conservatism acquired a special sound when absolutism was practically done away with in the West. Thus, Karamzin wrote that the autocracy must be unshakable.
This trend became very widespread after the massacre of the Decembrists. In order to give conservatism an ideological status, Count Uvarov (Minister of National Education) developed the theory of official nationality. It recognized autocracy as the only possible and correct form of government in Russia. was considered a blessing both for the people and for the state as a whole. From all this, a logical conclusion was made that no changes and transformations are needed. This theory provoked sharp criticism among the intelligentsia. P. Chaadaev, N. Nadezhdin and others became ardent oppositionists.
liberal direction
Between the 30s and 40s of the 19th century, a new trend arose that became the opposite of conservatism. Liberalism was conditionally divided into two camps: Slavophiles and Westernizers. The ideologists of the first direction were I. and K. Aksakov, A. Khomyakov, Yu. Samarin and others. Among the leading Westerners one can name such outstanding lawyers and philosophers as V. Botkin, P. Annenkov, K. Kavelin. Both of these directions were united by the desire to see Russia modern and civilized in the circle of European countries. Representatives of these movements considered necessary the abolition of serfdom and the allocation of small plots of land to the peasants, the introduction of freedom of speech. Fearing reprisals, both the Westernizers and the Slavophiles hoped that the state itself would carry out these transformations.
Features of the two currents of liberalism
Of course, there were differences between these directions. Thus, the Slavophiles attached excessive importance to the originality of the Russian people. They considered the pre-Petrine foundations to be the ideal form of government. Then the Zemsky Sobors conveyed to the sovereign the will of the people, and there were well-established relations between the landowners and peasants. The Slavophiles believed that the spirit of collectivism was inherent in the Russian people, while individualism reigned in the West. They fought against the wholesale idolatry of European trends.
The social movement under Nicholas I was also represented by Westerners, who, on the contrary, believed that it was necessary to adopt the best practices of developed countries. They criticized the Slavophiles, arguing that Russia lags behind Europe in many ways and must catch up with it by leaps and bounds. They considered universal education to be the only true way of enlightenment.
revolutionary movement
Small circles arose in Moscow, where, unlike the northern capital, espionage, censorship and denunciations were not so strongly developed. Their members supported the ideas of the Decembrists and deeply experienced the massacre of them. They distributed freedom-loving pamphlets and cartoons. So, on the day of the coronation of Nicholas, representatives of the circle of the Cretan brothers scattered leaflets around Red Square calling on the people to freedom. The activists of this organization were imprisoned for 10 years, and then forced to perform military service.
Petrashevtsy
In the 40s of the 19th century, the social movement was marked by a significant revival. Political circles began to spring up again. By the name of one of their leaders, Butashevich-Petrashevsky, this movement was named. The circles included such outstanding personalities as F. Dostoevsky, M. Saltykov-Shchedrin, etc. The Petrashevites condemned absolutism and advocated the development of democracy.
The circle was opened in 1849, more than 120 people were involved in the investigation, 21 of them were sentenced to death.
Questions for repeating the topic " Social movement under Nicholas I".
Liberal Western views were held by 1) T.N. Granovsky, K.D. Kavelin 2) A.S. Khomyakov, K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs 3)SS. Uvarov, S.P. Shevyrev 4) N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov
Contemporaries were: 1) A.N. Radishchev and T.N. Granovsky 2) I.S. Turgenev and M.M. Shcherbatov 3) V.N. Tatishchev and K.D. Kavelin 4) S.S. Uvarov and A.S. Khomyakov
Common in the disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles was the statement about the need to: 1) borrow European constitutional orders 2) preserve feudal orders 3) limit the autocracy to a representative body 4) reject the legacy of Peter's reforms
Read an excerpt from a modern historian's work: “Letters go from hand to hand for a long time, until in 1836 the editor of the Telescope magazine, Nadezhdin, ventured to print one of them on his own initiative. The letter, in the words of Herzen, gave the impression of "a shot that rang out on a dark night" - some were shocked by the sharpness of the author's judgments about Russia, others were extremely indignant. The journal was immediately closed, its editor expelled from Moscow. Their author himself, in his own words, “got off cheaply” - he was officially declared insane and placed under house arrest for a year and a half. Later he took an active part in the Moscow intellectual life, was friends with both the Slavophiles and the Westerners. Until the end of his life he had no right to print anything written. Who was the author of the mentioned letters? 1) P.Ya. Chaadaev 2) A.S. Pushkin 3) N.M. Karamzin 4) S.M. Solovyov
As cells of the future socialist society of Russia, the socialists considered: 1) workers' unions 2) student circles 3) youth communes 4) peasant communities
Read a fragment from the work of a public figure in Russia in the first half of the 19th century: “What has become a habit, an instinct among other peoples, we have to hammer into our heads with hammer blows. Our memories do not go beyond yesterday; we are, so to speak, strangers to ourselves. We move so strangely in time that with each step we take forward, the past moment disappears for us forever. This is the natural result of a culture based entirely on borrowing and imitation. We have absolutely no inner development, no natural progress; each new idea displaces the old ones without a trace, because it does not follow from them, but comes to us from God knows where. Since we always perceive only ready-made ideas, those indelible furrows are not formed in our brain, which successive development makes in the minds and which constitute their strength. We grow but do not mature; we move forward, but along a crooked line, that is, along one that does not lead to the goal. Specify the title of the work. 1) Past and thoughts 2) Hero of our time 3) Philosophical letters 4) Dead souls
What unites these names? Ustryalov N.G., M.P. Pogodin, N.V. Kukolnik, F.V. Bulgarin, N.I. Grech, M.N. Zagoskin
Work with the document Determine to which social movement the authors of the following statements belonged. 1. “At first, Russia was in a state of wild barbarism, then gross ignorance, then ferocious and humiliating foreign domination, and finally serfdom ... in order to move forward ... the main thing is to destroy the Russian slave.” 2. "The past of Russia was amazing, its present is more than magnificent, as for the future, it is higher than anything that the most daring imagination can draw for itself." 3. “Our antiquity provides us with an example and the beginning of everything good… Western people have to put aside everything that was before as bad and create everything good in themselves; it is enough for us to resurrect, to understand the old, to bring it into consciousness and into life. 4. “In Russia, it is necessary to preserve the community and free the individual, extend rural and volost self-government to cities, the state as a whole, while maintaining national unity, develop private rights and preserve the indivisibility of the land.” 5. “Not without some envy, we look ... at Western Europe. And there is something to envy!”
What unites these names? T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, I.S. Turgenev, P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin
What unites these names? A.S. Khomyakov, I.S. Aksakov, I.V. Kireevsky, P.V. Kireevsky, Yu.F. Samarin, A.I. Koshelev
Fill in the table “Mugs 3 of the 0-50s of the 19th century” Name of the circle, place and years of existence Leaders Program and activities Circle of the Kritsky brothers, 1826-1827, Moscow Literary society of the 11th number, 1830-1832, Moscow
Circles of the 20-40s Name of the circle, place and years of existence Leaders Program and activities Circle of the Kritsky brothers, 1826-1827, Moscow Peter, Mikhail, Vasily Kritsky, 6 people in total. An attempt to continue the Decembrist ideology and tactics. Propaganda of revolutionary ideas among students, officials, officers. Regicide must become a prerequisite for revolutionary transformations. Literary society of the 11th number, 1830-1832, Moscow V.G. Belinsky Reading and discussion of literary works. Discussion of the problems of Russian reality.
"Mugs of the 30-50s of the 19th century" Name of the circle, place and years of existence Leaders Program and activities Circle of Herzen and Ogarev, 1831-1834, Moscow Circle of Petrashevists, 1845-1849, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Rostov
"Mugs of the 30-50s of the 19th century." Name of the circle, place and years of existence Leaders Program and activity Circle of Herzen and Ogarev, 1831-1834, Moscow A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev N.M. Savin, M.I. Sazonov Studied the works of the French enlighteners. Followed the revolutionary events in the West. Circle of Petrashevists, 1845-1849, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Rostov M.P. Butashevich-Petrashevsky, F.M. Dostoevsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin and others Criticism of autocracy and serfdom. Propaganda of revolutionary ideas through the press. The need to overthrow the autocracy, the introduction of democratic freedoms.
What historical event is the picture about?
Questions for comparison Westerners Slavophiles Attitude towards autocracy, state. system Attitude towards serfdom Attitude towards the Transformations of Peter 1 Which path should Russia take Attitude towards the peasant community How to carry out transformations
Questions for comparison Westerners Slavophiles Attitude towards autocracy, state. system monarchy, parliamentary system, democratic freedom Monarchy + deliberative people's representation - Zemstvo assembly; democratic rights and freedoms Attitude towards serfdom Negative, advocated the abolition of serfdom from above Negative, advocated the abolition of serfdom from above Attitude to Peter's Transformations1 Exaltation of Peter, who "saved" Russia, renewed the country Negative; Peter1 introduced Western orders and customs that led Russia off its original path. Which path Russia should take Russia is late, but goes and should go along the Western path of development Russia has its own special path of development, different from the West. You can borrow something useful: factories, railways Attitude towards the peasant community The community is the basis of Russia. It is a surviving civil institution based on equality; the community is a “cell” of socialism How to carry out transformations A peaceful path, reforms from above Inadmissibility of revolutionary upheavals Comparison of the views of Westerners and Slavophiles
How do you understand the words of A. Herzen about the relationship between the Westerners and the Slavophiles: “We, like the two-faced Janus, looked in different directions, but our heart beat the same”?
It experienced a period of great historical turn from the outgoing agrarian society to an industrial society. Therefore, the main issue of public life was the question of the direction of the further development of the country. Everyone understood it in their own way. The social movement in those years had several characteristic features:
It developed in the conditions of the tightening of the political regime after the Decembrist uprising;
- there was a final break between revolutionary direction and governmental reformism;
- for the first time the conservative direction received its own ideology;
- liberal and socialist currents of social thought took shape;
- participants in the social movement did not have the opportunity to put their ideas into practice, they could only prepare the consciousness of their contemporaries for future changes.
conservative movement.
The development of the ideology of Russian conservatism is the merit of the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Count S. S. Uvarov, who later became the Minister of Public Education. He considered Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality to be the primordial foundations of Russian life. These features, in his opinion, radically distinguished Russia from the West. He thought of autocracy as the unity of the tsar and the people, and considered it the basis of the life of Russian society. Under Orthodoxy, Uvarov understood the traditional orientation of the Russian people not to personal, but to the public interest, the desire for the common good and justice. The nationality expressed the unity of the people united around the tsar without dividing it into nobles, peasants, petty bourgeois, etc. Between the people and the monarch, Uvarov believed, there always existed an inseparable spiritual unity, which was and will be the guarantor of the successful development of Russia.
The largest theorists of the conservative trend were also historians N. G. Ustryalov and M. P. Pogodin, playwright and poet N. V. Kukolnik, writers F. V. Bulgarin, N. I. Grech, M. N. Zagoskin. They proved the uniqueness of the historical path of Russia and considered it the only correct one.
liberal movement. Westernizers and Slavophiles.
Russian liberalism was represented in those years by Westernizers and Slavophiles. The formation of the ideology of Westernism and Slavophilism dates back to the late 30s - early 40s.
Representatives of Westernism were historians T. N. Granovsky and Solovyov, lawyer K. D. Kavelin, writers P. V. Annenkov, V. P. Botkin, I. S. Turgenev. The Westerners believed that the world civilization is one and the isolation of any country from it leads not to good, but to decay. They believed that Russia became a civilized state only thanks to the transformations Petra Great, who first tried to instill in his people the features of European education. The task of Russia, in their opinion, was to join the West and form together with it "a single universal cultural family."
The Slavophils, on the contrary, defended the idea of the identity of every people, including the Russians. Speaking about Russia, they emphasized the peculiarities of its state and social life, the Orthodox faith. From this point of view, the Slavophiles negatively assessed the activities of Peter I, believing that his reforms led Russia along the path of unnecessary borrowing from the West. This, in their opinion, was the cause of social unrest. The main task facing the country in the middle of the 19th century, the Slavophiles considered its return "to the old, original state." Even foreign words included in Russian speech, they proposed to exclude from use. The theoreticians of Slavophilism were publicists A. S. Khomyakov, brothers I. V. and P. V. Kireevsky, brothers K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin, A. I. Koshelev.
Despite many important differences between Westernism and Slavophilism, these currents of social thought also had common features:
Negative attitude towards serfdom, the omnipotence of bureaucracy, the suppression of the rights and freedoms of the individual;
- conviction in the need for fundamental changes;
- the hope that the reforms will be initiated by the supreme power, relying on the support of the advanced public;
- the expectation that the reforms will be gradual and cautious;
- confidence in the possibility of peaceful implementation of reforms;
- faith in Russia, in the possibility of its rapid and confident movement towards prosperity.
Mugs 20-30s.
In addition to the formation of liberal trends, revolutionary ideology was also spreading in Russia. Student circles of the 1920s and 1930s, in which both future liberals and future supporters of revolutionary ideas took part, played an important role in its origin.
In the Moscow living room of the 40s. 19th century From a painting by the artist B. M. Kustodiev. On the left are V. P. Botkin and D. L. Kryukov, talking with M. S. Shchepkin; V. G. Belinsky, who entered, greets the owner of the house A. A. Elagin, P. Ya. Chaadaev, T. N. Granovsky, K. S. Aksakov, I. V. Kireevsky are sitting at the table, behind them are A. S. Khomyakov and P. V. Kireevsky; on the right - A.P. Elagina is sitting, A.I. Herzen and A.I. Turgenev are standing
Late 20s - early 30s. can be called the circle period of the Russian social movement. Small circles were quickly opened by the police, never having time to develop into secret organizations and develop their own program. The composition of circles has changed. If at the time of the Decembrists it was military youth, people from the upper strata, now the circles included representatives of the most diverse strata of society.
In 1827, the authorities opened a circle of the Kritsky brothers at Moscow University, in 1831 - a circle of N. P. Sungurov, whose members hatched plans for an armed uprising.
One of the associations, in which future Westerners, Slavophiles, and future revolutionaries were represented, was a circle created in 1833 by the young philosopher and writer N.V. Stankevich. It included such diverse people as T. N. Granovsky and K. S. Aksakov, V. G. Belinsky and M. A. Bakunin.
In 1834, the circle of A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev was defeated. Mugs were opened in Vladimir, Nezhin, Kursk, at the Ural factories.
revolutionary movement. The revolutionary movement in Russia arose in the 1940s and 1950s. 19th century It originated not only in the center of Russia, but also in a number of national regions. Here the ideas of revolutionary protest were combined with the demands of national liberation. One of the most famous revolutionary organizations was the Cyril and Methodius Society in Ukraine (1846-1847). Its founder was the famous historian N. I. Kostomarov. Later, the outstanding Ukrainian poet T. G. Shevchenko became one of the leaders of the organization. The society advocated the abolition of serfdom and class privileges. The participants of the society considered their main goal to be the creation of a federation (an equal association) of the Slavic republics of Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians. On the issue of methods of struggle for the implementation of their ideals, members of the society were divided into two camps - supporters of moderate measures (headed by Kostomarov) and supporters of decisive action (led by Shevchenko).
There was a formation and ideology of the Russian revolutionary movement. It was associated primarily with the activities of A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev.
Alexander Ivanovich Herzen (1812-1870) was the illegitimate son of the Moscow rich man I. A. Yakovlev. Herzen considered himself the spiritual heir of the Decembrists. Together with his friend N.P. Ogarev in 1827, he took an oath "to avenge the executed." In 1829, Herzen entered the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University, where around him and Ogarev in the early 30s. formed a circle of like-minded people who opposed the feudal-serf order. In 1834 Herzen was arrested and exiled to Perm for the public performance of "libelous songs". In subsequent years, he was in the public service and was engaged in scientific and writing activities. In 1847 he went abroad and refused to return to Russia. In 1852, Herzen settled in London and in 1853, using money inherited from his father, founded the Free Russian Printing House there, which published the almanac Polar Star, the newspaper Kolokol, the collection Voices from Russia, etc. They widely distributed in Russia.
In the 50s. Herzen developed the main provisions of the theory of "communal" or "Russian" socialism. According to the teachings of Herzen, socialism in Russia will certainly arise and its main "cell" will be the peasant landed community. Peasant communal land ownership, the peasant idea of the equal right of all people to land, communal self-government and the natural collectivism of the Russian peasant were to become the basis for building a socialist society. Herzen considered the liberation of the peasants and the elimination of the autocratic political system to be the main conditions for this.
Another major revolutionary theorist was Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky (1811-1848). At the verbal department of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow University, a circle “Literary Society of the 11th Number” formed around him. Belinsky was soon expelled from the university. In 1833, he joined the circle of N. V. Stankevich, and from 1834 he led the literary-critical department in the journals Teleskop and Molva. In 1834, his article "Literary Dreams" was published in Molva. In it, the author sharply criticized the ideas of S. S. Uvarov.
In the early 40s. under the influence of Herzen, Belinsky became an adherent of revolutionary socialist transformations in Russia. His views were especially clearly manifested in critical articles published in the journal Sovremennik, published by N. A. Nekrasov. In them, Belinsky acted as one of the recognized spiritual leaders of the emerging revolutionary camp. Belinsky's ideas were expressed most clearly in his "Letter to N.V. Gogol" (1847). This letter sharply criticized autocracy and serfdom. Belinsky saw the main tasks of the social movement in "the abolition of serfdom, the abolition of corporal punishment, the introduction, if possible, of the strict implementation of at least those laws that already exist." Belinsky's letter to Gogol, in hundreds of lists, was distributed throughout Russia and became the basis for shaping the worldview of a significant part of the educated youth.
In the 40s. The first revolutionary organizations of socialists were created. Among them, first of all, is the society that took shape in 1845 in St. Petersburg around M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky, an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Writers, teachers, officials who shared revolutionary democratic ideas gathered on Petrashevsky's "Fridays" every week. Among them were young writers M. E. Saltykov and F. M. Dostoevsky, poets A. N. Pleshcheev and A. N. Maikov, geographer P. P. Semenov, pianist A. G. Rubinshtein. They discussed the pressing issues of life in Russia, condemned serfdom and autocratic power. The Petrashevites studied the socialist teachings of that time and the possibility of their implementation in Russia. Under the influence of the events of the revolution of 1848 in Europe among the members of the circle, thoughts were expressed about the need to prepare a revolution in Russia.
In 1849 the circle was destroyed, and 39 Petrashevites were arrested. 21 people were sentenced to death, replaced by hard labor and exile.
Many revolutionaries of the 40-50s. over time, they revised their views on revolution and socialism. For example, F. M. Dostoevsky became disillusioned with the socialist doctrine.
In general, the revolutionary movement in Russia in the 40-50s. received a powerful impetus to development, caused not only by internal causes, but also by revolutions in Europe.
The main features of the revolutionary ideology of this period were:
Loss of hope for reforming Russia "from above" as a result of cooperation between the supreme power and society;
- substantiation of the legitimacy and necessity of revolutionary violence in order to effect changes in society;
- promotion of socialist teachings as the ideological basis of the future revolution and the organization of the country's life after the victory of the revolution.
The revolutionary movement of the 40-50s. became an important reason pushing the authorities to reform society.
P. Ya. Chaadaev.
A special place in social thought and the social movement of the 30-50s. occupied by Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev (1794-1856) - a thinker and publicist. Member of the Patriotic War of 1812 and the Northern Society of the Decembrists, he was in 1823-1826. lived abroad, where his philosophical and historical views took shape. In his "Philosophical Letters" (1829-1831), Chaadaev spoke about Russia's "excommunication" from world history ("lonely in the world, we gave nothing to the world, taught it nothing"), about "spiritual stagnation" in Russia and "national self-satisfaction”, which impede its historical development. For the publication of the first of his letters in the Telescope magazine (1836), he was declared insane, and the magazine itself was closed. Responding to these accusations in The Apology of a Madman (1837), Chaadaev expressed his belief in the historical future of a renewed Russia, included in Western Christendom.
The main result of the development of the social movement of the 30-50s. became widespread liberal and revolutionary sentiments among the intelligentsia. The vices of the autocratic-feudal system became obvious to the advanced part of Russian society, which, not waiting for changes from the authorities, began its struggle for transformation.
? Questions and tasks
1. In what direction did the social movement develop after the death of Alexander I? What are the reasons for this direction?
2. What are the features of the social movement of the 30-50s. do you think are the main ones? Why?
3. What's new in the conservative movement?
4. What were the differences in the views of Westerners and Slavophiles? What united them?
5. How can one explain the activation of revolutionary sentiments in Russian society?
6. What are the main ideas of the socialist teachings of AI Herzen?
7. In what way do you see the peculiarities of the position of P. Ya. Chaadaev in the social movement of the 30-50s?
The documents
From the memoirs of B. I. Chicherin
The Pavlovs' house on Sretensky Boulevard was at that time one of the main literary centers in Moscow. Nicholas Filippovich was in brief relations with both parties into which the then Moscow literary world was divided, with the Slavophiles and the Westernizers. Of the Slavophiles, Khomyakov and Shevyrev were his close friends; Aksakov had an old friendship. On the other hand, he was on the same friendly terms with Granovsky and Chaadaev ... Here, until late at night, lively disputes took place: Rare with Shevyrev, Kavelin with Aksakov, Herzen and Kryukov with Khomyakov. The Kireevskys and the then young Yuri Samarin appeared here. Chaadaev was a regular guest, with his head as bare as a hand, with his irreproachably worldly manners, with his educated and original mind and eternal posture. It was the most brilliant literary time in Moscow...
The rivals appeared fully armed, with opposing views, but with a reserve of knowledge and the charm of eloquence ...
The very isolation disappeared when people of opposite directions converged on a common arena, but appreciating and respecting each other ...
From "Notes" by S. M. Solovyov
The Western party at [Moscow] University, that is, the party of professors who had been educated in Western universities, was the dominant one. The party was extensive, it had many shades, so it was wide and free; I, Chivilev, Granovsky, Kavelin belonged to the same party, despite the fact that there was a big difference between us: I, for example, was a religious person, with Christian convictions; Granovsky stopped in thought about the religious question; Chivilev was very cautious - only later did I find out that he did not believe in anything; Kavelin - also, and did not hide it; in political convictions, Granovsky was very close to me, that is, very moderate, so that his less moderate friends called him an adherent of the Prussian learned monarchy; Kavelin, as a man terribly carried away, was not shy before any extreme in social transformations, not even before communism itself, like their common friend, the famous Herzen. I did not know the latter at home, but I saw him at Granovsky's and in other meetings; I loved listening to him, for this man's wit was brilliant and inexhaustible; but I was constantly repelled by this harshness in expressing my own convictions, indelicacy regarding other people's convictions ... intolerance was terrible in this man ...
From an article by A. S. Khomyakov. 1847
Some magazines call us derisively Slavophiles, a name composed in a foreign way, but which in Russian translation would mean Slavophiles. For my part, I am ready to accept this name and I freely confess: I love the Slavs ... I love them because there is no Russian person who would not love them; there is no one who is not aware of his brotherhood with a Slav, and especially with an Orthodox Slav. Anyone can get a certificate about this, even from the Russian soldiers who were on the Turkish campaign, or even in the Moscow Gostiny Dvor, where the Frenchman, German and Italian are accepted as foreigners, and the Serb, Dalmatian and Bulgarian as their brothers. Therefore, I accept the mockery of our love for the Slavs just as willingly as the mockery that we are Russians. Such ridicule testifies to only one thing: the poverty of thought and the tightness of the gaze of people who have lost their intellectual and spiritual life and all natural or reasonable sympathy in the dapper deadness of the salons or in the one-sided bookishness of the modern West ...
Questions about documents: 1. How can you explain the presence of salons like Pavlov's house, where both Westerners and Slavophiles could gather and hold discussions?
2. What features of Herzen did S. M. Solovyov dislike the most and why?
3. What quality of the Slavophiles did A. S. Khomyakov consider the most important?