The peasant question in Russia. Doctor of Historical Sciences Oksana Kiyanskaya - on the mutations of Decembrism

23.09.2019

Gabriel Garcia Marquez What language did Marquez write in?

An essay on the topic: Pechorin is a fatalist (based on the novel by M

How the Decembrist dream was embodied in the realities of the subsequent revolutionary history of Russia - "Ogonyok" asked Oksana Kiyanskaya, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Russian State Humanitarian University

- We still remember the formula by heart: the Decembrists awakened Herzen, Herzen awakened Lenin. Tell me, Oksana Ivanovna, what did the next generations of revolutionaries actually inherit from the Decembrists?

- A legend. Herzen created her and was the first to worship her. This legend was taken up by the Decembrists themselves, who lived to see liberation. She also formed the basis of the basic intellectual myth about people who gave their lives for the happiness of their suffering brother. The Narodnaya Volya people inherited the same legend - those who came to the revolution after the Decembrists. But only a legend. "Narodnaya Volya" took over nothing from the Decembrists. The only thing that unites them is “Down with the Tsar!”, The understanding that it is necessary to change the government. If the Decembrists thought for 10 years how to kill the tsar, then the People's Will killed him. If the Decembrists dreamed of organizing universal legal equality, then the People's Will talked about a peasant revolution, redistribution of land. None of the Narodniks studied with the Decembrists. And the populists were awakened not by the Decembrists, but by the reforms of 1861.

- Which of the revolutionaries is who? Are the Decembrists intellectuals or aristocrats?

- If the Decembrists were called intellectuals, they would be very surprised. They were nobles. The intelligentsia is the concept of the post-reform era. Then the third estate appeared - people who, even being nobles, did not feel that way, they themselves earned a living, had an education, thought about the nature of life, the structure of society and, of course, thought of themselves in opposition to power. It seems to me that the main feature of the Russian intelligentsia is opposition to the authorities.

- Are the Narodnaya Volya members of the intelligentsia?

- There were socially different people, from the noblewoman Perovskaya to the peasant's son Andrei Zhelyabov. They were united by a common cause. Both Zhelyabov and Perovskaya taught, went to the people. Yes, most likely, this is really a class community of intellectuals.

- Did the intelligentsia acquit Vera Zasulich, who shot at the St. Petersburg mayor Trepov?

- Provocative question! The jury decided that Zasulich had reason to shoot. I don’t know to what extent these jurors thought in terms of opposition to the emperor, but the public consciousness in that era was such that people justified the fight against injustice.

- In other words, did the public consciousness of Russia justify terror? Shakes!

- It shocks everyone. Only the public conscience did not justify terror as such. Firstly, the tsar had not yet been assassinated, and few people understood that it would come to this. Secondly, the mood in society has changed in comparison with the times of Alexander I and Nicholas I. If then rebels and revolutionaries were subject to unconditional punishment, then Alexander II in 1856 forgave the Decembrists. They returned from Siberia as idols of a generation and preached their ideas in every possible way. When serfdom fell, many considered it the result of the action of the ideas of the Decembrists. There was a turning point in consciousness: everyone decided that revolutions are not always bad. In this context, the story of Zasulich became quite positive. The jury admitted that she had motives to shoot (Trepov, we recall, ordered the flogging of the political prisoner populist Bogolyubov for not taking off his hat in front of him. "O"), she's not just a killer. And this shocked people who were not at all in solidarity with Zasulich.

- So what is the difference between the aristocratic revolution of the Decembrists and the revolution of the populists?

- The era has changed. The Narodniks were closer to the people by birth and by social orientation. For them, the main issue was the question of land. Why was the will declared by Alexander II greeted not with jubilation, but with popular uprisings? Because the peasants needed not so much personal freedom as land. Otherwise, they have every chance of starving to death.

- Do you mean to say that the problems of the people were not at the center of the aristocratic revolution?

- No. To free the peasants, there was no need to make a revolution. There was a decree of Alexander I on free farmers, and according to it, the peasants could simply be released. But none of the Decembrists did this. They acted not out of peasant needs, but out of their own. They returned from the war, where the outcome of battles depended on their talent and skill. There they saw themselves as the protagonists of history, and when they returned, they turned out to be cogs in a military machine. They could either serve the ranks, or retire - "I began to read books in the village" ... And the Decembrists, as they later showed during interrogations, wanted to be politicians, to decide the fate of the country. Under a rigidly stratified class society, under autocracy, this was impossible. Hence, the main goal of the Decembrists is equal rights for all.

As for the populists, they appeared as a reaction to the Manifesto of 1861. The emperor did not dare to give land to the peasants, did not expropriate property from the landlords. The peasants who were freed were ultimately beggars. After that, everything revolved around the accursed question of land. Here are the roots of the populist movement. The idea of redistributing land in a black way, that is, equally between peasants and landowners, inspired all generations of revolutionaries until 1917. As soon as the Bolsheviks put forward the slogan "Land for the peasants!", The peasants immediately followed them. And they became the main mover of the Bolshevik revolution. By the way, the Decembrists understood that it would be so. Pestel worked out a plan to free the peasants with land, but he was not listened to.

- It's clear with ideology. What is the difference between the methods?

- The revolution was envisioned by both the Decembrists and the Narodniks. But these are different revolutions. The first populist organization "Land and Freedom" saw its role in going among the people and enlightening them - quite peacefully. But when "Land and Freedom" fell apart into "Black Redistribution" and "Narodnaya Volya", the Narodnaya Volya members got the idea of terror. This was their method - intimidation, confusion, murder of officials. Then it was taken over by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks. The Narodniks are generally closer to the Bolsheviks than to the Decembrists. They were calm about the murder. It seemed to them that if they only rocked the country with terror, a peasant revolution would immediately follow.

- So the people were supposed to make the revolution after all?

- Yes, and the people were understood only as the peasantry. So the populists tried to rock him. We went to the villages, talked. The peasants themselves handed them over to the police. Yes, the people were dissatisfied with the conditions for the abolition of serfdom, they rebelled, but they were not at all going to make a revolution.

- And who was supposed to make the revolution among the Decembrists?

- Army. The people have nothing to do with it. The Decembrists said more than once during the investigation that they did not want to attract the people to indignation, because they did not want a civil war. They analyzed the course of the French revolution - the prototype of all revolutions of the 19th century. To then cope with the rebellious people, the Jacobins introduced terror. So Pestel said: we will take into account this experience and will rely not on the people, but on the army.

- Did this give the Decembrists a guarantee that the revolution would be bloodless?

- There were no guarantees that blood would not be shed. And the Decembrists were ready to shed it. They were not fine-minded dreamers. They were officers and understood that the enemy must be killed. With the help of the army, they hoped to reduce this blood, and then how it goes. The Narodniks in this sense are much more utopians than the Decembrists. It seemed to them that they could easily cope with the elements of the people. As soon as the black redistribution is announced, everything will be fine and life will immediately improve.

- How did they both feel about the idea of regicide?

- The idea of regicide is also from the French Revolution: the French executed their king to the delight of the crowd. It was not so with us. The Decembrists were going to kill the king. But it was scary for them to even think about it - they gathered for 10 years and never got killed. Before the Decembrists, tsars were traditionally killed by conspirators, not revolutionaries. The paradox is that among the investigators who worked with the Decembrists there were those who at one time strangled Paul I. Such an episode is known. During interrogation of Pestel, one of the investigators said: "You wanted to kill the king! How could you ?!" And Pestel replied: "Well, I wanted to, but you killed." The Decembrists went down in the history of the Russian revolution as those who never killed the tsar. And the populists calmly killed the tsar in March 1881. This brings them closer to the Bolsheviks and to the Jacobins. The Decembrists did not want such rapprochements.

- At the same time, the Decembrists were the first to say the word "dictatorship".

- The first to say this word were the same French. The Decembrists did not come up with anything at all that did not exist before them. And before them there was a Jacobin dictatorship. As Marat said there: "Only 500-600 severed heads and this will be enough to provide you with peace and happiness." Then there was the dictatorship of Napoleon. This is a completely different dictatorship. The Decembrists did not like the Jacobins, but they liked Napoleon. Pestel watched him closely, studied how he did his dictatorship. She was not as bloodthirsty as the Jacobin. But Pestel had no intention of being a democrat. He understood dictatorship as an illegitimate military government that enforces reforms and suppresses resistance. As soon as the reforms are implemented, the dictatorship will be abolished and the rule of the people begins. That was the plan.

- And what did the Narodniks think of the dictatorship?

- But the populists were not supporters of the dictatorship. They were great democrats, and even the Bolsheviks were democrats at first. The Narodniks talked about the people, about the land, but it was all a kindergarten. It is clear that every revolutionary, coming to power, must contact the dictatorship sooner or later. There is no other way. To ensure obedience and keep the people, diktat is needed. The Bolsheviks later faced this.

- And how did the Decembrists solve the national question?

- This is one of the most controversial issues in the Decembrist legacy. Pestel believed that all Russian tribes should be merged into one people. All national identity was destroyed. Why? Because the Decembrists believed that this peculiarity violated the principle of equal opportunities. For example, the Jewish question. Russia faced this issue at the end of the 18th century, when, after the partition of Poland, huge territories inhabited by Jews retreated to Russia. By tradition, Jews lived in isolation and did not communicate directly with the state - only through the community. They did not serve in the army, did not pay taxes, obey the rabbi and did not even know what was going on in the country. Well, they had fewer opportunities for education and career. Pestel solved this issue radically - everyone is equal, and that's it. The experience of Napoleon was taken as a model, who gathered the chief rabbis of France and said: "Everything, from tomorrow you are all French. You can believe in anything, but the law is the same for everyone." The Jews had seen enough of the revolution that they immediately agreed. Here Pestel wanted the same.

- But Russian history did not take this path?

- Yes. And for the Jews, as well as for many other nations, special conditions were created. This was terribly inconvenient for both Russia and the Jews themselves. Everyone was in favor of integration, but no one understood how to do it. All the time, commissions on the Jewish question arose, assessing the position of the Jews from both sides and this. But to take and say - everything, from now on you are citizens - were afraid.

- What were you afraid of?

- And how do you do it when serfdom is in the country? What will the peasants say to you? To the Jews, that means everything, but why are we? And then there will be a pogrom. Everything was pulled into an eerie knot. Moreover, no one was a zoological anti-Semite. We wanted the best. But how? Pestel said: the way out is in universal equality. The Jews could not agree with this, then they were asked to blame. Wherever there is Palestine, take it there. And we must pay tribute to Pestel, this had its own truth - the law is the same for everyone.

- How did the Narodniks decide this?

- No way. They didn't care. It seemed to them that after the peasant revolution everything would immediately fall into place.

- And how did Lenin decide this question?

- Workers of all countries, unite! A rethinking took place - the national question was drowned in the question of international brotherhood. Marxism appeared and a new view appeared, which was accepted by the Russian intelligentsia with a bang.

- How did the Decembrists understand personality?

- This is the time of romanticism, heroes, general admiration for Napoleon. Everyone believed that each person can determine the fate of an era. It was among the Decembrists that such a concept as the spirit of the times arose. This is the will of God, which is communicated to separately chosen people. Ryleev has such a text - "On the spirit of the times." He writes there: "A man is holy when he knows how to understand the spirit of the times." And if you understand the spirit of the times, then you must understand what the people are striving for. Then this thought will become the key one for Tolstoy in War and Peace. You see, all the Decembrists were different. But they all dreamed of equality, believed in their exclusiveness, aimed at Napoleons, and it seemed to all of them that they understood the spirit of the times. Therefore, in their midst it was difficult with the hierarchy, with the idea of subordination to bosses. If every Napoleon is natural.

- How did the Narodniks represent the revolutionary?

- This is a completely different type of person. Romanticism has long been replaced by realism. Idealism is materialism. The Narodniks thought in terms of more mundane, social and practical. These are commoners with difficult biographies. They formed a very closed community where outsiders were not allowed. They created the image of a revolutionary as a fearless representative of the organization, for whom the main thing is not to betray his comrades, who goes to the end. It was they who developed the principles of behavior for a revolutionary. He should not break down during interrogation, not betray his friends. The Decembrists could not have this. Their world has never been divided into ours and ours. They were people with broad views and did not see themselves imprisoned in basements, like Vera Pavlovna from Chernyshevsky's novel "What is to be done?" The Decembrists were burdened with the duty of the oath to the sovereign, the debt of honor. The Decembrist is a nobleman, he must confess to the king. They were not revolutionaries to the end. The Narodniks were absolutely free from all this.

- Didn't the duty of honor weigh on the Narodniks?

- Of course not. On the contrary, it was considered a duty to deny the duty to the sovereign. One of my favorite characters, Zhelyabov, was preparing the assassination of the Tsar, but he was arrested earlier. After March 1, 1881, he wrote a letter to the tsar stating that if the participants in this assassination attempt were to be executed, then it would be a flagrant injustice to leave his life, a party veteran who had been preparing this assassination attempt all his life. By the way, I wonder how the traitors were treated at different times. The traitors-populists were perceived as criminals who must be punished, killed, expelled. And the traitors of the Decembrists did not suffer in any way - in general, their act fit into the code of honor of a nobleman.

- That is, the Narodniks are professional revolutionaries, and the Decembrists are just amateurs?

- In general, yes. In Russia, the professionalization of the revolution proceeded very quickly. With the emergence of the populists, the further, the more there was a polarization on "they" and "we", on the party and "the rest." The Decembrists were not professionals: they lived on income from their estates and salaries. And the Narodniks were already a party with membership dues, released by the leaders, they were engaged in commercial activities, kept safe houses. This is the model that Chernyshevsky proposed in his novel What Is to Be Done? It specifically describes what and who needs to do to bring the revolution closer. And the ending is good: the revolution is taking place, everyone is happy. It is not surprising that the young people of the 1860s did life according to Rakhmetov and Vera Pavlovna. All the murderers of the king are disciples of this novel. And Chernyshevsky was the first to divide society very clearly: we, the new people, and they, the old people, whom we will not take into a new life.

- Did the Decembrists have their own project of a new person, which should come out as a result of the revolution?

- The Decembrists did not think about the new person. And in general, the creation of a new person who should live in a beautiful new country is already a late Bolshevik experiment.

Decembrist revolt

The uprising was supposed to begin in the summer of 1826, but the Decembrists' protest was accelerated by the death of Alexander 1 in November 1825. An interregnum was established in the country due to confusion in the oath of allegiance to the new emperor. The oath to Nicholas 1 was scheduled for December 14, 1825.

The Decembrists decided to take advantage of the situation of the crisis: to withdraw troops to Senate Square, to prevent the oath of allegiance to Nicholas 1, and to demand from the members of the Senate and the State Council to promulgate the "Manifesto to the Russian people", which proclaimed the abolition of serfdom, political and civil rights and freedoms, introduced a universal conscription and facilitated the position of the soldiers. But the uprising was not prepared. The Senate and most of the Petersburg garrison had already sworn allegiance to Nicholas 1. The soldiers and officers on the square were dispersed by artillery fire.

The abdication of the brother of Alexander 1 - Constantine from the throne and the appointment of a new heir were not made public, the troops and the population after the death of Alexander 1 swore allegiance to Constantine.

On December 29, the Chernigov regiment revolted in the Ukraine, but the uprising was defeated. Nicholas 1, who showed gendarme skills, headed the investigation into the case of the Decembrists. 579 people were involved in the investigation and trial, most of whom were military personnel. The massacre was brutal: P.I. Pestel, S.I. Muravyov-Apostol (1795-1826), M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin (1803-1826), P.G. Kakhovsky (1797-1826), K.F. Ryleev(1795-1826) were hanged, over a hundred Decembrists were exiled to Siberia to hard labor or settlement, some officers were demoted to soldiers and sent to the Caucasus. A penal Chernigov regiment was also sent to the Caucasus.

Speaking about the significance of the Decembrist uprising, V.O. Klyuchevsky noted: “The Decembrists are important not as a conspiracy, not as a secret society, it is a moral and social symptom that revealed illnesses to society that it did not suspect in itself; convicted on several degrees of guilt "".

The Decembrists were the first Russian noble revolutionaries to openly oppose the autocracy. The defeat of the Decembrists further increased the contradiction between the authorities and the noble intelligentsia. The performance of the Decembrists was not understood by the peasantry, and their defeat was perceived as a just punishment for the nobles, who allegedly prevented the abolition of bondage. So far, the peasants pinned their hopes for liberation on the good tsar-father. The rejection of the Decembrist movement by the masses, by a significant part of the nobility, helped the tsarist struggle against liberal and revolutionary trends, to pursue a reactionary policy.

The Decembrists had a definite chance to accelerate the development of the country along the path of creating a Western-style statehood. The defeat of the Decembrists and the exclusion of the best, most honest, most devoted people of Russia from the active political life was a national tragedy.

The uprising of the Decembrists was part of the international revolutionary process that swept Europe in the 1920s. XIX century. By opposing tsarism, which became the gendarme of Europe, the Decembrists thereby struck a blow at the principles of the Holy Alliance - this is the international significance of the Decembrist movement.

The agrarian-peasant question by the middle of the 19th century. became the most acute socio-political problem in Russia. Among European countries, serfdom remained only in Russia and hindered the country's economic and socio-political development. Serfdom relied exclusively on the nobility and therefore had to take into account their interests.

Many statesmen and public figures understood that serfdom dishonored Russia and relegated it to the category of backward states. By the middle of Х1Х they were finally ripe

preconditions for the collapse of the serf system. First of all, she has outlived herself economically. The landlord economy, based on the labor of serfs, was falling into decay. This worried the government, which was forced to spend huge amounts of money to support the landlords. Serfdom also hindered the country's industrial modernization, as hindered the formation of a free labor market, the accumulation of capital invested in production, an increase in the purchasing power of the population and the development of trade. Social preconditions also led to the collapse of serfdom. The peasants protested openly against him. This was expressed in the refusal of the peasants to work in the corvee and the payment of the quitrent, mass escapes, arson of landowners' estates. The defeat in the Crimean War played a particularly important role political prerequisite for the abolition of serfdom. It demonstrated the backwardness and rottenness of the country's socio-political system. Russia has lost its international authority. Publicistic speeches prepared the country's public opinion for the unconditional emancipation of the peasants.

Initially, projects for the liberation of the peasants were developed by the Secret Committee. But the discontent of the nobility, disturbed by rumors about the abolition of serfdom, and the slowness of the Secret Committee, forced Alexander 11 to establish a new body to prepare the reform in public. In 1857, the provincial committees were created “to improve the life of the landlord peasants. And in 1858 the Secret Committee was transformed into the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. The government was allowed to discuss the draft reform, and the nobility was ordered to take the initiative in solving the peasant question. The peasants were excluded from the discussion. Alexander 11 signed the reform project on February 19, 1861. The MANIFEST heralded the abolition of serfdom. Basically, 3 issues were resolved: the personal liberation of the peasants, the allotment of land to them and the redemption deal.

Personal release. The manifesto provided the peasants with personal freedom and civil rights. From now on, the peasant could own movable and immovable property, conclude transactions, act as a legal entity. He was freed from the personal tutelage of the landowner, he could marry without permission, enter the service and educational institutions, change his place of residence, and transfer to the estate of bourgeois and merchants. The government began to create local government bodies for the liberated peasants. At the same time, the personal freedom of the peasant was limited. This concerned primarily the preservation of the community. Communal ownership of land, redistribution of allotments, and mutual responsibility hampered the bourgeois evolution of the countryside. The peasants remained the only estate that paid the poll tax, bore recruitment, and could be subjected to corporal punishment.

Nadela. The size of the allotments depended on the fertility of the soil. The territory of Russia was conditionally divided into three bands: black earth, non-black earth and steppe. In each of them, the highest and lowest sizes of the peasant field allotment were established (the highest - more than which the landlord could not demand from the landowner, and the lower - less than which the landowner should not offer to the landowner. Within these limits, a voluntary deal was concluded between the peasant community and the landowner. Their relationship was finally consolidated statutes... If the landowner and the peasant did not come to an agreement, then to settle the dispute, world mediators(Tolstoy L., Sechenov, Timiryazev - reflected the interests of the peasants. In general, the cr-did not receive 20% less land than they cultivated before the reform. This is how the sections selected by the landowners appeared and until 1917 the cr-did not fight for their land.

Ransom. Receiving the land, the cr-did not have to pay its cost. The peasants had no money for this. In order for the landowners to receive the redemption sums at a time, the state provided a loan in the amount of 80% of the value of the allotments. The remaining 20% was paid by the community to the landowner itself. For 49 years, the kr-did not have to return the loan to the state in the form of redemption payments with an accrual of 6% per annum. By 1906, when the kr-did not achieve the cancellation of payments, they paid the state about 2 billion rubles, that is, 4 times higher than the market value of land in 1861.

The reform did not remove the agrarian issue in Russia. Landlord ownership remained, the peasants were doomed to land shortages, poverty and economic dependence on the landlords. In the landlord economy, three systems have developed: labor, capitalist and mixed. At developmental- the land of the landowner was cultivated by the peasants to their inventory .. Lack of money and lack of land forced the krn to go into bondage to the landowner for the land rented from him. It was a semi-feudal form of exploitation with low labor productivity. Capitalist the system implied the use of free-hired labor of peasant farm laborers, processing

landlord's land his inventory. It was in these farms that agricultural machinery was more widely introduced.

Mixed a system in which hired labor and labor were used. By the end of the 70s of the Х1Х century. the capitalist system of economic management began to supplant the labor system.

The use of hired labor, the use of agricultural machines, the improvement of agricultural technology - an intensive path - led to a certain increase in yield. Agricultural districts were formed: in the black earth (Ukraine, the Volga region - a grain barn, in the northwestern and central provinces - dairy cattle breeding, in the southeastern provinces - beef cattle breeding.) This contributed to the completion of the formation of the all-Russian market.

Despite all the difficulties, the agrarian sector in the Russian economy has turned from a crisis and stagnant in the second half of the 19th into a developing and commodity sector. But the confrontation between peasants and landlords remained. The preconditions were created for future revolutionary upheavals.

Russia has always lagged behind Europe for several years in development. This was reflected in the fact that the feudal-serf system still remained in Russia when the whole world was switching to capitalism.

In the first half of the 19th century, Russia was still an agrarian country. Peasants made up the majority of the population, and the economy was based on subsistence farming. However, a sharp increase in population led to the fact that agricultural resources were gradually depleted and an urgent need has arisen in the country to transfer the economy to a more progressive basis - capitalism.

A necessary condition for the transition to an industrial society is the solution of the peasant question.

The emancipation of the peasants and the stages of the solution of the peasant question in Russia

The first attempts to solve the peasant question were made under Paul 1, who issued a number of laws that weakened the influence of the feudal lord and gave the peasants a certain freedom. However, only Alexander 1 began to deal seriously with peasant issues.

The peasant question under Alexander 1

1801 - a decree giving landowners, merchants and appanage peasants outside the cities to buy land.

1803 - the decree "on free farmers", which gives the right to the peasant to leave the service of the master (to be liberated) together with a part of the land. The peasant had to pay a large ransom for the land, but this was already a big step, since the peasants ceased to be unconditionally dependent and had a chance to gain freedom.

1809 - a decree forbidding landowners to exile their peasants to Siberia without trial.

According to scientists, Alexander even gave an order to his lawmakers to develop a project for the abolition of serfdom. Unfortunately, the difficult economic situation in 1810-1816 led to the fact that some of the laws were canceled, and the sale of peasants between landowners resumed with renewed vigor.

Despite the fact that many laws were canceled, nevertheless, Alexander's reforms gave the first impetus to the abolition of serfdom and the solution of the problems of the peasant question. The progressive part of the population with might and main dealt with the problems of solving the peasant question and proposed various measures.

The peasant question under Nicholas 1

The next emperor who breathed new life into the solution of the peasant question was Nicholas 1. The peasants again received the right to redeem themselves with a part of the land, a ban was introduced on the expulsion of peasants to hard labor, and in general the situation of serfs improved. It was under Nicholas 1 that the foundation was laid for the future final solution of the peasant question and the abolition of serfdom.

1837-1841 - reform of the state peasants. The reform improved the legal and material position of the serfs, giving them the right and the opportunity to become independent. Bodies of peasant self-government were created.

1841 - a law prohibiting the sale of peasants individually or together with the estate.

1842 - the law on "free peasants". The landlords could now, at their discretion, release the peasants and give them land without demanding money in return. However, the peasant was obliged in return to work off the debt on the land given to him.

1843 - Landless nobles no longer had the right to buy serfs (abolition of slavery).

The peasant question under Alexander II

As a result of the revolution, bourgeois and industrial, the emperor signed a decree according to which serfdom was considered an obsolete system. Serfdom was completely abolished in 1861.

With the peasants belonging to the royal family (no owners, no serfs) or the Church (“the first knife - against the boyars, against the nobles, the second knife - against the priests, against the saint” - a song composed by Ryleev), everything was clear.

With the noble landowners, the Decembrists planned to work with persuasion. But there is not a single example that they succeeded - even with the closest relatives they did not cope. I guess they didn't.

A close friend of the Decembrists, Alexander Sergeevich GRIBOEDOV, who shared their beliefs and denounced serfdom (Herzen, for example, called Chatsky, the protagonist "Woe from Wit," "Decembrist") could not or did not want to convince his landowner mother to be at least more humane with her serfs.

In the Kostroma estates, bought by Griboyedov's mother, peasants rebelled from 1817 to almost the end of 1820. The troubles of the peasants were so serious that even top-level intervention was required. From the memoirs of Yakushkin, who often visited the Smolensk province, and communicated with many relatives and in-laws of the Griboyedovs, it is known that the event received wide publicity. “In the Kostroma province,” he wrote, “on the estate of Griboyedova, the mother of the writer Woe from Wit, the peasants, driven out of patience by the cruelty of the manager and extortion beyond their strength, came out of obedience. the Kostroma nobility to determine the amount of quitrent in the Kostroma province, which would not be burdensome for the peasants. ” there were no objections from anyone, while everyone knew that in the Kostroma province no estate paid such a large rent. " Griboyedov behaves in this situation at least strange. None of his contemporaries mentions that Alexander Sergeevich objected to his mother, who wished "to thresh the rye on the butt." The reason for the "indifference" of Griboyedov's behavior is not his deceit or heartlessness, it lies in the relationship between the son and the mother, which is due to the very appearance of Alexander Sergeevich. No matter how bitter it was for a loving son to see that his mother had started an unjust enterprise, he considered it impossible for himself to argue with her.

All Decembrists, apparently, reasoned in the same way.

There are only two known examples of ATTEMPTS to give free will to their serfs.

Dmitry's testament LUNINA, one of the most courageous and consistent participants in the December 14 event, amazed even the seasoned tsarist officials: it left the peasants after his death not only without land, but also without property; moreover, the "released" were obliged to "provide the heir with income." The Ministry of Justice did not approve the will, having drawn a resolution: "It is impossible to allow the abolition of serfdom, leaving the peasants on the land of the landowner and with the constant obligation to provide him with income."

Decembrist Ivan project YAKUSHKINA rejected by the peasants themselves. When he suggested that the peasants put an end to the evil of serfs, they asked the master a question: "You tell me plainly, father, the land that we now own (and the serfs traditionally considered the landowner only the sovereign administrator on their lands), will it be ours or what?" He replied that the land would remain with the landlord, but they would be free to rent it. In other words, the former owner got into his hands such a method of coercion as the fear of hunger among the landless villagers, and at the same time he was freed from any responsibility towards them. The men quickly realized the meaning of the reform. Their answer was short and wise: "Well, father, stay as before: we are yours, and the earth is ours."

I could not, with all my desire, add anyone to this list, academician A. Pypin in the article "Essays on the social movement under Alexander I" ("Bulletin of Europe" No. 12 for 1870). I had to limit myself to general words: "The idea of emancipating the peasants, undoubtedly under the special influence of N. Turgenev, became one of the dominant in the secret society, whose members began to make practical attempts at emancipation in their estates. The experiments were not always successful (for example, Yakushkina, who talks about them in their Notes), partly from the very news of the subject; but at least the importance of the issue was deeply felt, and the rapprochement with the peasants, attention to their interest was indicated by the real, only way to resolve the issue - liberation with land. " as well as the blatant lie that "N.I. Turgenev freed his peasants."

Tried, already upon returning from Siberia, to free her peasants and compassionate Natalia Dmitrievna FONVISINA-PUSHCHINA... The reason, most likely, was fears that after her death the legal heir to the estates, serf-owner S.P. Fonvizin (her own maternal uncle) would oppress the peasants.
I tried, but failed. With a request, she turned to the Minister of State Property (brother of the Decembrist A.N. Muraviev), a former Decembrist, a member of the Union of Salvation, one of the authors of the charter of the Union of Welfare.

From a letter by I.I. Pushchin to E.I. Yakushkin (Maryino, September 25, 1857):
My wife went to Moscow to meet with your uncle the minister and, by the way, gave him a note about this matter, which, in my opinion, was contrary to the rules of popular morality. In a note, she briefly and clearly outlined what the whole thing was, said that the Kostroma Chamber of State Property twice refused ... to accept these poor souls among the state peasants. He replied that she again asked the Chamber and if the Chamber refuses, then write a complaint to him. She says that this is more of a delay in time, and that his request can force him to finish the case now. The minister decisively announced that he could not take the initiative. Now it will go back to the back burner. I definitely do not understand, and I see in this answer that he is walking along a goose path. Here's the whole story ...

Since the days of his revolutionary youth, Count Muravyov has changed a lot, became an ardent opponent of the liberation of the peasants and, in his ministerial post, skillfully opposed the impending peasant reform.

Abstract on the topic:

The Decembrists and the Peasant Question.

Performed:

Second year student of the Faculty of History

Kiriy Evgeniya.

The Decembrists and the Peasant Question.

Plan:

1 introduction and purpose of work.

2 List of Literature

3 Pestel Pavel Ivanovich.

4 Peasants according to Russian truth Pestel.

5 Peasants under the constitution of Muravyov.

Introduction.

In the middle of the 19th century, after the passage of the Russian army abroad, a powerful opposition was formed among the nobles - the Decembrists. All of them were very educated people and understood that serfdom impedes the development of Russia very much. They considered it a relic of feudalism, humiliating for the peasants and wanted to abolish it.

The purpose of this work is to consider the views of the Southern (Pestel) and Northern (Muravyov-Apostol) societies on the problem of serfdom and its solution.

List of used literature

P.I. Pestel

Russian truth

Muravyov-Apostol N.M.

Constitution

Pestel and his Russian truth.

Short biography.

Comes from the German Pestel family, who settled in Russia at the end XVII century.

Father - Ivan Borisovich Pestel(1765-1843). Mother - Elizaveta Ivanovna Krok (1766-1836). Family confessed lutheranism ... The first child in the family was baptized Paul Burchard.

After receiving primary education at home, 1805 - 1809 studied in Dresden. In 1810 returned to Russia, studied inCorps of Pages, who graduated brilliantly with his name inscribed on a marble plaque, and was appointed an ensign in the Lithuanian Life Guards Regiment.

By participating in Patriotic War, distinguished himself in Battle of Borodino(1812 ); was seriously wounded and awarded a golden sword for bravery. Upon recovery, he entered adjutants to Count Wittgenstein well , distinguished himself in battles at Leipzig , at Bar-sur-Auba and at Trois ; later together with the Count Wittgenstein lived in Tulchin, from where he traveled to Bessarabia to collect information about the indignation of the Greeks against the Turks and for negotiations with the ruler Moldavia (1821).

In 1822 it was translated colonel completely upsetVyatka infantry regimentand within a year put him in order... Alexander I himself examining it in September 1823 year , put it: "Excellent, like a guard," and granted Pestel 3000 acres of land.

Participating since 1816 in the Masonic lodges, Pestel was adopted in"Union of salvation", drew up a charter for him, in 1818 became a member of the Root CouncilUnion of prosperity, and in 1821 year, after his self-liquidation, he headedSouthern secret society... Possessing a great mind, versatile knowledge and the gift of speech (as almost all of his contemporaries unanimously testify to), Pestel soon became the head of society. By the power of his eloquence, he convinced 1825 year and St. Petersburg society to act in the spirit of the South.

The expression of his views was the"Russian Truth"

Russkaya Pravda is a program document of the South Decembrian Society.

Pestel was a supporter of the dictatorship of the Provisional Supreme Government during the revolution, he considered the dictatorship a decisive condition for success. The dictatorship, according to his assumptions, should have lasted 10-15 years. His constitutional draft "Russkaya Pravda" was a mandate to the Provisional Supreme Government, denounced by the dictatorial power. The full title of this project reads: "Russian Truth, or Preserved State Charter of the Great Russian People, serving as a testament to improve the state structure of Russia and containing the correct instruction both for the people and for the Provisional Supreme Board." Pestel's work on the constitutional project lasted almost ten years. His constitutional draft showed that he was aware of the political thought movement of his day.

The peasant question.

The liberation of peasants without land, that is, giving them only personal freedom, Pestel considered completely unacceptable. He believed, for example, that the emancipation of the peasants in the Baltic states, under which they received land, was only an "imaginary" emancipation. Pestel stood for the liberation of the peasants from the land. His agrarian project has been elaborated in detail in Russkaya Pravda and is of considerable interest. In his agrarian project, Pestel boldly combined two contradictory principles: on the one hand, he recognized as correct that "land is the property of the entire human race," and not private individuals, and therefore cannot be private property, for "a person can only live on earth and to receive food only from the earth ", therefore, the earth is the common property of the whole human race. But, on the other hand, he recognized that "works and works are the sources of property" and the one who fertilized and cultivated the land has the right to own the land on the basis of private property, especially since for the flourishing of arable farming "a lot of costs are needed", and their will agree to do only the one who "will have the land in his own right". Recognizing both contradictory positions as correct, Pestel based his agrarian project on the requirement of dividing the land in half and recognizing each of these principles in only one of the halves of the divided land.

According to Pestel's project, all cultivated land in each volost "was supposed to be called the smallest administrative unit of the future revolutionary state" is divided into two parts: the first part is public property, it can neither be sold nor bought, it goes into the communal division between those wishing to engage in agriculture, and is designed to produce the "required product"; the second part of the land is private property, it can be bought and sold, it is intended for the production of "abundance". The communal part, intended for the production of the necessary product, is divided between the volost communities.

Every citizen of the future republic must necessarily be assigned to one of the volosts and has the right at any time to receive the land allotment due to him free of charge and to work it. This provision was, according to Pestel, to guarantee the citizens of the future republic from poverty, hunger, pauperism. "Every Russian will be absolutely provided with what is absolutely necessary and is sure that in his volost he can always find a piece of land that will provide him with food and in which he will receive food not from the mercy of his neighbors and not remaining in their dependence, but from the labors he will apply. to cultivate the land, which he himself belongs to as a member of the volost society on an equal basis with other citizens.Wherever he wanders, wherever he looks for happiness, but nevertheless it will be borne in mind that if successes change efforts, then in his volost, in this political his family, he can always find shelter and daily bread. " Volost land is communal land. A peasant or, in general, any citizen in the state who has received a land allotment, owns it on the basis of communal law, can neither give it, nor sell it, nor mortgage it.

The second part of the volost lands, intended for the production of "abundance", is privately owned, while part of it may also belong to the state. Only these lands can be bought and sold. The state share of this land can also be sold: "The treasury is in relation to state land in the form of a private person, and therefore has the right to sell state land." Every Russian who wants to expand his land economy can buy land from this second part of the land fund.

For the implementation of his agrarian project, Pestel considered it necessary to alienate the landlord's land with its partial confiscation. Otherwise, his project could not have been implemented: after all, in each volost it was necessary to give into the possession of the peasants half of the land, this land was alienated from its owners, primarily from the landowners. There was an alienation of land for a fee, there was also a gratuitous alienation, confiscation. "If a landowner has 10,000 acres of land or more, then half of the land is taken from him without any retribution," says one unfinished passage from Russkaya Pravda, entitled "division of land." If the landowner had less than 10,000, but not more than 5,000 dessiatines, then half of the land was also taken away from him, but "retribution" was given for it - either of a monetary nature, or land somewhere in another volost, but with the condition that the total his number of dessiatines did not exceed 5,000. Thus, landlord ownership (with the complete abolition of serfdom!) was still partially preserved. Mercilessly sweeping away the foundations of feudal-serf society, striving to deeply rebuild the state in a bourgeois way, Pestel nevertheless did not dare to defend the slogan of transferring all the land to the peasants.

Muravyov's constitution

Biography

Nikita Mikhailovich Muravyov

Son of a writer and publicistMikhail Nikitich Muravyov and Ekaterina Fedorovna(nee baroness Kolokoltsova ). Received an excellent education at home. Later he entered the Physics and Mathematics Department of Moscow University. From february 1812 year - Collegiate Registrar in the Department of the Ministry of Justice. At the beginning wars of 1812 fled from home to the active army. Officially enlisted in the army ensign suites in the apartment part in July 1813 year ... Went through the entire campaign of 1813 - 1814 year ... Participated in the battles of Dresden and Leipzig. On August 1, 1814, he was transferred to the General Staff. Participated in hostilities against Napoleon I returning from O. Elbe (assigned to the duty general of the main headquarters of the Russian troops in Vienna A. A. Zakrevsky). In June 1815 in the retinue of officers of the General Staff arrives in Paris ... Here Muravyov met withBenjamin Constant, Henri Gregoire , Abbot Sievers.

Upon returning to Russia, Muravyov, together with the future Decembrists, attended the course of political economy of the professor K. Herman and independently studied literature on economics, law, history. IN 1816 year took an active part in the creation of the Union of Salvation. One of the founders of the Union of Welfare ( 1818). Together with S. Trubetskoy and A. N. Muravyov participated in the creation of the charter of the Union of Welfare - the "Green Book". In January 1820, at the St. Petersburg meeting of the Union, he spoke in favor of establishing republican rule through a military uprising. Retires early in 1820. Leaves for the south of Russia with M. S. Lunin and meets there with Pestel.

Work description