Ideological struggle and social movement in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. Ideological struggle and social movement in Russia in the first half of the 19th century Mass migration of Armenians to Northern Azerbaijan

Synopsis on the history of Russia

After the suppression of the Decembrist uprising, the reaction intensifies in the country. In the struggle against new ideas, the government used not only repression, but also weapons of an ideological nature. Such was the theory of S.S. Uvarov "official nationality", the purpose of which was: European education with our needs; heal newest generation, from a blind, thoughtless predilection for the superficial and foreign, spreading in these souls a reasonable respect for the domestic ... " Its main slogans were: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.

However, the Uvarov triad did not receive wide support in Russian society. Despite official opposition, the social movement developed, and in the 1940s a clear demarcation took place in it. The feudal serf system survived last decade. Sober-minded people wondered: what would come to replace him, what path would Russia's development take.

In the 40s, the main directions of social thought were formed, proceeding from the need for change in Russia: Slavophiles, Westerners and revolutionaries.

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

The opponents of the Westerners were Slavophiles, who were hostile to the West and idealized pre-Petrine Rus', who relied on the originality of the Russian people, who believed in a special path for its development. Prominent Slavophiles were Khomyakov, Samarin, the Aksakov brothers, the Kireevsky brothers, Koshelev and others.

The Slavophiles argued that there is no single human civilization and cannot be. Each nation lives its own "originality", the basis of which is the ideological principle, penetrating all aspects of national life. For Russia, the Orthodox faith was such a beginning, and its embodiment was the community, as a union of mutual help and support. In the Russian countryside, you can do without the class struggle, this will save Russia from revolution and bourgeois "deviations". Being convinced monarchists, they nevertheless advocated freedom of opinion and the revival of Zemsky Sobors. They are also characterized by the rejection of the revolution and socialism. Neither the principles nor the organizational forms of Western life were acceptable to Russia. The Moscow kingdom corresponded more to the spirit and character of the Russian people than the monarchy built by Peter I according to European models. Thus, the Slavophile doctrine to the marrow of the bones reflected the Russian soil and denied everything or almost everything that was brought into the life of Russians from outside, and especially from Europe. The Slavophils put forward the reactionary idea of ​​uniting the Slavic peoples under the auspices of the Russian Tsar (Pan-Slavism).

In their teaching, the features of the bourgeois-liberal and conservative-gentry ideologies were contradictory intertwined.

The ideological differences between the Westernizers and the Slavophils, however, did not prevent their rapprochement in the practical issues of Russian life: both currents denied serfdom; both opposed the existing government controlled; both demanded freedom of speech and the press.

In the 40s, having broken away from the Westerners, a third trend of social thought took shape - revolutionary democratic. It was represented by Belinsky, Herzen, the Petrashevites, the then young Chernyshevsky and Shevchenko.

Belinsky and Herzen did not agree with the Westerners in regard to revolution and socialism. The revolutionary democrats were greatly influenced by the works of Saint-Simon and Fourier. But, unlike the Western socialists, they not only did not rule out the revolutionary path to socialism, but even relied on it. The revolutionaries also believed that Russia would follow the Western path, but unlike the Slavophiles and Westerners, they believed that revolutionary upheavals were inevitable.

The utopian nature of their views is obvious - they believed that Russia could come to socialism, bypassing capitalism, and considered this possible thanks to the Russian community, which they understood as the "embryo of socialism." They did not notice the private property instincts in the Russian countryside and did not foresee the class struggle in it. In the embryonic state in which the proletariat of Russia was, they did not understand its revolutionary future and hoped for a peasant revolution.

Advanced Russian literature of the 10-30s of the XIX century

Advanced Russian literature of the 10-30s of the XIX century developed in the struggle against serfdom and autocracy, continuing the liberation traditions of the great Radishchev.

The time of the Decembrists and Pushkin was one of the essential stages in that long struggle against serfdom and autocracy, which unfolded with the greatest acuteness and in a new quality later, in the era of revolutionary democrats.

The struggle against the autocratic-feudal system, which intensified at the beginning of the 19th century, was due to new phenomena in the material life of Russian society. The intensification of the process of disintegration of feudal relations, the ever greater penetration of capitalist tendencies into the economy, the growth of exploitation of the peasantry, its further impoverishment - all this exacerbated social contradictions, contributed to the development of the class struggle, the growth of the liberation movement in the country. For the progressive people of Russia, it became more and more obvious that the existing socio-economic system was an obstacle to the progress of the country in all areas of economic life and culture.

The activities of representatives of the noble period of the liberation movement turned out to be directed, to one degree or another, against the basis of feudalism - feudal ownership of land and against political institutions that corresponded to the interests of the feudal landowners, protecting their interests. Although the Decembrists, according to V.I. Lenin’s definition, were still “terribly far ... from the people,”1 but for all that, their movement in its best aspects reflected the hopes of the people for liberation from centuries of slavery.

The greatness, strength, talent, inexhaustible possibilities of the Russian people were revealed with particular brightness during the Patriotic War of 1812. Popular patriotism who grew up in Patriotic War, played a huge role in the development of the Decembrist movement.

The Decembrists represented the first generation of Russian revolutionaries, whom V. I. Lenin called "revolutionary nobles" or "noble revolutionaries." “In 1825 Russia saw for the first time a revolutionary movement against tsarism,” said V. I. Lenin in his Report on the Revolution of 1905.2

In the article “In Memory of Herzen”, V. I. Lenin gave a description of the Decembrist movement given by Herzen: “The nobles gave Russia the Bironov and Arakcheevs, countless “drunk officers, bullies, card players, heroes of fairs, hounds, brawlers, sekunov, seralniks”, Yes, beautiful-hearted Manilovs. “And between them,” wrote Herzen, “people developed on December 14, a phalanx of heroes fed, like Romulus and Remus, by the milk of a wild beast ... These are some kind of heroes, forged from pure steel from head to toe, warriors-companions, who deliberately went out to obvious death in order to awaken the younger generation to a new life and purify children born in an environment of butchery and servility. further development advanced social thought in Russia and spoke with respect about the republican ideas of the Decembrists.

IN AND. Lenin taught that under the conditions when the exploiting classes dominate, "there are two national cultures in each national culture." national culture. In the first decades of the 19th century, it was a culture directed against the "culture" of the reactionary nobility, the culture of the Decembrists and Pushkin - the culture for which Belinsky and Herzen, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, representatives of a qualitatively new, revolutionary democratic stage of the Russian liberation movement.

During the years of the war with Napoleon, the Russian people not only defended their independence by defeating the hitherto invincible hordes of Napoleon, but also liberated other peoples of Europe from the Napoleonic yoke. The victory of Russia over Napoleon, being an event of world-historical significance, became a new and important step in the development of national self-consciousness. “It was not Russian journals that awakened the Russian nation to a new life—it was awakened by the glorious dangers of 1812,” Chernyshevsky argued.3 The exceptional significance of 1812 in historical life Russia was repeatedly emphasized by Belinsky.

“The time from 1812 to 1815 was a great epoch for Russia,” wrote Belinsky. “We mean here not only the outward grandeur and brilliance with which Russia covered herself in this great era for her, but also the internal success in citizenship and education, resulting from this era. It can be shown without exaggeration that Russia has lived longer and stepped further from 1812 to the present day than from the reign of Peter until 1812. On the one hand, the 12th year, having shaken all of Russia from end to end, awakened its dormant forces and discovered in it new, hitherto unknown sources of strength... the beginning of public opinion; in addition, the 12th year dealt a strong blow to the stagnant antiquity ... All this greatly contributed to the growth and strengthening of the emerging society.

With the development of the revolutionary movement of the Decembrists, with the advent of Pushkin, Russian literature entered a new period in its history, which Belinsky rightly called the Pushkin period. The patriotic and emancipatory ideas characteristic of the preceding advanced Russian literature were raised to a new, high level.

The best Russian writers “following Radishchev” sang of freedom, patriotic devotion to the motherland and people, angrily denounced the despotism of the autocracy, boldly revealed the essence of the feudal system and advocated for its destruction. While sharply criticizing the existing social order, advanced Russian literature at the same time created images of positive heroes, passionate patriots, inspired by the desire to devote their lives to the cause of liberating the motherland from the chains of absolutism and serfdom. Hostility to the entire system that existed at that time, ardent patriotism, exposure of the cosmopolitanism and nationalism of the reactionary nobility, a call for a decisive break in feudal-serf relations is the pathos of the work of the Decembrist poets, Griboedov, Pushkin and all progressive writers of this time.

The powerful upsurge of national self-consciousness, caused by 1812 and the development of the liberation movement, was an incentive for the further democratization of literature. Along with images the best people from the nobility fiction images of people from the social lower classes began to appear more and more often, embodying the remarkable features of the Russian national character. The pinnacle of this process is the creation by Pushkin in the 30s of the image of the leader peasant uprising Emelyan Pugacheva. Pushkin, although not free from prejudice against the "merciless" methods of peasant reprisal against the landowners, nevertheless, following the truth of life, embodied in the image of Pugachev the charming features of an intelligent, fearless, devoted to the people leader of the peasant uprising.

The very process of establishing realism in Russian literature of the 1920s and 1930s was very complex and proceeded in a struggle that took sharp forms.

The beginning of the Pushkin period was marked by the emergence and development of progressive romanticism in literature, which was inspired by poets and writers of the Decembrist circle and headed by Pushkin. “Romanticism is the first word that announced the Pushkin period,” Belinsky wrote (I, 383), linking the struggle for the originality and popular character of literature, the pathos of love of freedom and public protest with the concept of romanticism. Progressive Russian romanticism was engendered by the demands of life itself, reflected the struggle between the new and the old, and therefore was a kind of transitional stage on the road to realism (while the romantics of the reactionary trend were hostile to all realistic tendencies and advocated the feudal-serf order).

Pushkin, having led the direction of progressive romanticism and survived the romantic stage in his work, embodying the strongest aspects of this romanticism, overcame it unusually quickly. weak sides- a certain abstraction of images, the lack of analysis of the contradictions of life - and turned to realism, the founder of which he became. The inner content of the Pushkin period of Russian literature was the process of preparation and approval of artistic realism, which grew on the basis of the socio-political struggle of the advanced forces of Russian society on the eve of the uprising of December 14, 1825 and in the post-December years. It is Pushkin who has the historical merit of the comprehensive development and implementation in artistic creativity by the principle of the realistic method, the principles of depicting typical characters in typical circumstances. The principles of realism laid down in Pushkin's work were developed by his great successors - Gogol and Lermontov, and then raised to an even higher level by revolutionary democrats and strengthened in the fight against all kinds of reactionary trends by a whole galaxy of progressive Russian writers. Pushkin's work embodies the foundations of the world significance of Russian literature, which grew with each new stage of its development.

In the same period, Pushkin accomplished his great feat by transforming the Russian literary language, having improved on the basis of the national language that structure of the Russian language, which, according to the definition of I.V. Stalin, “has been preserved in everything essential, as the basis of the modern Russian language.”1

In his work, Pushkin reflected the proud and joyful consciousness of the moral strength of the Russian people, who demonstrated their greatness and gigantic power to the whole world.

But the people, who overthrew the “idol weighing over the kingdoms” and hoped for liberation from feudal oppression, after the victorious war, remained in serf captivity as before. In the manifesto of August 30 of the year, which, in connection with the end of the war, granted various “mercies”, only the following was said about the peasants: “Peasants, our faithful people, may they receive their reward from God.” The people were deceived by the autocracy. The defeat of Napoleon ended with the triumph of reaction, which determined the entire international and internal politics Russian tsarism. In the autumn of 1815, the monarchs of Russia, Prussia and Austria formed the so-called Holy Alliance to fight national liberation and revolutionary movements in European countries. At the congresses of the Holy Alliance, which Marx and Engels called "bandit" congresses,2 measures were sought and discussed to combat the development of revolutionary ideas and national liberation movements.

The year 1820 - the year of Pushkin's expulsion from Petersburg - was especially rich in revolutionary events. These events unfolded in Spain, Italy and Portugal; a military conspiracy was uncovered in Paris; Petersburg, an armed uprising of the Semenovsky regiment broke out, accompanied by serious unrest in the entire royal guard. The revolutionary movement also spread to Greece, the Balkan Peninsula, Moldavia and Wallachia. The leading role played in the reactionary policy of the Holy Alliance by Alexander I, together with the Austrian Chancellor Metternich, made the name of the Russian Tsar synonymous with European reaction. The Decembrist M. Fonvizin wrote: “Alexander became the head of the monarchist reactionaries... After the deposition of Napoleon, the main subject of all the political actions of Emperor Alexander was the suppression of the spirit of freedom that had arisen everywhere and the strengthening of the monarchic principles...”3 The revolutions in Spain and Portugal were suppressed. An attempt at an uprising in France ended in failure.

The internal policy of Alexander I over the last ten years of his reign was marked by a fierce struggle against all manifestations of opposition sentiments in the country and progressive public opinion. Peasant unrest became more and more stubborn, sometimes lasting for several years and pacified. military force. During the years from 1813 to 1825, at least 540 peasant unrest took place, while only 165 of them are known for the years 1801-1812. The largest mass unrest occurred on the Don in 1818-1820. “When there was serfdom,” writes V. I. Lenin, “the whole mass of peasants fought against their oppressors, against the class of landlords, who were guarded, protected and supported by the tsarist government. The peasants could not unite, the peasants were then completely crushed by darkness, the peasants had no helpers and brothers among the city workers, but the peasants still fought as best they could and as best they could.

The unrest that took place in individual army units was also connected with the mood of the serfs who fought with the landowners. The soldier's service lasted at that time for 25 years, and for the slightest misconduct, the soldier was doomed to indefinite life service. Cruel corporal punishment then raged in the army. The largest of the army unrest was the indignation of the Semyonovsky Life Guards Regiment in St. Petersburg, which was distinguished by its special unity and stamina. In the St. Petersburg barracks, revolutionary proclamations were found calling for a fight against the tsar and the nobles, declaring that the tsar "is none other than a strong robber." The indignation of the Semenovites was suppressed, the regiment was disbanded and replaced by a new staff, and the "instigators" of the indignation were subjected to the most severe punishment - driven through the ranks.

“... Monarchs,” writes V. I. Lenin, “at times flirted with liberalism, at other times they were the executioners of the Radishchevs and ‘let loose’ on the loyal subjects of the Arakcheevs ...”.2 During the existence of the Holy Alliance, flirting with liberalism was not needs and on loyal subjects, the rude and ignorant royal satrap Arakcheev, the organizer and chief boss military settlements, a special form of recruitment and maintenance of the army.

The introduction of military settlements was a new measure of serf oppression and was met with unrest by the peasants. However, Alexander I declared that "military settlements will be at all costs, even if the road from St. Petersburg to Chudov had to be laid with corpses."

The reaction also raged in the field of education, and the struggle against the revolutionary ideas that were spreading in the country was carried out through the expansion of religious and mystical propaganda. At the head of the Ministry of Public Education was placed the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, the reactionary Prince A. Golitsyn - "a servile soul" and a "destroyer of education", as Pushkin's epigram characterizes him. With the help of his officials Magnitsky and Runich, Golitsyn under the guise of a "revision" undertook a campaign against the universities. Many of the professors who made the reactionaries suspicious were removed from high school. The captiousness of censorship reached its extreme limits at that time. In the press, all discussions about the systems of the political system were forbidden. The country was covered with an extensive network of secret police.

Decembrist A. Bestuzhev in a letter from the Peter and Paul Fortress to Nicholas I, recalling last years the reign of Alexander I, noted: “The soldiers grumbled in languor with exercises, purges, guards; officers to the scarcity of salaries and exorbitant severity. Sailors to menial work doubled by abuse, naval officers to inaction. People with talents complained that they were barred from the road to the service, demanding only silent obedience; scholars to the fact that they are not allowed to teach, youth to obstacles in learning. In a word, dissatisfied faces were seen in all corners; they shrugged their shoulders in the streets, whispered everywhere - everyone said what would this lead to?

The years of the triumph of the Holy Alliance and the Arakcheevshchina were at the same time the years of the upsurge of revolutionary sentiment among the advanced nobility. During these years, secret societies of the future Decembrists were organized: the Union of Salvation, or the Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland (1816-1817), the Welfare Union (1818-1821), the Southern Society (1821-1825) headed by Pestel and S. Muravyov-Apostol, the Northern Society (1821-1825), and finally, the Society of United Slavs (1823-1825) - these are the most important associations of the future Decembrists. Despite all the variety of political programs, ardent love for the motherland and the struggle for human freedom were the main principles that united all the Decembrists. “Slavery of the vast, disenfranchised majority of Russians,” wrote the Decembrist M. Fonvizin, “cruel treatment of superiors with subordinates, all kinds of abuses of power, arbitrariness reigning everywhere, all this revolted and indignantly educated Russians and their patriotic feeling.” 2 M. Fonvizin emphasized that the sublime love for the fatherland, a sense of independence, first political, and later popular, inspired the Decembrists in their struggle.

All advanced Russian literature of the first third of the 19th century developed under the sign of the struggle against autocracy and serfdom. The creative work of Pushkin and Griboyedov is organically connected with the revolutionary movement of the Decembrists. Poets VF Raevsky, Ryleev, Kuchelbeker came out of the Decembrists themselves. Many other poets and writers were also involved in the orbit of the Decembrist ideological influence and influence.

According to Lenin's periodization historical process, there were three periods in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement: “... 1) the noble period, from about 1825 to 1861; 2) raznochinskiy or bourgeois-democratic, approximately from 1861 to 1895; 3) proletarian, from 1895 to the present.3 The Decembrists and Herzen were the main representatives of the first period. V. I. Lenin wrote: “... we clearly see three generations, three classes that acted in the Russian revolution. First - the nobles and landowners, the Decembrists and Herzen. The circle of these revolutionaries is narrow. They are terribly far from the people. But their work is not lost. The Decembrists woke up Herzen, Herzen launched a revolutionary agitation.”4

December 14, 1825 was a milestone in the socio-political and cultural life of Russia. After the defeat of the December uprising, a period of ever-increasing reaction began in the country. “The first years following 1825 were horrendous,” Herzen wrote. - It took at least ten years to come to oneself in this unfortunate atmosphere of enslavement and persecution. People were seized by deep hopelessness, a general decline in strength ... Only Pushkin's sonorous and wide song sounded in the valleys of slavery and torment; this song continued the past era, filled the present with courageous sounds and sent its voice to the distant future.

In 1826, Nicholas I created a special corps of gendarmes and established the III Department of "His Majesty's Own Chancellery." III Section was obliged to pursue "state criminals", he was entrusted with "all orders and news on the affairs of the higher police." The Baltic German Count A. Kh. Benkendorf, an ignorant and incompetent martinet who enjoyed the boundless trust of Nicholas I, was appointed chief of the gendarmes and head of the III Department. Benkendorf became the strangler of every living thought, every living undertaking.

“On the surface of official Russia, the ‘facade empire’, only losses, a ferocious reaction, inhuman persecution, and the aggravation of despotism were visible. Nikolai was visible, surrounded by mediocrities, soldiers of parades, Baltic Germans and wild conservatives - himself distrustful, cold, stubborn, ruthless, with a soul inaccessible to high impulses, and mediocre, like his entourage.

In 1826, a new censorship charter was introduced, called "cast iron". This statute was directed against "free-thinking" writings "filled with the fruitless and pernicious sophistication of modern times."3 Two hundred and thirty paragraphs of the new statute opened up the widest scope for casuistry. According to this charter, which obligated to look for a double meaning in the work, it was possible, as one contemporary said, to reinterpret the Our Father in the Jacobin dialect.

In 1828, a new censorship charter was approved, somewhat softer. However, this statute also provided for the complete prohibition of any judgments about the state structure and government policy. According to this statute, fiction was recommended to be censored with extreme strictness in relation to "morality". The Rules of 1828 marked the beginning of a multiplicity of censorship, which was extremely difficult for the press. Permission to print books and articles was made dependent on the consent of those departments to which these books and articles could relate in terms of content. After the revolutionary events in France and the Polish uprising, it was time for real censorship and police terror.

In July 1830, a bourgeois revolution took place in France, and a month later, revolutionary events spread to the territory of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Italian states. Nicholas I created plans for military intervention to suppress the revolution in Western Europe, but his plans were thwarted by an uprising in the Kingdom of Poland.

The time of the Polish uprising was marked by a strong upsurge of the mass movement in Russia. The so-called "cholera riots" broke out. IN Staraya Russa Novgorod province rebelled 12 regiments of military settlers. Serfdom continued to be a heavy burden on the popular masses of Russia and served as the main brake on the development of capitalist relations. In the first decade of the reign of Nicholas I, from 1826 to 1834, there were 145 peasant unrest, an average of 16 per year. In the years that followed, the peasant movement continued to grow in spite of severe persecution.

To maintain "calm" and "order" in the country, Nicholas I intensified the reactionary policy in every possible way. At the end of 1832, the theory of "official nationality" was declared, which determined the internal policy of the Nikolaev government. The author of this "theory" was S. Uvarov, the "Minister of the Redemption and Obscuration of Education," as Belinsky called him. The essence of the theory was expressed in the formula: “Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality”, and the last member of the formula, the most popular and popular, was also the main one for the reactionaries: demagogically distorting the meaning of the word “nationality”, they sought to establish serfdom as the main guarantee of the inviolability of church and state . S. Uvarov and other apologists for the "theory" of official nationality clearly understood that the historical fate of the autocratic system was predetermined by the fate of serfdom. “The question of serfdom,” said Uvarov, “is closely connected with the question of autocracy and even autocracy. “These are two parallel forces that have evolved together. Both have one historical beginning; their legitimacy is the same. - What we had before Peter I, then everything is gone, except for serfdom, which, therefore, cannot be touched without a general shock. manage to move Russia 50 years away from what theories are preparing for her, then I will fulfill my duty and die in peace. Uvarov carried out his program with strict consistency and perseverance: without exception, all areas of state and public life were gradually subordinated to the system of the strictest government guardianship. Science and literature, journalism, and theater were also regulated accordingly. I. S. Turgenev later recalled that in the 1930s and 1940s, “the governmental sphere, especially in St. Petersburg, captured and conquered everything.”2

Never before has the autocracy oppressed society and the people so cruelly as in the time of Nikolaev. Yet persecution and persecution could not kill the freedom-loving thought. The revolutionary traditions of the Decembrists were inherited, expanded and deepened by a new generation of Russian revolutionaries - revolutionary democrats. The first of them was Belinsky, who, according to V. I. Lenin, was “the forerunner of the complete displacement of the nobles by the raznochintsy in our liberation movement.”3

Belinsky entered the public arena three years before Pushkin's death, and during these years the revolutionary-democratic worldview of the great critic had not yet taken shape. In the post-December era, Pushkin did not see and still could not see those social forces that could lead the fight against serfdom and autocracy. This is the main source of those difficulties and contradictions in the circle of which Pushkin's genius was destined to develop in the 1930s. However, Pushkin shrewdly guessed the new social forces that finally matured after his death. It is significant that in the last years of his life he carefully looked at the activities of the young Belinsky, spoke sympathetically about him, and quite shortly before his death decided to involve him in joint journal work in Sovremennik.

Pushkin was the first to guess a huge talent in Gogol and with his sympathetic review of "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka" helped the young writer to believe in himself, in his literary vocation. Pushkin gave Gogol the idea of ​​The Inspector General and dead souls". In 1835, it was finally decided historical meaning Gogol: as a result of the publication of two of his new books - "Arabesques" and "Mirgorod" - Gogol gained fame as a great Russian writer, the true heir of Pushkin in the transformation of Russian literature. In the same 1835, Gogol created the first chapters of Dead Souls, begun on the advice of Pushkin, and a year later, The Inspector General, a brilliant comedy that was an event of enormous social significance, was published and put on stage. Another great successor of Pushkin, who continued the traditions of the liberation struggle under the conditions of the Nikolaev reaction, was Lermontov, who had already created his drama Masquerade and the image of Pechorin in Princess Ligovskaya during Pushkin's lifetime. Lermontov's wide popularity in Russian society began with his poem "The Death of a Poet", where he responded to the murderers of Pushkin, stigmatizing them with amazing power of artistic expression, with courage and directness.

Pushkin fell victim to the autocratic serf system, hunted down by the high-society court servants; he died, as Herzen later wrote, at the hands of “... one of those foreign brawlers who, like medieval mercenaries ..., give their sword for money to the services of any despotism. He fell in the full bloom of his strength, without finishing his songs, without saying what he had to say.

The death of Pushkin became a national grief. Several tens of thousands of people came to bow to his ashes. “It was already like a popular demonstration, like a suddenly awakened public opinion", - wrote a contemporary.2

After the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, Moscow University became one of the centers of progressive, independent thought. “Everything went back,” Herzen recalled, “blood rushed to the heart; activity, hidden outside, boiled, hidden inside. Moscow University resisted and began to be the first to cut out because of the general fog. The sovereign hated him ... But, despite this, the disgraced university grew in influence; into it, as into a common reservoir, the young forces of Russia poured in from all sides, from all strata; in its halls they were cleansed of prejudices captured at the hearth, came to the same level, fraternized among themselves and again spilled into all directions of Russia, into all its layers ... The motley youth, who came from above, below, from the south and north, quickly fused into a compact mass of partnership. Social distinctions did not have that insulting influence with us that we find in English schools and barracks ... A student who would take it into his head to show off his white bone or wealth with us would be excommunicated from "water and fire" ... ”(XII , 99, 100).

In the 1930s, Moscow University began to play an advanced social role not so much thanks to its professors and teachers, but thanks to the youth it united. The ideological development of university youth proceeded mainly in student circles. The development of Belinsky, Herzen, Ogarev, Lermontov, Goncharov, as well as many others, whose names subsequently entered the history of Russian literature, science and social thought, was connected with participation in circles that arose among students of Moscow University. In the mid-1950s, Herzen recalled in Past and Thoughts that “thirty years ago, the Russia of the future existed exclusively between a few boys who had just emerged from childhood ... and they had the legacy of December 14, the legacy of a universal science and purely folk Rus'” (XIII, 28).

The “December 14 Legacy” was already developed at the new revolutionary-democratic stage of social thought, in the 1940s, when Belinsky and Herzen worked together on the creation of Russian materialistic philosophy, and Belinsky laid the foundations of realistic aesthetics and criticism in Russia.

In the process of forming his revolutionary-democratic views, which were determined by the growth of the liberation movement in the country and, in connection with this, by the constantly escalating political struggle in Russian society, Belinsky launched a struggle for Pushkin's legacy. It can be said without any exaggeration that Pushkin's national and world fame was revealed to a large extent thanks to the work of Belinsky, thanks to the fact that Pushkin's work was illuminated by advanced revolutionary democratic theory. Belinsky defended Pushkin's heritage from reactionary and false interpretations, he waged an uncompromising struggle against all kinds of attempts to take Pushkin away from the Russian people, to distort and falsify his appearance. Belinsky stated with all certainty about his judgments about Pushkin that he considered these judgments far from final. Belinsky showed that the task of determining the historical and "undoubtedly artistic significance" of a poet like Pushkin "cannot be solved once and for all, on the basis of pure reason." “No,” Belinsky argued, “its solution must be the result of the historical movement of society” (XI, 189). And hence comes Belinsky's astonishing sense of historicism in the inevitable limitations of his own assessments of Pushkin's work. “Pushkin belongs to the ever-living and moving phenomena, which do not stop at the point at which their death found them, but continue to develop in the consciousness of society,” wrote Belinsky. “Each epoch pronounces its own judgment about them, and no matter how correctly it understands them, it will always leave the next epoch to say something new and more true ...” (VII, 32).

Belinsky's great historical merit lies in the fact that, realizing all of Pushkin's work in terms of the development of the liberation movement in the country, he revealed and approved Pushkin's significance as the founder of Russian advanced national literature, as a harbinger of the future perfect social order based on respect for man to man. Russian literature, starting with Pushkin, reflected global importance Russian historical process, steadily marching towards the world's first victorious socialist revolution.

In 1902, in the work "What is to be done?" V. I. Lenin emphasized that Russian literature began to acquire its worldwide significance due to the fact that it was guided by advanced theory. V. I. Lenin wrote: “... only a party led by an advanced theory can fulfill the role of a leading fighter. And in order to at least somewhat concretely imagine what this means, let the reader remember such predecessors of Russian social democracy as Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and the brilliant galaxy of revolutionaries of the 70s; let him think about the universal significance that Russian literature is now acquiring...”1

After the Great October Socialist Revolution, which opened a new era in world history, the world-historical significance of Russian literature and the world significance of Pushkin as its founder were fully revealed. Pushkin found new life in the hearts of the many millions of Soviet people and of all progressive mankind.

theater history


Theater of the 30s of the XIX century


Introduction


The same one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five. He abruptly turned the epoch.

The era itself was dual, it contained two eras: the exaltation of the throne and the revolution; Decembrism and the strengthening of lawlessness as a system; the awakening of the personality, but also the growth of arbitrariness of power that knew no limits.

That was the era of prophecy and dumbness, the search for Heaven, as Chaadaev wrote this word, with a capital letter, and moral surrender. The era of the executed and the hangers, voluntary informers and dreamers, Glinka's music and the chilling drum roll, under which soldiers and demoted poets were driven through the ranks.

The era was the era of Pushkin and the era of the well-bred gendarme on the throne, Emperor of All Russia Nicholas I, who managed to outlive him for two decades. Lermontov, whose lives and ranks he ordered, not taking into account only that immortality is not in his power.

One of the most typical representatives of stage romanticism on the Russian stage was Vasily Andreevich Karatygin, a talented representative of a large acting family, for many contemporaries - the first actor of the St. Petersburg stage. Tall, with noble manners, with a strong, even thunderous voice, Karatygin, as if by nature he was destined for majestic monologues. No one knew how to wear magnificent historical costumes made of silk and brocade, shining with gold and silver embroidery, fight with swords, and take picturesque poses better than him.

Already at the very beginning of his stage activity, V.A. Karatygin won the attention of the public and theater critics. A. Bestuzhev, who negatively assessed the state of the Russian theater of that period, singled out the "strong play of Karatygin." Some of the stage images created by Karatygin impressed the future participants in the events of December 14, 1825 with a social orientation - this is the image of the thinker Hamlet ("Hamlet" by Shakespeare), the rebellious Don Pedro ("Inessa de Castro" de Lamotta). Sympathy for progressive ideas brought the younger generation of the Karatygin family closer to progressive-minded writers. V.A. Karatygin and his brother P.A. Karatygin met A.S. Pushkin, A.S. Griboyedov, A.N. Odoevsky, V.K. Kuchelbeker, A.A. and N.A. Bestuzhev. However, after the events of December 14, 1825, V.A. Karatygin moves away from literary circles, focusing his interests on theatrical activities. Gradually, he becomes one of the first actors of the Alexandria Theater, enjoys the favor of the court and Nicholas I himself.

Karatygin's favorite roles were the roles of historical characters, legendary heroes, people of predominantly high origin or position - kings, generals, nobles. At the same time, he most of all strove for external historical plausibility.

If Karatygin was considered the premiere of the capital's stage, then P.S. reigned on the stage of the Moscow Drama Theater of these years. Mochalov. One of the outstanding actors of the first half of XIX century, he began his stage career as an actor in classical tragedy. However, due to his passion for melodrama and romantic drama, his talent is being improved in this area, and he gained popularity as a romantic actor. In his work, he sought to create the image of a heroic personality.

In the performance of Mochalov, even the stilted heroes of the plays by Kukolnik or Polevoy acquired the spirituality of genuine human experiences, personified the high ideals of honor, justice, and kindness. During the years of political reaction that followed the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, Mochalov's work reflected progressive public sentiments.

There were two epochs, and they combined in a strange way.

Which of them was attributed to the actor Mochalov? Was he at all? Maybe he is the hero of the legend?

Doesn't look like real person a giant, a sorcerer with a "phosphoric dazzling look", who "created worlds around him with one word, one breath." And isn’t it strange that his contemporaries, sometimes mercilessly unfair in their assessments, called the dramatic artist “the great educator of our entire generation”, “a short, pale man, with such a noble and beautiful face, overshadowed by black curls.”

Can you trust this? After all, Mochalov did not have black curls or coal-black eyes, so unanimously described by eyewitnesses. As evidenced by the most legitimate document, neatly drawn up by state officials on a sheet of government official paper, the eyes of Pavel Mochalov, Stepanov's son, are “light brown”, and his hair is “dark blond with gray hair”.

It was not the audience who saw the actor on this side of the curtain, from the audience, who wrote about black curls, but people who knew him closely and outside the stage, who have been associated with him for years. They also wrote about how his figure sometimes mysteriously transformed. How “ordinary growth” disappeared before our eyes, and instead a phenomenon called Belinsky “terrible” appeared. *1 “With the fantastic brilliance of the theatrical lighting”, it “separated from the ground, grew and stretched out into the entire space between the floor and the ceiling of the stage and fluctuated on it like an ominous ghost.”

Real people do not grow to the gigantic size of a ghost, like the heroes of legends and myths. In fact, it is not the volume of a person that changes, but the volume of vision. The awakened imagination of the viewer itself creates these giants. No wonder Mochalov's art "burned with the fire of lightning" and struck with "galvanic shocks."

The stigma of death was burned on the heroes of Mochalov. The fatal markedness of destinies fascinated people, whose dreams usually were crowned not with the Golden Fleece and not with laurels, but with hard labor and Siberia. It was not for nothing that their pathos looked for exaggerations and created myths.

The smoke of legends dissipated, and its recent hero, the Russian tragedian Mochalov, remained a lifeless shadow of the century.

Some eras overthrew him altogether. Others resurrected with energy, but painting on the features of their time.

He was turned into a hero from folk tales and into the Byronic figure of the disillusioned dreamer; into a consistent seeker of truth and into Pechorin. From the ashes, he rose as a sacred avenger, but a vigilant fighter for the truth who did not know retreat.

He was neither one nor the other. He himself was a part of history, an intimate part of Russia. He was a Russian artist, unable to distort himself either for the sake of government favors, or for fear of falling behind the era, of being overtaken by it, bypassed. The era threw him, broke, crushed, in the end, under the pressure of the ruthless whirlwinds of time, he fell, but remained the actor of the century, the rebellious genius of the century with its hidden abyss.

“The desert sower of freedom, he went out early, before the star…”.


1. Pavel Stepanovich Mochalov (1800-1848)


The parents of the great Russian tragic actor Pavel Stepanovich Mochalov were serf actors. Mother - Avdotya Ivanovna - played the role of young girls, most often servants. Father - Stepan Fedorovich - heroes. The Mochalovs lived in poverty. Pavel Mochalov recalled: “I have seen so much grief in my life! When we were kids, our father couldn't buy us warm clothes and we didn't go out for walks and sleigh rides for two winters.

In 1803, Stepan Mochalov became an actor in the Petrovsky Theater in Moscow. In 1806, the Mochalov family received "freedom". The documents of the theater directorate say that Mochalov “was recorded according to the 5th revision of the Moscow province of the Bogorodny district, near the village of Sergievsky, and was set free forever. He has a wife Avdotya Ivanovna and children: sons Pavel 14 years old, Plato 13 years old, Vasily 8 years old and daughter Maria 17 years old.

S.P. Zhikharev wrote in 1805, "Mochalov plays in tragedies, comedies and operas, and nowhere, at least, does not spoil." Mochalov Sr. deserved a higher appreciation from other contemporaries. For example, in Vestnik Evropy, a correspondent who signed N.D.-v wrote in the article The Russian Theater (1807, No. 10): he is gradually, hour by hour, more deserving of her attention. But introducing Mechtalin (in the play Colin d Arvilia "Castles in the Air") suddenly discovered an art for which it was fair to give him excellent approval. This is done. At the end of the comedy, Mr. Mochalov was called to the stage.

The personality of S.F. Mochalova attracted the attention of many admirers of his talent. Of great interest for understanding the environment in which the performing art of Stepan Fedorovich grew and strengthened is the story of one of contemporary writers: “During the intermission, the theater-goers gathered around Zhikharev ...

Well, how is Mochalov? asked theater director Kokoshkin.

Zhikharev shrugged. His cunning, unclean face with a hooked nose assumed a disgusted expression.

Well, - he said - a prominent fellow, plays everywhere and nowhere, at least does not spoil.

The mill, - said Shchegolin, who occasionally published reviews in the Dramatic Journal, - does not pause between long monologues. There are good moments, but there is no diligence in handling the role.

But is he talented? asked Kokoshkin anxiously.

Talent peeps through, - said Aksakov, - but art, art is not enough!

Believe me, - Kokoshkin said contritely, - in order to acquire liberties in circulation and skills in aristocratic manners, I forced him to serve at my balls and dinner parties with plates in his hands behind the chairs of the most honored guests. Takes nothing!

And the upset director swore that he would knock out ignorance from Mochalov ... ”

It is unlikely that Kokoshkin forced Mochalov to act as a lackey; in this passage, much deliberately reduces the dignity of Mochalov the father.

True, S.T. Aksakov wrote that S.F. Mochalov was good: especially in the plays The Guadalupe Resident and The Tone of Human Light, but in all other dramas and comedies he was a weak actor, mainly because of any understanding of the role. And yet S.F. Mochalov was talented, according to the same S.T. Aksakov, "in his soul he had an abyss of fire and feelings." He became the teacher of his son, Pavel Stepanovich Mochalov, and his daughter, actress Maria Stepanovna Mochalova, Frantseva.

In Moscow, Mochalov Jr. was sent to the boarding school of the Tekrlikov Brothers. They had not yet managed to open a noble university boarding school, which later built bridges to higher education. It was a decent establishment. Pavel Mochalov carefully performed his duties: he studied mathematics with the younger Terlikov and showed success in it. At the senior - comprehended literature. The mainstay of education, however, was revered by Master Ivan Davydov. He had no complaints about the boy. Pavel was faithful to the disciplines, mastered French with sin in half and learned something from world history and rhetoric. He completed the course successfully.

But it was inertia, a tribute to duty, habitual obedience that had not yet had time to rebel. In fact, he lived in anticipation. The rebellious alliance with the stage was already made in the imagination. Inside, he heard the distant call of new life. Towards him was the future in the form of Polyneices.

Young Pavel Stepanovich Mochalov made his brilliant debut on the Moscow stage in the tragedy by V.A. Ozerov "Oedipus in Athens", where he played the role of Polynices on September 4, 1817. This performance was given as a benefit to his father.

The tragedy "Oedipus in Athens" combined elements of the dramaturgy of classicism (the theme of public debt, the three unities, the development of the monologue element, the rhetoric of the language) and sentimental content.

The young actor brilliantly coped with his role. “The enthusiastic father of Mochalov,” wrote the biographer, “could understand his talent better than others, could comprehend the power of talent, which gave his son the opportunity to achieve what many actors fought in vain.” The father was ready to bow before his son, and in his enthusiastic nature demanded the same bow from his mother. Returning home, S. Mochalov shouted to his wife, pointing to his son:

Take off his boots!

The wife, surprised by the unusual requirement, asked why this should be done.

Your son is a genius, answered Mochalov the father, and it’s not a shame to take off your boots from a genius. In a feudal society, it was believed that serving a talent was not humiliating, but honorable.

The Russian theater was at that time on an important historical stage: there was a departure from the traditional recitation of classicism to the disclosure of the inner world of man.

Pavel Mochalov turned out to be an incomparable master of this psychological disclosure of the stage image. He had a good voice, faithfully conveying all the experiences of the characters, he had an exceptionally developed imagination.

On the stage, Mochalov could see not canvas backstage, but the real Theseus' palace in Oedipus in Athens or the Doge's Palace from Othello. The power of imagination communicated truthfulness and concreteness to the feelings of the actor, and this captured the audience.

There were times when Mochalov was so carried away by the role, so heated himself up that at the end of the performance he fainted.

P.S. Mochalov strove to naturally and freely express feelings. He created images of fiery rebels entering into an uncompromising struggle with the world of evil, vulgarity and lawlessness around them. The tragic artist called for a feat, infected the audience with optimism and faith in the future.

Its novelty riveted, but it was difficult to determine. His magnetism fascinated, but did not give in to a solution. Formally, the methods of the game did not repeat the game of its predecessors. On stage, he was more relaxed than in life. The constraint, so characteristic of him, he threw off along with the usual dress in his dressing room. He went on stage clean.

The heavy attire of a warrior, knightly armor, uncomfortable horned helmets, rigid shields, swords that hit the knees, wands and spears - all this at first supported, liberated, freed from the burden, turned into his reliable and facilitating shelter. He shielded himself from frankness with props, but it was through it that he exposed the essential. He hid in the texts of the role, as a child hides, closing his eyes, considering himself inaccessible to the world. But the texts just revealed its depths, led to unknown to them - they even less than others - bends of feelings. Other people's texts betrayed him.

No, I'm not a barbarian, I'm not born a monster:

By vice I could be instantly defeated

And become like a terrible villain ...

His Polyneices spoke feverishly, with bitter credulity and such horror, as if he were looking for salvation by the hall. He abruptly rushed to the ramp, away from the evil that had already been done and threatened him, and, stopping suddenly, as if on the wrong edge of a collapse, stretching out his hands for help, in a drooping and questioning tone - he did not recognize, he confessed:

But I have an ardent, sensitive soul,

And you gave me a tender heart.

Hands joined carefully, as if Polynices now had a heart in his hands.

You gave me life, give it to me again

Give silence to the heart and return love!

No, the guilty son Polynices did not ask Oedipus about this, but one of them turned to the audience for understanding. It was the voice from the choir that embodied their thoughts, the messenger of their time. There was a request in the magical voice, but along with it imperativeness, it was useless to resist it. He begged for love, but reminding that there is no, and there can be no peace if there is injustice nearby.

Already noisy, anticipating the sacrifice, the Athenian people at the temple. Already reconciled with the fate of Antigonus and King Oedipus, ready for death, when their static-ceremonial group was suddenly cut through by the springy-daring jump of Polyneices. Awakening from his already chilling weakness, he swept the stage in one motion. Some imperious force gave him supernatural swiftness, almost the tension of flight. He was ready to fight with the whole world, he went to single combat. And the voice instilled a spell:

It will not happen, no, this plan is terrible,

As long as I breathe...

A powerful faith in the need to save the innocent and thereby atone for guilt before them made Polynices not defeated, but a winner.

In the 1920s, Mochalov performed in romantic dramas. Such, for example, is his role of Cain in the work of A. Dumas père “Kin or Genius and Debauchery”, Georges de Germany in the melodrama “Thirty Years, or the Life of a Gambler” by V. Ducange; Meinau in the play "Hatred of People and Repentance" by A. Kotzebue.

Mochalov did not elevate his heroes above life, did not preen their appearance and inner essence. For the first time, he introduced simple conversation into the tragic scene.

The talent of the great artist was brilliantly manifested in the performance of the main roles in the works of Shakespeare: Othello, King Lear, Richard III, Romeo and Juliet; Schiller: "Robbers", "Cunning and Love", "Don Carlos", "Mary Stuart".

In the drama "Deceit and Love" Mochalov played the role of Ferdinand. In his interpretation, the hero of Schiller's drama had neither "secularity" nor beauty; Ferdinand looked like an ordinary army lieutenant in a shabby uniform, with "plebeian manners."

January 1837 Mochalov played the role of Hamlet on the stage of the Bolshoi Petrovsky Theater for his benefit performance. For the Shakespearean image, he found brighter colors that reveal the depth of character. Belinsky attended this performance with the participation of Mochalov ten times. The critic wrote after the second performance: *6 “We saw a miracle - Mochalov in the role of Hamlet, which he performed excellently. The audience was delighted: twice the theater was full, and after each performance Mochalov was called twice.*6 Previously, Hamlet's spiritual weakness was considered as a property of his nature: the hero is aware of his duty, but cannot fulfill it. Belinsky argued that Mochalov gave this image more energy than a weak person who is in a struggle with himself and crushed by the weight of an unbearable disaster for her can have.

He gave him less sadness and melancholy than her Shakespearean Hamlet should have. In the interpretation of Mochalov, Hamlet is a humanist fighter, his weakness is not an innate character trait, but a consequence of disappointment in people, in the surrounding reality, a violation of the harmonious unity of the world ...

Such an interpretation of the image of Hamlet as a person whose spiritual impulses cannot manifest themselves because of the vulgarity of the surrounding life was close to the progressive Russian intelligentsia of the 1830s-1840s. In the image and fate of Hamlet played by Mochalov, Belinsky, Herzen, Ogarev, Botkin and other contemporaries saw the tragedy of the generation of the Russian intelligentsia after the Decembrist uprising.

Mochalov's interpretation of the image of Othello also had a deep social resonance. Othello - hero, warrior, great person, who has rendered enormous services to the state, is faced with the arrogance and arrogance of the aristocracy. He dies because of treacherous betrayal.

In Richard III, Mochalov creates a gloomy image of a power-hungry villain who commits crimes in the name of his personal goals, doomed to loneliness and death.

P.S. Mochalov wanted to stage a drama by M.Yu. Lermontov "Masquerade" and play the role of Arbenin. This would allow him to show on stage the conflict of a noble hero with a hypocritical and cruel society, to show the tragedy of a thinking person, suffocating in the closed, suffocating environment of Nikolaev. The censorship did not allow this drama to be staged.

In comedy A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit", played for the first time in Moscow on November 27, 1831, Mochalov played the role of Chatsky.

Contemporaries unanimously characterize Mochalov as an artist "by the grace of God." He grew up and worked without any school. Hard, systematic work, constant study of the roles that his rival did so much. on stage V.A. Karatygin, were alien to him. He was a slave to his inspiration, artistic impulse, creative inspiration. When the mood left him, he was a mediocre artist, with the manner of a provincial tragedian; his game was uneven, he could not be "relied upon"; often in the whole play he was good only in one scene, in one monologue, even in one phrase.

The genius of Mochalov did not rely, as with Karatygin, on education. All attempts by the artist's friends, for example, S.T. Aksakov, to promote the development of Mochalov, to introduce him into literary circles, did not lead to anything. Closed, shy, a failure in family life, Mochalov ran away from his aristocratic, educated admirers in a student company or washed down his grief in a tavern, with random drinking companions. All his life he lived "an idle reveler", did not create a school and was laid in a grave with an epitaph: "Shakespeare's mad friend."


2. Vasily Andreevich Karatygin (1802-1853)


Vasily Andreevich Karatygin is the son of Andrei Vasilyevich Karatygin. Studied at Gorny cadet corps, served in the department of foreign trade. He studied acting with A.A. Shakhovsky and P.A. Katenin - a prominent propagandist and theorist of classic tragedy. In 1820 he made his debut at the St. Petersburg Bolshoi Theater in the role of Fingal (the tragedy of the same name by V.A. Ozerov). Close to the circles of progressive noble youth (he was familiar with A.S. Pushkin, A.S. Griboyedov, K.F. Ryleev, V.K. Kuchelbeker), Karatygin, after the suppression of the Decembrist uprising, joined the conservative camp.

At an early stage of creativity was associated with the traditions of classicism. Already in the 20s they decided character traits his acting style - elevated heroics, monumental splendor, melodious recitation, picturesqueness, sculptural poses. He played the roles of Dmitry Donskoy, Sid (Dimitri Donskoy by Ozerov, Sid by Corneille), Hippolyte (Phaedra by Racine). He enjoyed great success in the roles of the romantic repertoire and in translated melodramas.

Since the opening of the St. Petersburg Alexandrinsky Theater (1832), Karatygin has been the leading tragedian of this theater. He played the main roles in pseudo-patriotic plays: Pozharsky, Lyapunov (“The Hand of the Almighty Saved the Fatherland”, “Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky” by Kukolnik), Igolkin (“Igolkin, the Merchant Novgorodsky” by Polevoy), etc. Based on classicist aesthetics, Karatygin emphasized one the main, as he believed, trait of the hero - the jealousy of Othello, the desire to seize the throne - in Hamlet ("Othello" and "Hamlet" by Shakespeare, 1836 and 1837). Lively discussions were caused by the artist's tour in Moscow (1833, 1835).

Critics V.G. Belinsky, N.I. Nadezhdin (“P.Shch.”) negatively assessed the ceremonial and decorative art of Karatygin, contrasting him with the rebellious work of P.S., beloved by the democratic audience. Mochalova. * 7 "Looking at his game," Belinsky wrote in the article "And my opinion about Mr. Karatygin's game," you are constantly surprised, but never touched, never excited ... ". General Process development of realism, articles by Belinsky, trips to Moscow, joint performances with many masters of the realistic school influenced Karatygin. The art of the artist has acquired the features of naturalness, psychological depths. "... His game is becoming simpler and closer to nature ...", Belinsky noted in an article devoted to the performance of Karatygin leading role in the drama Belisarius by Schenk (1839). Belinsky highly appreciated the psychologically complex disclosure by Karatygin of the image of the decrepit, cowardly and cruel Louis XI (“The Enchanted House” by Aufenberg, 1836). The work of Vasily Karatygin, who carefully finished each role, studied many literary sources and iconographic materials while working on it, had positive influence for the development of acting.

Karatygin was the first performer of the roles of Chatsky ("Woe from Wit" by Griboedov, 1831), Don Juan, Baron ("The Stone Guest", 1847, and "The Miserly Knight", 1852, Pushkin), Arbenin ("Masquerade" by Lermontov, separate scenes, 1852). He translated and remade more than 40 plays for staging on the Russian stage (including "Kin, or Genius and Debauchery" by Dumas père, "King Lear", "Coriolanus" by Shakespeare, etc.).

Creativity Mochalov Karatygin Theater

3. Comparison of the work of P. Mochalov and V. Karatygin


The aristocratic public treated P. Mochalov with biased hostility. She found his acting unnecessarily "natural, suffering from simplicity and triviality". Conservative criticism opposed the play of Mochalov to the play of the St. Petersburg tragic actor V.A. Karatygin.

In 1828, Aksakov noted in the Moskovsky Vestnik that Mochalov and Karatygin “are not only two styles of acting, but two eras in the history of the Russian theater. Being a very good actor, Karatygin was completely dominated by the traditions of the game of the 18th century - he recited in a singsong voice, but he had little inspiration, passion, and, most importantly, simplicity, humanity.

Karatygin, according to Aksakov, really surpassed Mochalov in professional training and experience, but Mochalov was more talented than him. Mochalov's game embodied simplicity and humanity, deep life truth. These qualities were brought up by the common people from which he came.

On April 8, the Moscow magazine Molva informed readers "of the arrival of Mr. Karatygin with his wife" and that "these famous artists will stay here until May 5 and present the public with twelve performances."

Karatygin himself hesitated to leave. He conquered the Moscow public gradually, starting with the performances of his wife, Karatygina, an actress who knows the skill of decoration, the distinctness of stage design and verified brilliant technology, borrowed with skill in Paris, from the best stars of the European stage.

Her performances, met with a standing ovation, advanced the success of her husband. He chose for the first appearance the role, as if cut out according to his data, Dimitri Donskoy. And he chose right.

Two days later, a certain reviewer of Molva, who chose the initials P.Shch. for his signature, wrote: “I have never seen an artist happier created for the stage ... This colossal growth, this solemn, truly regal posture, movement, combining amazing grandeur with charming harmony ... ”Everything is just what Mochalov was denied even by critics who sympathize with him.

Such a reliable witness as Schepkin wrote to Sosnitsky shortly after the start of the tour: “Vasily Andreevich Karatygin delighted Moscow with his high talent. In all the performances in which he plays, there are not enough seats. Our old Moscow knows how to appreciate!

The audience, greedy for sensation, almost choked with delight. The sensation consisted both in the novelty of the artist for Moscow, and in the loudness of his fame, and in the fact that he played all the roles of Mochalov, and in the fact that the Mochalovites tried to obstruct, for which they were publicly shamed by Mochalov himself, who managed to see one performance before his departure, and, finally, that now Mochalov plays on the St. Petersburg stage and there he single-handedly affirms the banner of the Moscow school.

And in St. Petersburg, Mochalov lives outside the battle of critics. Performances were liberated, performances were his salvation. He heard the echo of hundreds of pulses. The closed soul of the hall awakened this time. He felt it.


Conclusion


The significance of Pavel Mochalov in his era went far beyond the usual limits of art. Mochalov was a phenomenon of the time and its sign.

Yes, he lived and played unevenly, aimlessly, for minutes. But these minutes included centuries, the course of history, moral upheavals. He fell, but rose at such heights, which were the result of the spiritual quest of his contemporaries Gogol, Lermontov, Turgenev, Ostrovsky.

Mochalov created large, romantically generalized characters. He did not attach importance to the petty, concrete, private, he concentrated all his efforts on revealing the main thing, on the dialectically contradictory inner world heroes. The artist was especially good at scenes depicting turning points in the inner life of people, their rise, when the factors gradually accumulated in the mind lead to the adoption of a new decision. Mochalov's game was not only stormy, contained rapid transitions from calmness to excitement, but also included many subtle and deep psychological shades.

Really, what do you need on stage? Suicide of the individual or personality? Majestic movements that appeal to Karatygin or the excessive simplicity of Mochalov?

The argument about the actors was not about technology, the argument was put forward by history. The theater was a crossroads of opinions, where questions of life collided. The theater has become a point of reference for views, a spiritual barometer of time.

Five years before the discussion, after Mochalov's first tour in St. Petersburg, Aksakov wrote with insight: *12 “I now vividly feel how our artist Mochalov, who does not sing, does not recite in tragedies, but does not even read in tragedies, should have disliked but says.

It's just that the goals of these two great actors were different. Mochalov "offered for himself to act through sight and hearing on the soul."

Karatygin had other goals. As Stankevich wrote about him: "grimaces, makes farces, roars, but still he has a rare talent." And further: "a very good actor, but far from an artist ..."; "he has rare virtues, but the imperfection in his room vouches for the imperfection on stage."

indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Federal Agency for Education

Volgograd State Technical University

Department of History, Culture and Sociology

Essay on national history

“The social movement of the 30-50s. 19th century"

Volgograd 2010

Content

2.1Slavophilism 6

2.2Westernism 8

Introduction

In the first half of the XIX century. ideological and socio-political struggle has intensified all over the world. Russia was no exception. However, if in a number of countries this struggle ended in the victory of bourgeois revolutions and national liberation movements, then in Russia the ruling elite managed to maintain the existing economic and socio-political system.

During the reign of Alexander I, a situation developed that contributed to the emergence of reformist projects and constitutional sentiments among the advanced and educated part of Russian society, prompting them to draw up radical plans for state reforms. This contributed to the emergence of the activities of the Decembrists, which became a significant event in Russian history. However, the insufficient preparedness of society for transformations, inconsistency in actions, and expectant tactics led to the defeat of the Decembrists.

The new period of Russian history, which came after the defeat of the Decembrists, is associated with the personality of Nicholas I. The Nikolaev government took a number of measures to strengthen the police and strengthen censorship. In a society terrorized by the massacre of the Decembrists, they looked for the slightest manifestations of “sedition”. The initiated cases were inflated in every possible way, presented to the tsar as a “terrible conspiracy”, the participants of which received exorbitantly heavy punishments. But it didn't lead to a decline. social movement. It revived. Various St. Petersburg and Moscow salons, circles of officers and officials, higher educational institutions, literary magazines, etc. became centers for the development of social thought. In the social movement of the second quarter of the 19th century, three ideological directions emerged: conservative (adherents of government ideology), liberal and radical (adherents of revolutionary ideology).

  1. conservative ideology.

The Decembrist uprising was suppressed, but it emphasized the inevitability of change, forced the social movement of subsequent decades to seek their own solutions to the pressing problems of Russian life. A new stage in the social movement in Russia begins in the 1830s, when A.I. Herzen and N.V. Stankevich. Outwardly, they looked like literary and philosophical associations, but in reality they played an important practical role in the ideological life of the empire.

The Nikolaev government tried to develop its own ideology, introduce it into schools, universities, the press, and educate the young generation devoted to the autocracy. Uvarov became the main ideologist of the autocracy. In the past, a freethinker who was friends with many Decembrists, he put forward the so-called “theory of official nationality” (“autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality”). Its meaning consisted in opposing the noble-intellectual revolutionary spirit and the passivity of the masses, observed from the end of the 18th century. Liberation ideas were presented as a superficial phenomenon, common only among the “corrupted” part of an educated society. The passivity of the peasantry, its patriarchal piety, and steadfast faith in the tsar were portrayed as “original” and “original” traits of the people's character. Other peoples, Uvarov assured, “do not know peace and are weakened by diversity of thought,” and Russia “is strong with unparalleled unanimity - here the tsar loves the Fatherland in the person of the people and rules them like a father, guided by laws, and the people do not know how to separate the Fatherland from the king and sees in him his happiness, strength and glory.

The social task of the “official nationality” was to prove the “originality” and “legitimacy” of serfdom and monarchical rule. Serfdom was declared a “normal” and “natural” social condition, one of the most important foundations of Russia, “a tree that overshadows the church and the throne.” Autocracy and serfdom were called "sacred and inviolable." Patriarchal, “calm”, without social storms, revolutionary upheavals, Russia was opposed to the “rebellious” West. In this spirit, it was prescribed to write literary and historical works, and all education was to be permeated with these principles.

The main "inspirer" and "conductor" of the theory of "official nationality" was undoubtedly Nicholas I himself, and the Minister of Public Education, reactionary professors and journalists acted as its zealous conductors. The main "interpreters" of the theory of "official nationality" were professors of Moscow University - philologist S.P. Shevyrevi historian M.P. Po-godin, journalists N.I. Grech and F.V. Bulgarin. So, Shevyrev in his article “The History of Russian Literature, Mostly Ancient” (1841) considered humility and humiliation of the individual to be the highest ideal. According to him, “our Rus' is strong with three fundamental feelings and its future is certain”: this is “an ancient feeling of religiosity”; “a sense of its state unity” and “awareness of our nationality” as a “powerful barrier” to all “temptations” that come from the West. Pogodin argued the “beneficence” of serfdom, the absence of class enmity in Russia and, consequently, the absence of conditions for revolutionary upheavals. According to him, the history of Russia, although it did not have such a variety of major events and brilliance as the western one, it was “rich in wise sovereigns”, “glorious deeds”, “high virtues”. Pogodin proved the primordiality of autocracy in Russia, starting with Rurik. In his opinion, Russia, having adopted Christianity from Byzantium, established “true enlightenment” thanks to this. From Peter the Great, Russia had to borrow a lot from the West, but, unfortunately, it borrowed not only useful things, but also “delusions”. Now "it's time to return it to the true principles of nationality." With the establishment of these principles, "Russian life will finally settle down on the true path of prosperity, and Russia will assimilate the fruits of civilization without its delusions."

The theorists of the “official nationality” argued that the best order of things dominated in Russia, consistent with the requirements of religion and “political wisdom”. Serfdom, although in need of improvement, retains much of the patriarchal (i.e., positive), and a good landowner guards the interests of the peasants better than they could do it themselves, and the position of the Russian peasant is better than that of the Western European worker.

Uvarov's theory, which at that time seemed to rest on very solid foundations, nevertheless had one major flaw. She had no perspective. If the existing order in Russia is so good, if there is complete harmony between the government and the people, then there is no need to change or improve anything. The crisis of this theory came under the influence of military failures during the years of the Crimean War, when the failure of the Nikolaev political system became clear even to its adherents (for example, M.P. Pogodin, who criticized this system in his “Historical and Political Letters” addressed to Nicholas I , and then Alexander II).

  1. liberal direction

      Slavophilism

Since the end of the 30s. the liberal direction took the form of the ideological currents of Westernism and Slavophilism . They did not have their own printed organs (until 1856), and discussions took place in literary salons.

Slavophiles - mostly thinkers and publicists (A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky. I.S. and K.S. Aksakov, N.Ya. Danilevsky) idealized pre-Petrine Rus', insisted on its identity, which they saw in the peasant community, alien to social hostility, and in Orthodoxy. These features, in their opinion, should have ensured a peaceful path of social transformation in the country. Russia was supposed to return to the Zemsky Sobors, but without serfdom.

Westerners - predominantly historians and writers (I.S. Turgenev, T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin, M.N. Katkov) were supporters of the European path of development and advocated a peaceful transition to a parliamentary system.

However, the main positions of the Slavophiles and the Westerners coincided: they advocated political and social reforms from above, against revolutions.

The starting date of Slavophilism as an ideological trend in Russian social thought should be considered 1839, when two of its founders, Alexei Khomyakov and Ivan Kireevsky, published articles: the first - "On the Old and the New", the second - "In response to Khomyakov", in which the main provisions of the Slavophil doctrine were formulated. Both articles were not intended for publication, but were widely circulated in the lists and were animatedly discussed. Of course, even before these articles, various representatives of Russian social thought expressed Slavic-Nophile ideas, but they had not yet acquired a coherent system. Finally, Slavophilism was formed in 1845 by the time of the publication of three Slavophile books of the Moskvityanin magazine. The journal was not Slavophile, but M.P. was its editor. Pogodin, who willingly provided the Slavic-Nophiles with the opportunity to publish their articles in it. In 1839 - 1845. a Slavophile circle also formed. The soul of this circle was A.S. Khomyakov - "Ilya Muromets of Slavophilism", as he was then called, is an intelligent, energetic, brilliant polemicist, unusually gifted, possessing a phenomenal memory and great erudition. Brothers I.V. also played a big role in the circle. and P.V. Ki-reevsky. The circle included the brothers K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, A.I. Koshelev, Yu.F. Samarin. Later, it included the father of the Aksakov brothers S.T. Aksakov, famous Russian writer, F.V. Chizhov and D.A. Valuev. The Slavophiles left a rich legacy in philosophy, literature, history, theology, and economics. Ivan and Peter Kireevsky were considered recognized authorities in the field of theology, history and literature, Alexey Khomyakov - in theology, Konstantin Aksakov and Dmitry Valuev were engaged in Russian history, Yuri Samarin - in socio-economic and political problems, Fedor Chizhov - in the history of literature and art. Twice (in 1848 and 1855) the Slavophiles tried to create their own political programs.

The term "Slavophiles" is essentially accidental. This name was given to them by their ideological opponents - Westerners in the heat of controversy. The Slavophiles themselves initially denied this name, considering themselves not Slavophiles, but “Russo-lovers” or “Russophiles”, emphasizing that they were mainly interested in the fate of Russia, the Russian people, and not the Slavs in general. A.I. Koshelev pointed out that they should most likely be called "natives" or, more precisely, "original people", because their main goal was to protect the originality of the historical fate of the Russian people, not only in comparison with the West, but also with the East. The early Slavophilism (before the reform of 1861) was also not characterized by pan-Slavism, which was inherent in the already late (post-reform) Slavophilism. Slavophilism as an ideological and political trend in Russian social thought leaves the stage around the middle of the 70s of the 19th century.

The main thesis of the Slavophiles is proof of the original ways of Russia's development, more precisely, the demand to "follow this path", the idealization of "original" institutions, primarily the peasant community and the Orthodox Church.

The government was wary of the Slavophiles: they were forbidden to wear demonstrative beards and Russian dresses, some of the Slavophiles were imprisoned for several months in the Peter and Paul Fortress for harshness of statements. All attempts to publish Slavophile newspapers and magazines were immediately suppressed. The Slavophils were subjected to persecution in the context of the strengthening of the reactionary political course under the influence of the Western European revolutions of 1848-1849. This forced them to curtail their activities for a while. In the late 50s - early 60s, A.I. Koshelev, Yu.F. Samarin, V.A. Cherkassky are active participants in the preparation and implementation of the peasant reform.

      Westernism

Westernism , like Slavophilism, arose at the turn of the 30s - 40s of the XIX century. The Moscow circle of Westerners took shape in 1841-1842. Contemporaries interpreted Westernism very broadly, including among Westerners in general all those who opposed the Slavophiles in their ideological disputes. The Westernizers, along with such moderate liberals as P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, N.Kh. Ketcher, V.F. Korsh, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev. However, Belinsky and Herzen called themselves "Westerners" in their disputes with the Slavophiles.

In terms of their social origin and status, most Westerners, like the Slavophiles, belonged to the noble intelligentsia. Among the Westerners were well-known professors of Moscow University - historians T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Solovyov, jurists M.N. Katkov, K.D. Kavelin, philologist F.I. Buslaev, as well as prominent writers I.I. Panaev, I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov, later N.A. Nekrasov.

The Westerners opposed themselves to the Slavophiles in disputes about the ways of Russia's development. They argued that although Russia was “belated”, it was following the same path of historical development as all Western European countries, they advocated its Europeanization.

Westerners glorified Peter I, who, as they said, "saved Russia." They considered the activities of Peter as the first phase of the renewal of the country, the second should begin with reforms from above - they will be an alternative to the path of revolutionary upheavals. Professors of history and law (for example, S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin) great importance gave the role of state power in the history of Russia and became the founders of the so-called state school in Russian historiography. Here they were based on the scheme of Hegel, who considered the state to be the creator of the development of human society.

Westerners propagated their ideas from university departments, in articles published in the Moscow Observer, Moskovskie Vedomosti, Otechestvennye Zapiski, and later in Russkiy Vestnik and Ateney. Readable T.N. Granovsky in 1843 - 1851. cycles of public lectures on Western European history, in which he proved the commonality of the laws of the historical process in Russia and Western European countries, according to Herzen, "made propaganda into history." Westernizers also made extensive use of Moscow salons, where they “fought” with the Slavophiles and where the enlightened elite of Moscow society gathered to see “who will finish whom and how they will finish him himself.” Heated debates broke out. Speeches were prepared in advance, articles and treatises were written. Herzen was especially sophisticated in polemical fervor against the Slavic-nofils. It was an outlet in the deadly atmosphere of Nikolaev Russia.

Despite differences in views, Slavophiles and Westernizers grew up from the same root. Almost all of them belonged to the most educated part of the noble intelligentsia, being prominent writers, scientists, publicists. Most of them were students of Moscow University. The theoretical basis of their views was the German classical philosophy. Both those and others were worried about the fate of Russia, the ways of its development. Both those and others acted as opponents of the Nikolaev system. “We, like two-faced Janus, looked in different directions, but our hearts were the same,” Herzen would later say.

It must be said that all directions of Russian social thought, from the reactionary to the revolutionary, advocated for “nationality”, putting completely different content into this concept. The revolutionary considered "people" in terms of the democratization of national culture and enlightenment of the masses in the spirit of advanced ideas, saw in the masses the social support of revolutionary transformations.

  1. revolutionary direction

The revolutionary direction was formed around the magazines Sovremennik and Domestic Notes, which were led by V.G. Belinsky with the participation of A.I. Herzen and N.A. Non-beautiful. Supporters of this direction also believed that Russia would follow the European path of development, but, unlike the liberals, they believed that revolutionary upheavals were inevitable.

Until the mid 50s. the revolution was a necessary condition for the abolition of serfdom for A.I. Herzen . Separating themselves in the late 40s. from Westernism, he came to the idea of ​​\u200b\u200b"Russian socialism", which was based on the free development of the Russian community and artel in conjunction with the ideas of European socialism and assumed self-government on a national scale and public ownership of land.

A characteristic phenomenon in Russian literature and journalism of that time was the distribution of “seditious” poems, political pamphlets and journalistic “letters” in the lists, which, under the then censorship conditions, could not appear in print. Among them, the written V 1847 Belinsky “ Letter to Gogol ”. The reason for his writing was the publication in 1846 by Gogol of the religious and philosophical work “Selected passages from correspondence with friends”. In a review of the book published in Sovremennik, Belinsky wrote in harsh terms about the author's betrayal of his creative heritage, about his religiously “humble” views, and self-humiliation. Gogol considered himself insulted and sent a letter to Belinsky, in which he regarded his review as a manifestation of personal hostility towards himself. This prompted Belinsky to write his famous Letter to Gogol.

The “Letter” sharply criticized the system of Nicholas Russia, which, according to Belinsky, “is a terrible sight of a country where people traffic in people where there are not only no guarantees for personality, honor and property, but there is not even a police order, but there are only huge corporations of various official thieves and robbers”. Belinsky also attacks the official church - the servant of the autocracy, proves the "deep atheism" of the Russian people and questions the religiosity of church pastors. He does not spare the famous writer either, calling him “a preacher of the whip, an apostle of ignorance, a champion of obscurantism and obscurantism, a panegyrist of Tatar morals.”

The most immediate, urgent tasks facing Russia at that time, Belinsky formulated as follows: “The abolition of serfdom, the abolition of corporal punishment, the introduction, if possible, of strict enforcement of at least those laws that already exist.” Belinsky's letter was distributed in thousands of lists and caused a great public outcry.

P. Ya. became an independent figure in the ideological opposition to the Nikolaev rule. Chaadaev (1794 - 1856). A graduate of Moscow University, a participant in the battle of Borodino and the "battle of the peoples" near Leipzig, a friend of the Decembrists and A.S. Pushkin, in 1836 he published in the journal Teleskop the first of his Philosophical Letters, which, according to Herzen, "shook all thinking Russia." Rejecting the official theory of Russia's "wonderful" past and "magnificent" present, Chaadaev gave a very gloomy assessment of Russia's historical past and its role in world history; he was extremely pessimistic about the possibilities of social progress in Russia. Chaadaev considered the main reason for Russia's separation from the European historical tradition to be the rejection of Catholicism in favor of the religion of serf slavery - Orthodoxy. The government regarded the "Letter" as an anti-government speech: the magazine was closed, the publisher was sent into exile, the censor was fired, and Chaadaev was declared insane and placed under police supervision.

A prominent place in the history of the liberation movement of the 1940s is occupied by the activities of the Petrashevsky circle. . The founder of the circle was a young official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a graduate of the Alexander (Tsarskoye Selo) Lyceum M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky. Starting from the winter of 1845, teachers, writers, petty officials, senior students, that is, mostly young intelligentsia, gathered at his St. Petersburg apartment every Friday. F.M. Dostoevsky, A.N. Maikov, A.N. Pleshcheev, M.E. Saltykov, A.G. Rubinstein, P.P. Semenov. Later, advanced military youth began to appear on Petrashevsky Fridays.

First of all, Petrashevsky himself and many members of his circle were interested in the then fashionable problems of socialism. Petrashevsky even made an attempt to propagate socialist and materialist ideas in the press.

Since the winter of 1846/47, the nature of the circle began to change noticeably. From the discussion of literary and scientific novelties, the members of the circle moved on to the discussion of pressing political problems and criticism of the existing political system in Russia. The most moderate in views members of the circle move away from him. But there are new people, more radical views, for example, I.M. Debu, N.P. Grigoriev, A.I. Palm, P.N. Filippov, F.G. Tol, who spoke in favor of violent measures (“to produce a rebellion inside Russia through a peasant uprising”) to overthrow the autocracy, liberate the peasants from the land, introduce a parliamentary republic with universal suffrage, an open and equal court for all, freedom of the press, speech, religion . The group of people who shared these ideas was headed by Speshnev. Petrashevsky took a more moderate position: a constitutional monarchy, the emancipation of the peasants from above, giving them the land they owned, but without any ransom for it.

By 1848, meetings at Petrashevsky's were already taking on a pronounced political character. The circle discusses the future political structure of Russia and the problem of revolution. In March-April 1849, the Petrashevites began to create a secret organization and even began to make plans for an armed uprising. N.P. Grigoriev drafted a proclamation to the soldiers - "Soldier's Conversation". A printing press was purchased for the secret printing house. At this, the activities of the circle were interrupted by government repressions. The Ministry of Internal Affairs had been following the Petrashevites for several months through an agent sent to them, who gave detailed written reports on everything that was said at the next “Friday”.

In April 1849, the most active members of the circle were arrested, their intentions were regarded by the investigating commission as the most dangerous "conspiracy of ideas", and the military court sentenced 21 Petrashevsky (among them F.M. Dostoevsky) to death. At the last moment, the condemned were announced that the death penalty would be replaced by hard labor, prison companies and exile to the settlement.

The period called by Herzen "the era of excitement of intellectual interests" , lasted until 1848. Reaction came in Russia, Herzen went abroad, Belinsky died. A new revival came only in 1856.

Conclusion

A new stage in the social movement in Russia begins in the 1830s, when A.I. Herzen and N.V. Stankevich. Outwardly, they looked like literary and philosophical associations, but in reality they played an important practical role in the ideological life of the empire.

European Revolutions 1848-1849 had a huge impact on the Russian revolutionary movement. Many of its participants were forced to abandon their former views and beliefs, primarily from the hope that Europe would show all mankind the path to universal equality and fraternity.

Herzen believed that a revolution in Russia, if needed, did not necessarily have to result in a bloody act. From his point of view, it was enough to free the community from the supervision of the landowners and officials, and the communal order, supported by 90% of the country's population, would have triumphed.

It is probably superfluous to say that Herzen's ideas were a beautiful utopia, since the implementation of his plan would open the way for the rapid development of capitalism in Russia, but not the socialist order. However, the theory of communal socialism became the banner of a whole revolutionary direction, since its implementation depended not on the support of those in power or wealthy patrons, but on the determination and activity of the revolutionaries themselves. Ten years later, Herzen's theory gathered Russian revolutionary populism under its banner.

In the early 1850s the Russian populist, revolutionary-democratic camp was just beginning to take shape, and therefore was far from unity and did not have a noticeable influence on the political affairs of the country. It included three types of actors. Some (Herzen, Ogarev) recognized the revolution only as the last argument of the oppressed. The second (Chernyshevsky, N. Serno-Solovyevich) believed in the revolution as the only method of social reorganization, but believed that certain socio-economic and political prerequisites should ripen for its implementation.

All the leaders of the revolutionary camp, of course, were waiting for the all-Russian peasant uprising in 1861-1863. (as a response to the difficult conditions for the masses of the peasant reform), which could develop into a revolution. However, they waited for him with different feelings. The first two trends in the revolutionary movement could not part with the anxiety that at one time made the Decembrists hope for a military revolution and not try to win the masses over to their side. The essence of this anxiety was that the politically illiterate, unorganized peasant masses, as history shows, easily become a blind weapon in the hands of the most reactionary forces.

List of used literature

    Korshelov V.A. Domestic history of the XIX century. M.: AGAR, 2000. - 522p.

    Kuznetsova F.S. History of Siberia. Part 1. Novosibirsk, 1997.

    Miller G.F. History of Siberia. M., L., 1977.

    second half 30 -s XX century England and... Broad socio-political and ideological public movement in Western and Central Europe... Veche. 65. Representatives publicly-political trend at 40 - 50 gg. XIX c., adhering to the doctrine...

  1. Social and economic development of Russia in the second and third half XIX century

    Coursework >> History

    Universities gradually fractured public opinion. In 1830- ... as a result, a general movement. Except for a few... S. Ivanovo. In the middle 50 -X gg. XIX century in Shuisky district, there was ... a phase of its development ( 30 -50 -e gg.) passed under conditions...

  2. conservative movement in the Russian Empire in the 2nd half XIX century

    Coursework >> History

    ... publicly-political movements in Russia in the second half XIX century"6. General development public movements V XIX century... Alexander II 30 March 1856 ... at the end 50 's, ... XIX century/ Comp. A.A. Utkin. - Elabuga: Publishing House of YSPU, 2006. - Part 2. 1825 - 1855 gg ...

  3. Legal regulation of industrial production in the second half XIX early XX centuries

    Abstract >> State and Law

    Industry was hindered by feudal foundations. Russia 30 -50 -X gg. XIX century could be characterized as a country... XX century trade relations among the Russian bourgeoisie prevailed over industrial ones. Climb public movements ...

Social movement in Russia in the 30-40s of the XIX century

Parameter name Meaning
Article subject: Social movement in Russia in the 30-40s of the XIX century
Rubric (thematic category) Policy

After the massacre of the Decembrists, the entire social life of Russia was placed under the strictest supervision by the state, which was carried out by the forces of the 3rd department, its extensive network of agents and scammers. This was the reason for the decline of the social movement.

A few circles tried to continue the work of the Decembrists. In 1827 ᴦ. at Moscow University, the brothers P., V. and M. Kritsky organized a secret circle, the goals of which were the destruction royal family and constitutional changes in Russia.

In 1831 ᴦ. The tsarist secret police discovered and destroyed the mugs of N.P. Sungurov, whose members were preparing an armed uprising in Moscow. In 1832 ᴦ. at Moscow University there was an ʼʼLiterary Society of Number 11ʼʼ, of which V.G. Belinsky was a member. In 1834 ᴦ. the circle of A.I. Herzen was opened.

At 30-40 gᴦ. three ideological and political trends emerged: reactionary-protective, liberal, and revolutionary-democratic.

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

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

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

Westernism arose in 30-40 AD. 19th century in the circle of representatives of the nobility and the raznochintsy intelligentsia. Main idea - the concept of community historical development Europe and Russia. Liberal Westerners advocated a constitutional monarchy with guarantees of freedom of speech, press, open court and democracy (T.N. Granovsky, P.N. Kudryavtsev, E.F. Korsh, P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin). They considered the reforming activity of Peter I the beginning of the renewal of old Russia and offered to continue it by carrying out bourgeois reforms.

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

Social movement in Russia in the 30-40s of the XIX century - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Social movement in Russia in the 30-40s of the XIX century" 2017, 2018.

  • - 19th century portrait

    The development of the portrait in the 19th century was predetermined by the Great French revolution, which contributed to the solution of new problems in this genre. In art, a new style becomes dominant - classicism, and therefore the portrait loses the splendor and sugariness of the works of the 18th century and becomes more ....


  • - Cologne Cathedral in the XIX century.

    For several centuries, the cathedral continued to stand in an unfinished state. When in 1790 Georg Forster glorified the soaring slender columns of the choir, which already in the years of its creation was considered a miracle of art, Cologne Cathedral stood in an unfinished frame, ... .


  • - From the resolution of the XIX All-Union Party Conference.

    Option No. 1 Instruction for students CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING STUDENTS Grade "5": 53-54 points Grade "4": 49-52 points Grade "3": 45-48 points Grade "2": 1-44 points hour 50 min. – 2 hours. Dear student! Your attention... .


  • - 19th century

    Socialist realism Neo-plasticism Purism Cubo-futurism Art... .


  • - Conservatism in Russia in the 19th century

  • - Physiological prose in Russian journalism of the XIX century.

    Physiological essay is a genre whose main purpose is a visual representation of a certain social class, his life, habitat, foundations and values. The genre of the physiological essay originated in the 30-40s of the 19th century in England and France, and later appeared in...

    You may be interested