Russia in the last quarter of the XIX-XX centuries: features of development. The reasons for the uniqueness of the cycles of the last quarter of the 19th century The last quarter of the 19th century
In terms of the massive renewal and expansion of the fixed capital of industry, in terms of the scale of railway construction, in terms of the increase in production and the physical volume of foreign trade, the cyclical upturn in the early 1980s was, therefore, significant. There is no doubt that the productive forces of capitalism developed relatively rapidly during this period. But it was precisely the growth of the productive forces of capitalism in the 70s and 80s that was accompanied by such an exacerbation of its contradictions, which led to the phenomena that gave rise to complaints of entrepreneurs about "difficult times", about the "big depression." At the end of 1882, Engels wrote to Bebel:
“... The productive forces have never, in any period of prosperity, grown to the same extent as in 1871-1877, and hence - it reminds of 1837-1842 - chronic difficulties in the main industries and in England , and in Germany, especially in cotton and iron ... "
The upsurge in the early 1980s brought a new and significant increase in the capacity of the production apparatus of the capitalist industry.
mentality, and this further increased the economic contradictions and marketing difficulties in the main capitalist countries.
How significant the growth of industry was, can be judged by the following figures. Years of cyclical highs are compared.
World pig iron production *
(in thousand tons)
* England, USA, Germany, France, Russia.
Thus, each of the last two cycles gave almost the same increase as the three previous cycles (1837-1866) taken together. The dynamics of the power apparatus of industry and transport is approximately the same.
Power of the world's steam engines *
(in million liters)
| | 1840 g. | 1870 g. | 1880 g. | Growth for the period |
|
| | 184 0 - 1870 | I 870 - 1880 |
|||
| Stationary. ... ... Transport. ... ... | 0,83 0,82 | 4,10 14,36 | 7,67 26,48 | 3,27 13,54 | 3,57 12,12 |
From Midhallt The Dictionary of Statistics, London 1909, p. 539,540.
over this period by about eight times, and the share of steam ships in it - from 6 to 66%.
The technical progress of communication facilities was of the greatest importance. Telegraph lt; European network 1860-1887 increased from 126 to 652 thousand km. All over the world its length has approached 1.5 million km. Of these, more than 200 thousand km were submarine cables. Telegraph technology has been improved to such an extent that the simultaneous transmission of eight telegrams over one wire has become possible. The telephone became widespread, the problem of international telephone communication was successfully resolved "by telegraph wires.
The growth of productive ail took place on the basis of major technical advances, especially in heavy industry. The twenty-year period after the crisis of 1866 was marked by such technical discoveries as the creation of an economical internal combustion engine, successful experiments in the transmission of electricity over a distance, numerous inventions in the field of electrical engineering, etc. These discoveries, which marked the beginning of the age of electricity and the automobile, still had little effect on the dynamics of the economy in the 80s. But the revolution in the steel business was of the greatest importance. The deployment of truly mass production of steel was an important source of technological progress in a variety of industries. Steel quickly replaced cast iron and iron in rail rolling business, in shipbuilding. The introduction of steel into the production of machines contributed to their improvement, increasing the speed of movement and power. There was further progress in the mechanization of production. Labor productivity, concentration of production, and the proportion of large-scale factory industry increased due to the displacement of manual labor and domestic capitalist production.
The growth of productive forces was extremely uneven and accompanied by profound changes in the role of individual countries and industries in the world economy. For 1846-1883 world pig iron smelting increased by about 5 times, coal production by more than 6 times, cotton consumption by only 3.6 times. Light industry still retained its predominance, but the proportion of heavy industry has grown greatly, and its role in the economic life of the main capitalist countries has sharply increased.
Even more significant shifts were caused by the uneven development of individual countries. The most important result was England's loss of its industrial monopoly.
It is difficult to overestimate the role of England in the world economy in the third quarter of the 19th century. Its capital and engineers, its metal and machinery
we participated in the construction railways and industrial enterprises on all continents, the vast majority of the world's steamship fleet was built at its shipyards. The production apparatus of her own industry expanded rapidly. The economic power of England grew rapidly. More than ever, her gospel was unrestricted free trade. Duty-free import of raw materials and food facilitated the reduction of production costs by saving both constant and variable capital. Not needing duties to protect the home market from the competition of foreign industry, the British bourgeoisie fought for their abolition in all other countries, wherever they made it difficult to sell British manufactures. True, English agriculture suffered greatly from the competition of imported food. Ho the cost of labor declined, British demand for imported agricultural products accelerated the development of commodity-money relations in agrarian countries, extended their poll to British factories, delivered additional income to shipping companies and new orders for shipyards. This was as much a source of its industrial supremacy as the ruin of handicrafts in India and China by competition from English manufactured goods. And the opening of the Suez Canal, and railway construction in America, and the settlement of the Western states in the United States, and the gold deposits of California and Australia, and the great achievements of technology and engineering - all brought new markets and additional profits for the British bourgeoisie. The industrial monopoly of England reached its zenith by the end of the 60s. But this was also the beginning of its decline. England itself brought its downfall closer, accelerating the development of American capitalism by its export of capital.
American and German rates of industrial development were higher than those of England. Already from the middle of the XIX century. the share of these countries in the world industry began to grow slowly. But the absolute growth of their output and production apparatus was much inferior to that of England, their lag behind England in terms of production level continued to increase. The situation has changed since the 70s. The unevenness of development has greatly aggravated, there was a rapid leveling of the economic levels of these countries.
In the rise of 1868-1873. The United States of America has overtaken Britain in the absolute size of real accumulation and industrial construction. In the next cyclical rise, they left England behind in terms of the size of the absolute increase in production. In 1886, the United States came out on top in the world in steelmaking, in 1890 in pig iron production, in 1892 in cotton consumption, and in 1899 in coal mining. By the late 1980s, American industry had more mechanical motors than Britain's. These processes developed unevenly in a number of areas. For example, England retained its superiority in shipbuilding at the beginning of the 20th century. But in general, she irrevocably lost in the last quarter of the 19th century. not just an industrial monopoly. but also an industrial championship. The countries of young capitalism, which were building industry anew, began to overtake it in the field of technology. An interesting example of ferrous metallurgy.
Average annual pig iron smelting per one operating blast furnace (in thousand pg)
In the early 70s, British blast furnaces were 2 times more productive than American and German ones. By 1889, their average power had doubled, and the progress of technology was, therefore, great in this most important branch of the heavy industry of England. And yet the United States and Germany not only caught up with, but overtook England in this short period. In the steel industry in England, the average capacity of converters in 1882 was 3 times less than in American factories.
In a number of industries, England began to lag behind the United States of America in the degree of mechanization of production. Some new industries - electrical engineering, a number of chemical industries developed faster in the USA and Germany than in England.
It would be a mistake to generalize these facts and, on their basis, draw a conclusion about the backwardness of all British industry in the 80s of the last century. But they expressed the main trend of development, a deep turn in the balance of power in the world economy.
What shifts occurred as a result of these processes in world markets, is shown by the example of international trade in ferrous metals (see table on page 197).
The growth of British exports of iron and steel has stalled since 1882, and this year's net export figure (4.2 million tons) has never been reached again. The largest consumers of British metal - Germany and a little later the United States of America turned into dangerous competitors
Foreign trade in ferrous metals (thousand tons)
* 1873
England, penetrating even its domestic market, and which is rapidly increasing the amount of foreign metal.
The position of the British cotton industry, the flourishing of which was the most important basis for the industrial monopoly of England, also changed significantly. The region of the European continent and the United States of America was largely closed to it already before the civil war in the United States. In the 70s, the decline in the share of England in world production accelerated.
Share of cotton consumption *
(V %)
* Ellison, The Cotton Trade of Great Britain, London 1886, p. 104.
also increased by 25%. India's young industry began to crowd out England in the Far Eastern markets.
Exports of paper fabrics and yarns from England and India to China and Japan *
/> * Ellison, The Cotton Trade of Great Britain, London 1886, p. 321.
The industrial primacy was taken away from England by the United States of America, but Germany became its main rival in foreign markets. The growth of the German domestic market was limited by the Prussian path of development of capitalism in agriculture and the miserable living conditions of workers, whose wages were kept at a low level by agrarian overpopulation and large reserves of labor concentrated in handicrafts. Faced with the narrowness of the domestic market, German industry fought all the more stubbornly for foreign markets, using cheap labor and advanced technology as the most important weapon. The report of the Royal Commission, which surveyed the state of industry and trade in England in the mid-80s, stated:
“In all parts of the world, the entrepreneurial spirit and perseverance of the Germans is felt. In production, we have little, or almost no, advantages over them; and in the knowledge of the world market, in the desire to adapt to local tastes, in the ability to consolidate their position, the Germans are beginning to surpass us. "
The British also complained about the competition between American machines and fabrics, Belgian iron, Indian cotton factories, and so on. A campaign arose for the introduction of duties to protect British industry from the competition of imported goods. There were many exaggerations in these complaints. But they reflected the extreme aggravation of competition, the enormous difficulties that England had to overcome from now on in the struggle for markets. The protectionists were not successful in England. British industry, which placed a huge share of its production on foreign markets, was vitally interested in destroying everything that impeded international trade, and it could not set an example for the imposition of customs restrictions. But the very debate in England about industrial protectionism was an important symptom of a profound change in its position in the world market. It was also a recognition of England's inability to halt the incipient decline of the kingdom of free trade. Already the turn of the United States of America in the 60s towards protectionism dealt a big blow to it. But then it could still seem like an isolated and temporary phenomenon. The duties imposed by Bismarck at the end of the 70s, the growth of protectionism in Russia, the slingshots erected for industrial imports in a number of other countries, revealed the illusory nature of these hopes. Prussian cadets were the original ally of the English free-traders. With the progress of industrialization, Germany began to transform from an exporting country to an importing foodstuffs country. The junkers began to suffer from foreign competition within the country. The ground was created for their collusion with industrialists on all-round protectionism. Ho "German industrial duties were no longer a means of protecting the domestic market from the ruinous competition of the British. German metallurgy, which was the most active in favor of protectionism, was no longer inferior to the British in terms of technology, in terms of production costs and successfully pressed it on the world market. Duties were introduced as a means of monopolization. a new type of protectionism, which meant an unprecedented intensification of the struggle for markets, typical of the emerging imperialist stage of capitalism. in the last third of the 19th century, was prepared by all the processes noted above: the creation of a new, higher level of productive forces, a huge increase in the share of highly concentrated heavy industry, an extraordinary increase in the concentration and centralization of capital and production leadership, which was intensified by a sharp aggravation of competition, long duration of crises and depressions.
ON. BOYKO,
Senior Lecturer, Pyatigorsk State University
Reforms of the 60s of the XIX century served as an important factor in the development local government in the Russian Empire. In the course of the reforms, legislative acts were adopted that determined the foundations for the creation and development of zemstvo and city self-government. In the provinces, counties and cities, elected bodies were created, which, in accordance with the prevailing economic theory of local self-government, were called upon to resolve economic issues at the local level. The state power shifted to local self-government bodies not only those issues that were directly related to their competence, but also a number of other functions that they considered burdensome for themselves.
In 1881, after the assassination of the tsar-liberator, "the line of government policy, the essence of which was in liberal reforms, was cut short." Alexander III became emperor, and the reforms were replaced by counter-reforms, which were carried out as a conservative system of measures aimed at tightening government control over state and public life. In the conditions of revolutionary terror, the Manifesto on the Strengthening of the Autocracy (April 1881) proclaimed the strengthening of the Christian-monarchical ideology, the suppression of terrorism and revolutionary propaganda. The regulation on measures to preserve state order and public tranquility of August 14, 1881 made it possible to declare certain areas as being in a "state of enhanced security." Within these localities, governors and mayors received the right to issue binding decrees on matters of public order and state security, to impose penalties for violation of these decrees, to prohibit any gatherings, to close commercial and industrial establishments, to conduct closed trials, to transfer individual court cases to military courts for consideration of them according to the laws of wartime.
Subsequently, the government Alexander III took a number of measures to abolish some of the most radical provisions of the bourgeois reforms of the previous reign. The Provisional Press Regulations in 1882 increased censorship. The university charter of 1884 established the appointment by the Ministry of Education of the rector, deans, professors, who had previously been elected. In 1889, elective justices of the peace began to be appointed.
Counterreforms also affected the system of local self-government, the development of which depended on the moods and intentions of the central government. As noted by A.V. Kruzhkov, “in pre-revolutionary Russia there was a quite definite tradition of reforming local self-government - the reforms were carried out“ from above ”, at the initiative of the authorities; the state strictly controlled local self-government; his rights and freedoms were violated both by law and in practice ”. According to the British researcher P. Voldron, after 1881 it became clear very soon that Alexander III and his ministers did not intend to take any steps to enhance the role of the people's representation in Russia. The situation was aggravated by the fact that a number of zemstvo leaders began to show certain political aspirations, which clearly contradicted the principles of the autocracy.
Counter-reforms in the field of local self-government were carried out on the basis of several normative legal acts, which introduced a number of changes in the procedure for the formation and functioning of the relevant bodies. According to the Regulations on zemstvo district chiefs of June 12, 1889, each district was divided into zemstvo plots, in which the post of zemstvo district chief was established. The zemstvo chief was appointed from among the hereditary nobles, performed the functions of a magistrate, and also monitored the peasant public administration, could suspend sentences of rural gatherings, subject him to a 3-day arrest.
On June 12, 1890, a new zemstvo Statute on provincial and district zemstvo institutions (hereinafter referred to as the 1890 Statute) appeared, which actually discredited the idea of expanding local power and threw Russia back. The reformed Regulations of 1890 somewhat changed the procedure for elections to zemstvo self-government bodies. A two-stage electoral system was also introduced for small landowners, and not only for rural societies, as provided for by Art. 30 of the previous Regulation. According to Art. 15 Regulations of 1890 in each county after 3 years, zemstvo electoral meetings and volost assemblies were convened to elect zemstvo clerks, as well as zemstvo electoral congresses to elect authorized persons to zemstvo electoral assemblies.
In accordance with the Regulations of 1890, the estate principle in the zemstvos increased, for which the number of vowels was reduced and the order of their election was changed. 3 groups of voters were formed. The first included nobles of all categories, the second - all other voters and legal entities, in the third - the peasants. The peasants, however, elected at their gatherings only candidates for vowels. Of these, the governor appointed the number of vowels set in the timetable.
The nobles gained absolute predominance, and a large group of persons (clergy, church parish, peasant associations, peasants who owned land as private property, owners of commercial and industrial establishments, merchants, persons of the Jewish faith) lost their voting rights. The composition of the provincial vowels by class was formed in 1897 as follows: nobles and officials - 89.5%; commoners - 8.7; peasants - 1.8%. At the same time, the total number of vowels from each county was reduced by 1%.
The regulation of 1890 significantly limited the rights of peasants in the zemstvo elections. In accordance with Art. 26 peasants who belonged to rural societies were deprived of the right to participate in electoral meetings and congresses, even if there was an established property qualification. Vowels from rural societies could be elected only at volost gatherings, while the elected vowels were subject to, according to Art. 51 obligatory approval by the governor. The governor also determined the order of intercession of vowels from peasants in place of retired vowels.
The right to participate in the zemstvo electoral congresses of small landowners was enjoyed by males at least 25 years old who were Russian citizens (Article 24 of the Regulations of 1890). These persons had to own at least one year before the elections within the county on the basis of ownership or lifetime ownership of land at least one tenth of the tithes established for each county separately, or other real estate within the county, assessed for collection of a tax to the treasury in the amount not less than 1500 rubles They had no right to entrust their vote to others.
In addition to representatives of small landowners, individuals and legal entities who owned land in the county for one or more years in the amount determined for each county individually by the schedule, or other real estate, the cost of which, for the purpose of collecting fees, had the right to participate in zemstvo electoral congresses. at least 15 thousand rubles (Article 16 of the Regulations of 1890).
Only persons who had the right to civil service could be chairmen and members of councils, which deprived peasants and merchants of the right to hold this position. The governor, proceeding from the principle of expediency, could suspend any decisions of the zemstvos (Article 87 of the Regulations of 1890).
Certain norms of the 1890 Regulations seriously violated the very principle of election, on which the zemstvo self-government was based. So, Art. 53 provided the Minister of Internal Affairs with the right, in the event of election by the county of less than two-thirds of the vowels required from the county by the schedule, to extend the powers of the vowels for a period of up to 3 years or independently appoint for the same period the chairman and members of the zemstvo council who exercised city self-government without a zemstvo assembly. At the same time, it was not established how many times the minister had the right to extend the powers of the zemstvo assembly or zemstvo council. Thus, there was a possibility of replacing elected self-government with appointed ones, which, in turn, undermined the foundations of the institution of local self-government.
According to the Regulations of 1890, zemstvo institutions were deprived of the status of public self-government and were introduced into the system government controlled... The legal status of zemstvo employees also changed, many of whom could become government officials and receive ranks, titles, orders, and other privileges.
Changes in the legislation on zemstvo institutions were caused not only by subjective, but also by objective reasons. The estate structure of society changed under the conditions of the development of capitalism, and rather quickly. After the peasant reform of 1861, the land plots of some of the nobles rapidly began to decline. The census was too high even for the 1860s. In the subsequent period, when the nobility's land tenure was rapidly fragmented and reduced in size, the high qualification requirements affected the legal capacity of the nobility to take part in the zemstvo business.
The position of 1890 strengthened the position of the nobility in the zemstvos. Now they began to send more representatives to the zemstvo assemblies than the peasants and townspeople combined. One vowel from the nobility represented 3 voters, and from the peasants - 3 thousand.
An important point was the problem of the relationship between the bodies of zemstvo self-government with the local government system, primarily with the governors. This issue has been extensively studied for several years.
As noted by A.A. Yartsev, “taking into account the opinions of the governors, on the basis of their own observations and conclusions and, undoubtedly, with an eye to the political trends in the higher spheres, the compilers of the new zemstvo Regulations of 1890 came to the conviction that the existing system of supervision of governors over zemstvo self-government bodies is not entirely effective. Therefore, in line with the Zemstvo counter-reform of 1890, the government simplifies the institutional system for filing protests by governors against zemstvos, grants the right of direct complaints against self-government bodies to the Senate to honest individuals and institutions, creates a special provincial instance for the prompt analysis of provincial-provincial disputes - the provincial one for zemstvo and city affairs. presence". In the fair opinion of the same author, "the purpose of introducing such a body was not political, but pragmatic ... The presences allowed on the spot, quickly and collegially to resolve the arising disputes between the self-government and the local administration."
The provincial presence on zemstvo affairs included the governor, the vice-governor, the manager of the treasury chamber, the prosecutor of the district court, the chairman of the provincial zemstvo council (aka the provincial leader of the nobility) and a public official. This body checked each resolution of the zemstvo institutions for its compliance with the law.
Along with the restrictions on the electoral rights of a large category of citizens, some positive aspects of the new legislation on zemstvo self-government can be noted, namely:
· Some increase in the competence of zemstvos, expansion of the list of subjects on which they could issue binding regulations;
· Expansion of the circle of persons subject to election (they could be not only vowels, but also persons who had an electoral qualification);
· Full restoration of the rights of zemstvos for free mail forwarding.
The activity of zemstvos was dominated by the state principle associated with the strengthening of government control over local self-government.
Zemstvo legislation also had a certain social orientation. In accordance with Art. 2 Provisions of 1890 to affairs subordinate to zemstvo institutions included the management of zemstvo medical and charitable institutions, care for the poor, incurable sick and insane, orphan and crippled, provision of benefits to the needy population in ways permitted by law. In necessary cases, zemstvo institutions could set fees for the needs of public charity.
According to Professor G.A. Gerasimenko, the revision of the zemstvo legislation testified that “even in such a critical situation for the zemstvos, in the conditions of a powerful counter-offensive by the feudal landlords, the authorities could not eliminate the zemstvos completely. The development of capitalist relations by that time had reached such a height that was sufficient to protect the zemstvos from defeat. "
After the adoption of the Regulations of 1890, the activities of the zemstvos did not weaken, but intensified. This may indicate, on the one hand, an increase in social demand for self-government bodies, on the other, about the presence of positive aspects in legislation.
The counter-reforms led to a change in the system of not only zemstvo, but also city self-government, which was expressed in the adoption of the City Regulation dated June 11, 1892. The previously existing high property qualification ensured the predominance of merchants in the city institutions of local power. Not the best representatives of this class were often included in the public councils, which was reflected in the work of city self-government bodies. The position of the nobility in city councils turned out to be somewhat constrained, and, supported by the government, it could not put up with it. As a result, the state authorities came to the conclusion that it was necessary to carry out radical reforms not only of the zemstvo, but also of the city government.
The property qualification in the City Regulation of 1892 in comparison with the previous regulation on city government has significantly strengthened. New requirements for participation in city elections, formulated in Art. 24, deprived of voting rights not only workers and intellectuals, but also a considerable part of real estate owners and industrialists. The norms of this article gave the right to participate in elections of vowels only to Russian citizens at least 25 years old who had for one year or more within the city settlement real estate, valued for the collection of a city tax in the amount of at least 3 thousand rubles. - in capitals; not less than 1.5 thousand rubles - in large provincial cities with a population of over 100 thousand people and Odessa; 1 thousand rubles - in other provincial and regional cities that were part of city governments; not less than 300 rubles - in small urban settlements. Persons who had kept commercial and industrial enterprises in an urban settlement for one or more years and demanded a certificate of the 1st guild in capitals and the 1st or 2nd guilds in other cities could also take part in the elections.
Charitable, educational, industrial, commercial and other institutions could issue their representatives with a power of attorney to participate in elections if these institutions met the established property requirements.
In addition, the list of persons who did not have the right to participate in elections personally or through representatives was enlarged. Not only the chairman and members of the local presence on zemstvo and city affairs, persons who held police and prosecutorial positions in the province, but also all ministers of Christian confessions could not take part in the voting (Article 32 of the 1892 City Regulations). Article 33 deprived of the right to vote, except for criminals and insolvent debtors, all persons dismissed from public office, within 3 years from the time of their imprisonment, who were under the public supervision of the police and the owners of wine shops and drinking houses.
The city regulation of 1892 abolished the three-stage curial system of elections, enshrined in the previous normative legal act on the formation of city councils. For the production of elections, one electoral meeting was formed (Art. 34). In the presence of a large number of voters, the assembly could be divided into polling stations at the suggestion of city councils, but only with the permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs in the capitals (St. Petersburg and Moscow), and in other cities - with the permission of the governor.
The counter-reforms of local self-government in the 1890s, which radically changed the order of organizing zemstvo and city institutions, led to a significant restriction of the opportunity to participate in the zemstvo life of all classes of the Russian Empire, with the exception of the nobility - landowners and representatives of the big bourgeoisie. This circumstance caused serious discontent in society, and also further increased the contradictions between various segments of the population.
The results of the legislation on reforming local self-government were manifested in the activities of local self-government bodies in the implementation of their direct functions enshrined in law. Among the main areas of activity of zemstvo institutions, it should be noted, first of all, health care, public education, statistics. The implementation of these directions was positively affected by the Regulations of 1890. After its adoption, the expenditures of zemstvos increased significantly, and not only due to taxation, but also due to direct subsidies from the government.
As noted by G.A. Gerasimenko, in the second half of the 1880s, “zemstvo statistics were placed in unbearable conditions and ceased to exist ... In 1893 a law appeared obliging zemstvos to resume statistical work. Moreover, it (the government - NB) began to allocate annually up to 1 million rubles for zemstvo statistics. "
As a result, the scale of statistical work began to expand, and the profession of statistics became in demand. The level of reliability of statistical information has been raised to such a height that modern statistics cannot reach in many areas.
Zemstvos' expenditures on public education doubled 10 years after the adoption of the 1890 Regulations. The number of zemstvo schools increased, teachers received a salary that was high enough for that time. At the same time, the content of education turned out to be beyond the competence of the zemstvos, which could not influence the curriculum.
The number of zemstvo hospitals has increased. In fact, they turned out to be almost the only medical institutions where the rural population could receive medical assistance... Payment for the work of the medical personnel of such hospitals was also carried out by zemstvos.
As part of the provision of veterinary assistance to the population of the zemstvo, they successfully fought the plague epidemic that struck cattle in many regions of Russia. They set up hospitals for livestock, began to vaccinate.
Counter-reforms in the field of local self-government did not lead to a decrease in the positive activity of zemstvo institutions, which developed the main directions of their activities under conditions of strict control by the local administration. Local self-government bodies, having become, as a result of counter-reforms, de facto governing bodies included in the general state system, began to work more efficiently.
Gradually, zemstvos began to try to go beyond the local economy, to discuss political issues, to draw the attention of the authorities to the need to expand their political rights. At the same time, the new legislation did not radically affect the social composition of the zemstvos - the nobility still predominated in them.
Trying to combat the growth of liberal sentiments among local government officials, the government began to cut back the sources of its funding. On June 12, 1900, the Model Rules for the Establishment of the Maximum Zemstvo Taxation were adopted. This document forbade zemstvo institutions to increase their estimates by more than 3% compared to the previous year. At the same time, the zemstvos were forbidden to deal with issues of assistance to the starving regions, leaving this problem to the zemstvo chiefs. It is difficult to assume that these measures were dictated by the concern of the tsarist government for the people; rather, the desire to limit the activities of local self-government was manifested. However, such measures did not lead to the curtailment of the activities of zemstvo institutions. On the contrary, this activity has steadily increased.
Thus, the procedure for elections to local self-government bodies, established by the new, reformed legislation, was not distinguished by democracy, since the elections were of a class character and were carried out on the basis of a property qualification. Most of the country's population was generally deprived of voting rights in elections to zemstvo and city institutions. However, for the period when the feudal system prevailed in public relations, such elections were not unusual; on the contrary, the creation of local self-government bodies, which were elected by the population, can be considered as an important positive step. It was associated with the development of capitalist production relations, which in all countries was accompanied by the introduction of the population to local self-government.
Local government bodies, primarily zemstvo institutions, which successfully dealt with issues of local economy, public education, health care, statistics and veterinary medicine, played an important positive role in the social development of the Russian Empire.
Bibliography
1 Zakharova L.G. Russia at a turning point (autocracy and reforms of 1861-1874) // History of the Fatherland: people, ideas, solutions. Essays on the history of Russia in the 9th - early 20th centuries. - M., 1991.S. 322.
2 Kruzhkov A.V. Local self-government in Russia: an unrealizable project // Polis. 2004. No. 6.
3 See: Waldron P. The End of Imperial Russia. 1855-1917. - Camb., 2002. P. 19.
4 See: N.A. Emelyanov. Local government in pre-revolutionary Russia. - Tula, 1992.S. 25.
5 Yartsev A.A. Zemstvo self-government and local bodies of administrative justice in 1890-1904 (based on materials from the North-West of Russia) // State and Law. 2004. No. 10.P. 102.
6 Ibid. S. 103-104.
7 Gerasimenko G.A. History of zemstvo self-government. - Saratov, 2003.S. 30.
8 Gerasimenko G.A. Decree. slave. P. 31.
FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
State educational institution of higher professional education
"CHITA STATE UNIVERSITY"
TEST
by discipline: History of the national state and law
Topic 21. State and law of the Russian Empire in the last quarter of the XIX century.
Checked by: Mamkina I.N.
Plan
Introduction
1. State structure and reforms of the last quarter of the 19th century
2. Novels in civil law
3. Novels in criminal law
4. Legal proceedings
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
State reforms of the 60s and 70s reflected bourgeois tendencies in the development of the state apparatus, but at the same time sought to preserve the dominant position of the nobility in the political and state systems.
The Emperor retained the status of an unlimited monarch, enshrined in the Basic Laws of the Russian Empire: "God himself commands to obey his supreme power not only for fear, but also for conscience."
The highest advisory institution remained the State Council, which, in the course of the reform, was tasked with considering a large number of bills and codification work.
In 1884, a Special Presence was created under the Council of State to consider complaints against decisions of the Senate. Thus, the Senate came under the control of the highest bureaucratic body.
In February 1861, the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs was transformed into a permanent Main Committee for the Organization of the Rural State, which controlled the course of the peasant reform. This committee worked closely with the Council of State.
Under the State Council, various committees (Western, Caucasian, for the organization of the rural population) and commissions (for the protection of state order, a special meeting for the protection of peace) were formed. One of these committees has evolved over time into an important government body - the Committee of Ministers.
The position of the Senate as the highest judicial and supervisory body was strengthened after the reform of 1864. Back in 1862, the Basic principles of the transformation of the judiciary in Russia, prepared by a special commission, were approved. By 1864, judicial charters were prepared, introducing new principles of the judicial system and legal proceedings.
1. State structure and reforms of the last quarter of the 19th century
In 1880, the question of streamlining the peasant social structure and administration was discussed, in connection with which the question arose of organizing all-estate volost bodies. They were to become the first link in the system of local self-government bodies.
At the end of 1881, a special commission was created to develop the reform.
According to the project, the volost administration was to be headed by a special zemstvo clerk (volostel), elected by the zemstvo assembly from local residents.
The commission completed its work by 1884, but the volost zemstvo was never formed (it will appear only in 1917).
Reactionary tendencies in state administration began to manifest themselves clearly in the spring of 1882, when the leadership of the government passed to Count Tolstoy. In its activities, the government begins to focus on the interests of the nobility, primarily hereditary.
In 1885, the Noble Bank was opened, supporting local land tenure with its concessional loans. The development of a number of bills aimed at restoring the prerogatives lost by the nobility began. The result of this work was the Regulations on Zemstvo Chiefs in 1889 and the new Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions in 1890. According to these laws, the nobles were to take a leading position in the local government system, and the Zemstvo bodies were included in the national government system, i.e. from self-government bodies were transformed into bodies of state power. Zemstvo councils were subordinate to the governor's power, chairmen of councils were appointed by the government, and decisions of the councils were controlled by the governors. The unclassified zemstvo of the 1864 model was supposed to turn into an estate structure in which the nobility enjoyed the advantage.
In connection with this goal, the electoral system was changed: the estate within the electoral curia increased, the number of vowels from the peasants decreased, the governors were given the right to choose vowels from among the candidates elected by the volosts. The number of vowels from the nobility should be increased. The project was not carried out in its original form, but many of its provisions and the main tendency (the strengthening of the role of the nobility in the zemstvos) were preserved in the Regulations on zemstvos adopted by the State Council.
The adoption of the Regulation on Zemstvo Chiefs was preceded by the introduction of a law on employment for agricultural work and a law on peasant family divisions, which defended the proprietary interests of the nobility.
In the State Council, during the discussion of the law on zemstvo chiefs, a proposal was made to replace them with justices of the peace (according to the English model), but the result of the discussion turned out to be completely different - the magistrates were replaced by zemstvo chiefs, who combined administrative and judicial functions in their activities.
In 1882, the Provisional Regulations on the Press were adopted, which introduced preliminary censorship and gave a special meeting (out of four ministers - public education, internal affairs, justice and the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod) the right to completely close certain printed organs.
In 1891, a new customs tariff was issued, which consolidated the protectionist policy of the state and contributed to pressure on the foreign money market. At the same time, the new tariff had an adverse effect on the agricultural sector of the domestic economy. The interests of the developing industry were placed above the interests of agriculture, which infringed upon the position of the noble landowners.
In 1892, a new City Regulation was adopted. If earlier practically all taxpayers were allowed to vote in city government, then, according to the new law, only persons with a certain property qualification (depending on the value of the property belonging to them) could get into the number of electors.
The city regulation of 1892 replaced the property tax qualification for voters. Only citizens who owned real estate received voting rights. The number of voters also included the owners of commercial and industrial enterprises who had guild certificates. The petty bourgeoisie was losing voting rights.
For small towns, the Regulations introduced "simplified management": a gathering of city householders elected a meeting of delegates, and it elected the city headman. Many localities and regions (especially on the outskirts of the empire) did not receive city self-government at all.
The government, forced in the 60s and 80s. under the threat of a revolutionary situation, to carry out reforms of a bourgeois nature, in the 80s-90s. dealt a blow to almost all newly emerging institutions.
The era of counterreforms made a significant shift "to the right" in all areas of social, political and state development of Russia.
2. Novels in civil law
The development of law in the second half of the XIX century. was reflected in Russian legislation. The Code of Laws of the Russian Empire continued to operate, which was supplemented with new legalizations during reprints. So, the X volume of the Code was eventually supplemented by judicial charters, the Provisional Regulations on the Volost Court, the Regulations on the Zemstvo Chiefs of 1889 and other novels.
Since 1863, under the control of the Senate, the periodical "Collection of legalizations and orders of the government" began. It generalized the Senate practice, absorbed the current decrees of ministers, placed the charters of joint-stock companies, credit institutions, etc.
The 1845 Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments was also republished as the current one. science.
These sources provide an opportunity to judge the changes in law and process that took place in the country after the reforms of the 1860s.
In civil law, the concept of a legal entity was finalized. This concept was previously applied to the state, educational institutions, monasteries. Now, with the growth of the commodity-money economy, the market, all merchant, industrial, entrepreneurial organizations, partnerships, joint-stock companies, etc. have acquired the status of a legal entity.
The law divided all legal entities into public, private, connections of persons and institutions. This division continued until 1917.
Of the short stories of property and inheritance law, only norms aimed at preserving the peasant community can be noted. They date back to the 1890s. These are: 1) The prohibition of peasant societies to pledge allotment land to private individuals (those that were obtained as a result of the reform of 1861 and redeemed with the help of the state). Now allotment lands began to be considered as mundane (communal) property. 2) In 1895, this category of property included the "estate settled" (estate allotment), which was previously considered as personal property. 3) Family members could only inherit property peasant household but allotment land - only persons assigned to rural society. It could be family members, but also outsiders who became members of the court: adopted children, foster children, illegitimate children, daughters who married a primak who entered the family. 4) As before, the division of the peasant household was limited, which could be carried out only with the consent of the community. 5) There was a mutual guarantee in the payment of taxes.
These measures were aimed at artificially restraining the process of decomposition of the community and pauperization of the population. They did not contribute to the formation of a sense of ownership among the peasants. The institution of private farming in the countryside took shape with a great delay.
V family law: 1) The principle of separation of spouses' property has become more clearly implemented. 2) The Church continued to regulate the conclusion and dissolution of marriage, and other personal relationships of the spouses. 3) Divorce was conducted by a church court - consistory, and only if there were good reasons (adultery, deprivation of all rights of the state, unknown absence of a spouse, impotence). 4) Until 1904, the punishment for adultery remained. They were condemned to celibacy.
However, the Charter of Criminal Procedure of 1864 significantly limited the competence of the church court in the field of family relations. The secular court was charged with cases of marriages "committed by violence, deception or madness" by one or both spouses. Only after his verdict could the consistory make a decision on the validity or invalidity of such a marriage and on the responsibility of the persons who made the marriage. In other cases (about polygamy of persons of the Christian confession, about incest, about marriage in unauthorized degrees of kinship and property, etc.), the cases were transferred to the criminal court after the end of the spiritual trial over the guilty. Cases of violation of the sanctity of marriage (adultery) were decided either by a church or secular court, depending on where the offended party turned.
Most of the novels were recorded in the law of obligations, which was associated with the development of market relations. Here the old norms are preserved and improved and new ones are actively developed. This is evidenced by the explosive growth of laws governing contractual relations. In the second half of the XIX century. there were statutes on the factory and factory industry. Crafts and Trade Charters, Stock and Vekselny Charters, Trade Insolvency Charter. There were labor and commercial laws, agricultural employment laws, and so on. etc.
All types of agreements known to us are valid in Russia at this time. The contract for work and delivery (materials, supplies, cargo, things, people, construction, repair, alteration of buildings, etc.) is very widely used. The loan agreement could be made at home and by a notary (the notary appeared in the course of the judicial reform in 1864). It was declared invalid if it was concluded forged, to the detriment of other creditors, when playing cards, without money. The interest on the loan was determined by the parties themselves, if peg, they proceeded from the already accepted 6% per annum. The loan agreement could be transferred to third parties with the obligation to pay the entire debt.
A partnership agreement was more clearly defined in the law as an agreement by virtue of which several persons undertake to combine their efforts to achieve a goal. The types of partnerships were established: full (all members are responsible for the transactions of the partnership with all their property), on faith or by contributions (some of the members are responsible for all property, and some - “investors” - only with contributions made), a partnership in shares (plots) or joint stock a company (liability only for contributions made - shares), an artel or a labor partnership, whose members are bound by mutual responsibility, have a common account. For the formation of a partnership, registration was required government agency, and for a joint-stock company - the permission of the government.
An insurance contract appeared, by virtue of which a special insurance company was obliged to compensate for damage in case of damage to property or its destruction for a certain fee. The contract was drawn up in writing and was called a policy.
Services of a special nature were guaranteed by a power of attorney agreement, when one person was obliged to be a representative of another person, primarily in the legal field. This is the execution of legal transactions on behalf of and in favor of another person (managing an estate, a factory, receiving a salary, a pension, etc.). The power of attorney was valid only for a year.
The legislation regulated the sphere of personal employment. Its term is not more than 5 years, the purposes of hiring are the same: domestic services, agricultural, handicraft, factory work, in general all kinds of work that are not prohibited by law. A number of restrictions remain: peasants could not be hired without a passport, city dwellers - without a residence permit, married women - without the permission of their husbands. There was a return to public and private work for a period not exceeding 6 months of the bourgeoisie, exposed in depraved behavior, peasants who could not pay taxes.
In the 1890s. a new legal sphere began to form - labor legislation. The law of 1893 on the liability of employers for injuries to workers provided for monetary compensation for injured workers. Then laws were passed to ensure the safety of workers employed in the gunpowder, mining, railroad and other industries. The labor of children under 12 years old was prohibited, and 12 to 15 years old could be used only with restrictions. Night labor was banned everywhere. The 1885 Penal Code of the publication introduced punishments for factory owners in the form of a fine or short-term arrest for the "oppression" of workers.
Russia was one of the first countries in the world to introduce in 1897 a legal limitation of the working day. It was equal to 11.5 hours, and on the eve of the holidays - 10 hours. This was less than France (12 hours), but more than Austria (11 hours) and Switzerland (10.5 hours). In England, Germany and the United States, the length of the working day at this time was not yet limited by legislation. In Italy, the 12-hour workday was introduced only for women. The factories had a factory inspection, which consisted of civil servants, which settled labor conflicts between workers and factory owners. The inspectors considered workers' complaints, eliminated the reasons for strikes, approved the amount of fines for absenteeism, late work, etc. According to the law, the amount of the fine could not exceed 1/3 of the salary. Fines went to a special fund that was used for the needs of the workers. In 1805, trade unions appeared in Russia to protect the interests of workers, and in 1912 social insurance was introduced.
3. Novels in criminal law
proprietary pre-revolutionary criminal reform
In criminal law, 4 important principles are finally established in the understanding of a criminal act: 1) there is no crime not provided for by law, 2) there is no punishment not provided for by law, 3) prosecution can take place only in case of guilt, 4) presumption of innocence (the accused becomes guilty only on the basis of a court verdict, proof of guilt).
The approval of these principles required the regulation of the grounds for bringing to criminal responsibility, and jurisprudence has developed the concept of corpus delicti. This is the set of necessary elements to prove the charge. There are 4 of them: subject, object, illegal act and guilt. At the same time, a clear division of criminal law into general and special parts was formed.
The subject of the crime was a sane person who had reached the age of 10 (up to 10 years - complete insanity, from 10 to 14 - conditional). Full criminal responsibility began from the age of 21, from this age the death penalty could be applied. The objective side was understood as an action or inaction of a criminal nature, and by guilt, a state in which a person was aware or could be aware of the nature of his actions. In the category of state crimes, naked intent, the threat of arson, not real, preparation for a crime and attempted crime were still pursued.
The law established the forms of intent: premeditated and sudden (direct and indirect). Intentional crimes, in turn, were divided into those committed in cold blood and in a state of passion. The forms of negligence began to differ: severe, medium and light, which entailed different punishments.
The latest edition of the Code of Punishments provided for at least 2000 corpus delicti, the main groups of which had already occurred in the 1845 edition. The encroachment on the person, property, state interests, etc. was pursued, which has already been discussed. The dependence of punishment on the severity of the crime was established: 1) grave crimes entailed the death penalty (its only type remained - hanging), hard labor, settlement, 2) crimes (simply) - imprisonment in a fortress, prison, correctional house, 3) for misdemeanors arrest, fine, suggestions.
Actions in pursuance of a law or order, with the permission of the authorities, the exercise of professional duties were not considered crimes and were not punished. The urgency and necessary defense were of the same importance.
Russian law limited the death penalty as much as possible. Under ordinary law at this time, she relied on some serious crimes against the state and quarantine crimes. Under military law (under martial law) for looting, robbery, violence, treason, etc. Since 1891, there has not been a single civil court sentence to the death penalty in Russia. Unlike a number of leading European countries, England, Germany, France, Russia did not use the death penalty for murder, even premeditated.
After the abolition of serfdom, the public in Russia, and earlier opposed corporal punishment, demanded their abolition. The issue of them was considered in a special commission of 1861, which recognized that they were "contrary to Christianity and Orthodoxy," and most importantly, that "freedom and property rights are valid only if honor and personal dignity are protected," infringed upon by corporal punishment. Their destruction began with a decree of 1863 that abolished corporal punishment for women, stigmatization and the imposition of other signs on criminals, and limited the use of rods. From now on, they could not be applied to the clergy, teachers, and peasant administration. In the army, shpitsruten, cats, molts and other means of corporal punishment were abolished.
Since 1866, rods as an independent type of punishment could be applied only by verdicts of volost courts and only in specially stipulated cases: for the repetition of a misdemeanor within a year, for which the guilty person had already been arrested; for committing several offenses, each of which demanded arrest or more severe punishment; for theft, fraud, misappropriation, extravagance and drunkenness, upsetting the peasant economy. But even in these cases, the permission of the zemstvo chief was required, who could replace this punishment by a verdict of the volost court with another. In 1900, rods were abolished everywhere, even as corporal punishment for vagrants. Only in punishment cells in places of deprivation of liberty, they remained until February 1917.
By the end of the XIX century. criminal law was one of the most developed branches of law in Russia, the level of which corresponded to the level and achievements of the world science of jurisprudence.
4. Legal proceedings
The process in Russia before the reform of 1864 remained mainly inquisitorial, but the 1801 decree prohibited the use of torture in the investigation of cases. It took place in deep secrecy, based on written evidence obtained during the investigation. Lively direct perception of evidence, personal acquaintance of judges with the case materials, direct oral interrogation of the accused in court were absent. And the evidence was assessed, as before, according to the formal system enshrined in the Code of Laws. Their strength was determined in advance by law, which firmly established what could and could not serve as evidence.
The law divided them into perfect and imperfect and established the degree of their reliability. Only perfect evidence that could not be refuted by the defendant could serve as the basis for the sentencing. Among them, their own recognition stood out, considered from the time of Peter I "the best evidence of the whole world." Then came the written evidence admitted by the accused, expert opinions, coinciding testimonies of two witnesses, which were not withdrawn to the defendant. The imperfect ones included the extrajudicial confession of the accused, confirmed by witnesses, the testimony of one witness, a general search, and evidence.
As a rule, witnesses and experts were not summoned to court. And the accused himself was summoned only to find out whether unlawful methods were applied to him during the investigation. That is, the process was written and secret. In the most serious cases, the court of first instance (the lower zemstvo, city magistrate and lower punishment) made not a decision, but an opinion, which was sent to the chamber of the criminal court that passed the sentence. The sentences were not final and were often revised by higher courts. With a lack of evidence, it was practiced to leave the defendant under suspicion, who was either bailed, into military service, or sent to Siberia for a settlement.
As a result of the reform, the theory of formal assessment of evidence was abolished and replaced by another - the theory of free assessment of evidence. According to her, the task of the court is to search for objective (material) truth. The decisions and sentences of the courts should be based on true facts, and not on speculation. This requires a nutritious case study and a comprehensive analysis of all available evidence, without any outside interference. Only the inner conviction of the judges could be the yardstick of credibility. The courts were obliged to examine all written and material evidence, analyze the testimony of witnesses and expert opinions. In sentences and decisions, the court was obliged to cite all the circumstances on which they were based. All procedural actions (search, expert examination, selection of a preventive measure, etc.) were regulated in detail by law.
In the trial, the principles that guarantee the rights of the individual were established. Therefore, the parties, both in civil and criminal proceedings, received equal procedural rights. The court was obliged to listen equally to both the plaintiff and the defendant. Each side received equal rights to present evidence, give explanations, refute the conclusions of the opposing side, challenge jurors, witnesses, judges.
All this led to the change of the inquisition process to the adversarial one. The court acquired orality and publicity, and the materials of the trials began to be published in the press.
According to the Charter of Civil Procedure of 1864, the commencement of the case was given by a petition filed by the interested party in writing or orally. It indicated the circumstances of the case and the price of the claim. The defendant was summoned to the court by a subpoena. If both parties appeared in person at the court, the consideration of the case could take place without preliminary preparation. Verbal proceedings with consideration of the evidence of the parties ended with the adoption of a decision.
In other cases, written preliminary preparation preceded the hearing. Both parties could prepare 4 pleadings for him (2 each): the statement of claim, the answer provided to the court before the time of appearance, the plaintiff's objection and the defendant's refutation. The report of the case and the verbal competition, in which the parties presented evidence, testimony, petitions, took place in an open court session. In a closed session, the case could be heard at the request of the parties or by decision of the court due to the fact that "publicity" could be "reprehensible for religion, public order or morality." The main burden of proof, of course, lay with the filing party. The court itself did not collect evidence or certificates, but based its decision "solely on the evidence presented by the litigants." Mandatory, but more often formal, was the attempt by the judges to end the case peacefully.
At the beginning or in the course of the proceedings, the claim could be secured in proportion to its value, if it appeared to be justified. The types of security included the provision of a ban on immovable property, seizure of movable property and surety. The type of security was chosen by the applicant. But the law allowed for the replacement of all means of securing a claim with a sufficient amount of cash without the consent of the plaintiff.
After the decision was made, the decision was finalized within 3 days, the legal costs and those on whom they were assigned were determined: on one of the litigants or on both parties. The latter had the right to appeal against the decision in the second instance (from the district court to the judicial chamber). Cassation appeals were considered by the Senate.
On the basis of the decision taken, a writ of execution was drawn up, in which the court ruling, which had entered into legal force, was clearly spelled out. The perpetrator was a bailiff, and all local authorities, including the police and the military, pledged to provide him "with appropriate assistance without delay."
Conclusion
So, at the end of the 19th century, Russia was a state with a feudal-serf system of economy. In terms of population and military power, Russia was the first state in Europe, but its economy was weak. And without a solid economy, the state will not develop steadily. Only 5% of landlord farms were able to move to a new stage of development and modernize their economy. The rest of the landowners pushed Russia back: in an effort to get more profit, they did not modernize their economy, but began to raise the corvee and quitrent. This was largely due to the bad economic policies of the tsarist government.
But serfdom remained the main obstacle on the path of bourgeois development. Crimean War fully demonstrated this.
The ideologists and conductors of the internal political course that determined the entire reign of Alexander III (1881 - 1894) were convinced conservatives: the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, K.P. Pobedonostsev, the publisher of Moskovskiye Vedomosti, M.N. ... All these leaders had a negative attitude towards the reforms of the 1860s - 1870s, hoping to neutralize their impact on Russian life by means of counterreforms. The most significant of the measures taken by the government in this direction were the creation of a new local administration in the person of the zemstvo chiefs (1889) and the zemstvo counter-reform (1890). Other reforms followed: urban reform, judicial reform, military reforms. Still, these reforms could not drastically change the position of the people, but contributed to the further bourgeois development of Russia.
List of used literature
1. Isaev I.A. History of the state and law of Russia. - M .: Jurist, 1996.
2. History of Russia. WITH early XVIII until the end of the 19th century, otv. ed. A. N. Sakharov. - M .: Ed. AST, 1996.
3. Eroshkin N.P. The history of state institutions in pre-revolutionary Russia. - M .: Higher., School., 1983.
4. Speransky M.M. Projects and notes. - M., 1961.
Posted on the site
Similar documents
State system transformations. Characteristics of autocracy. Analysis of the development of autocracy in Russia. Transformations carried out at the beginning of the 19th century. legislation of the first quarter of the 19th century. Law at the beginning of the 19th century. The work of the Council of State.
abstract, added 07/15/2008
Political and administrative reforms of the first quarter of the 18th century, the main ideas of Peter's reforms and the peculiarities of the transition from the traditional to the rational model of public administration. Transformations in the system of higher and central management.
certification work, added 05/15/2010
Characteristic features of the state system of the Russian Empire in the second quarter of the 18th century. Study of basic terms and concepts in the program section: "The emergence of state and law in Russia". Determination of the features of the trial of Muscovite Rus.
test, added 02/18/2010
Sources of criminal law. Military article as a code of military criminal legislation. The concept of a crime, types of crimes, types of punishments. The main features of the criminal law.
test, added 09/03/2007
Study of the ways of formation and development of national statehood and legal system. Analysis of the general patterns of development of absolute monarchy in Russia. The process of reorganizing central and local government during the reforms of the first quarter of the 18th century.
abstract, added 03/09/2011
City management from Ancient Rus until the 16th century. Models state structure... City government in the XIV-XVI centuries. Principles of public administration under Peter I, Catherine II, Alexander I, Nicholas I. Features of the reforms of Alexander II.
term paper, added 02/22/2012
Study of the history of the development of constitutional law in pre-revolutionary Russia. Review of pre-revolutionary Russian legislative acts of a constitutional nature. The principles of constitutional public administration. Formation of the modern Constitution.
abstract added on 04/23/2015
Preconditions for the reforms of local self-government in Russia in 1870. Institutions of city public administration. Elections to the City Duma. The results of the urban reform in the cities of the Russian Empire and its significance for the political life of the country.
test, added 08/14/2008
Preconditions and causes of military reforms in Russia in the mid-19th century. Plan of military transformation. Description of reforms in the field of organization, manning the army and command and control. Rearmament of the army, major changes in the field of training of troops.
term paper, added 11/28/2011
The essence and main tasks of reforms in the political life of the state. Adaptation mechanisms for reformational transformation. Features of the latter Russian reform... Conditions for the effective implementation of reform actions. Adoption of the Reform Law.
Tomsk State University systems
control and radio electronics (TUSUR)
Department of Industrial Electronics
History abstract
The labor movement in Russia in the last
quarter of the 19th century
Executor:
Student of TMC DO
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
Content
1. Introduction 1
2.Three currents in populism 1
3. Populist organizations of the 70s. 3
4. The internal situation in Russia after the Russian-Turkish war 4
4.1 Reviving the Liberal Movement 4
4.2 The process of Vera Zasulich 5
4.3. Revolutionaries and power 6
4.4. "Dictatorship of the Heart". M. T. Loris-Melikova 7
4.5. End of reforms, end of “Narodnaya Volya” 9
4.6. Labor and labor movement 10
4.7. Liberal movement at the end of the 19th century. 12
4.8. Liberal populism 14
5. Conclusion 15
6. Literature 16
Introduction
Russia. Last quarter of the 19th century The reign of Alexander II. In all spheres of public life, reforms are being actively implemented, leading the country to a quality new level development.
The fragile balance of power was upset by D.V. Karazokov's shot at Alexander II, thereby opening a whole period of the revolutionaries' hunt for the Tsar-liberator. The revolutionary movement turned out to be the main opposition during the period of correcting reforms.
Three trends in populism.
In populism, three main ideologues emerged (P. L. Lavrov, M. A. Bakunin, and P. N. Tkachev) and three trends: propaganda, rebellious, and conspiratorial.
Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov (1823-1900) was a professor of mathematics at the Artillery Academy, had the rank of colonel. He was close to Chernyshevsky. In his "Historical Letters" he expressed the idea of an "unpaid debt" to the people. Every educated person, he wrote, must constantly remember this duty, must critically perceive the surrounding reality and strive for life to be built on the basis of "truth and justice." Ultimately, Lavrov believed, all historical progress is the result of the efforts of “critically thinking individuals” (ie, the intelligentsia).
Lavrov shared the belief in socialist utopia, identity historical development Russia, the community as the basis of its future system, the secondary importance of political issues over social ones. Until the end of his days he advocated revolution. At the same time, he severely criticized revolutionary adventurism. He pointed out that one should not "rush" history. Haste in preparing for the revolution will yield nothing but blood and useless sacrifices. A revolution, Lavrov believed, should be prepared by the theoretical work of the intelligentsia and its tireless propaganda among the people.
M. A. Bakunin in the 60s. participated in the international socialist movement. The theory of destruction, which he had long nurtured, took shape in him into a complete anarchist doctrine. He believed that all modern states are built on the suppression of man. No reforms will change their essence. They must be swept away in a revolutionary way and replaced by free, autonomous, bottom-up societies. Bakunin demanded the transfer of all land to farmers, factories, factories and capital - workers' unions, equalizing the rights of women with men, the abolition of family and marriage, the introduction of social education of children.
In 1869 Bakunin met a student Sergei Nechaev, who claimed to have fled from the Peter and Paul Fortress. Nechaev preached that a revolutionary must suppress all human feelings in himself, break with the laws, decency and morality of the existing system. To achieve high goals, he said, no means should be neglected, even those that are considered low.
In 1869, Nechaev went to Russia to realize his ideas. He settled in Moscow and collected the fragments of the Ishutinsky circle. Nechaev divided his Organization into “fives” and built them in a hierarchical order. The subordinate "five" obeyed the superior, knowing only one of its members, who communicated orders from above and monitored their execution. The main circle also consisted of five people and received orders from Nechaev, who pretended to be a representative of the “central committee”. One of the members of the “main five”, student I. Ivanov, Nechaev suspected of apostasy and ordered to kill in order to “cement with blood” his organization. The murder was committed, but it was not possible to cover up the traces and Nechaev fled abroad (in 1872 he was extradited to Russia).
The investigation revealed the unsightly history of Nechaev's brainchild, and the government decided to bring the case to an open trial. There were 87 people in the dock. Four (members of the “main five”) were sentenced to hard labor, 27 people were sentenced to imprisonment for various terms, the rest were acquitted. Soon, Dostoevsky's novel The Possessed was published, inspired by the trial. Nechaevism turned out to be not an accidental episode, but a symptom of dangerous phenomena that were brewing in the revolutionary movement.
After the Nechaev story, Bakunin concentrated his activities in the revolutionary movement in southern Europe. The most susceptible to the propaganda of anarchism were the unskilled strata of the workers, as well as the lumpen proletariat. Bakunin placed his main stake on them and declared them the vanguard of the labor movement. In Russia, he pinned his hopes on the peasantry. He considered the Russian peasant a "born socialist." Among the people, Bakunin argued, the most effective is “propaganda by facts,” that is, the organization of continuous small uprisings, riots, agrarian unrest. He organized an uprising in northern Italy. The adventure ended in failure.
Bakunin's followers operated in many countries. In Russia they formed a significant detachment of the populist movement and at times really tried to resort to "propaganda by facts."
Peter Nikitich Tkachev (1844-1885). convicted in the Nechaev case, later published the newspaper "Nabat". He argued that the immediate goal should be to create a well-hidden, disciplined revolutionary organization. Without wasting time on propaganda, she must seize power. After that, the organization suppresses and destroys the conservative and reactionary elements of society, abolishes all institutions that hinder the establishment of equality and brotherhood and creates a new statehood. In contrast to the Bakuninists, Tkachev believed that the state (moreover, strong, centralized) would remain after the victory of the revolution.
Since the late 70s. Tkachev's ideas began to gain the upper hand in the populist movement. However, in 1882 he fell ill with a mental disorder and died in a psychiatric hospital.
One of Tkachev's ideological predecessors was P. G. Zaichnevsky, who dreamed of a "bloody, inexorable revolution." But Tkachev summarized his main ideas on the basis of Nechaev's experience. He realized that the main thing in this experience was the creation of a powerful and obedient to the will of the head of an organization aimed at seizing power.
Populist organizations of the 70s
Since the beginning of the 70s. In St. Petersburg, there were several populist circles headed by M.A. Natanson, S.L. Perovskaya, and N.V. Tchaikovsky. In 1871 they united, and the members of the underground society that had arisen began to be called “Tchaikovtsy,” after one of the leaders. Unlike the nechaev organization, there was no strict hierarchical subordination here. All work was built on the voluntary zeal of members of the community. Its branches appeared in Moscow, Kazan and other cities. In this federation of circles during its heyday, there were more than 100 people. Most of the most prominent figures of populism emerged from among the Tchaikovites,
In 1872, Prince Pyotr Alekseevich Kropotkin (1842-1921), a geographer and later a theoretician of anarchism, joined the St. Petersburg circle of “Tchaikovites”. With his arrival, the ideas of Bakunism began to spread in the circle. and before that the circle was entirely on the position of Lavrism.
The main business of the Chaikovites was propaganda among the workers. Attempts were made to establish work in the peasant environment. At the beginning of 1874, the police went out to the "Tchaikovites" as well. The arrests did not stop the main event of the “Tchaikovites” scheduled for 1874 - “going to the people”. However, it was not even an organized event, but a spontaneous movement of radical youth. There never were so many members in the circles of "Tchaikovsky" members, how many people moved "to the people" in the spring of 1874 from Petersburg, Moscow, Saratov, Samara.
Both the laurels and the Bakuninists went to the village. The first - with the long-term goal of re-educating the people in a revolutionary spirit, the second - in the hope of rousing them to insurrection. The revolutionaries dressed up in peasant clothes, were hired by carpenters, loaders, blacksmiths, peddlers. “Going to the people” reached a special scope in the Volga region. The main backbone of itinerant propagandists were former students, but there were also many retired officers, officials, landowners met.
The peasants willingly responded to conversations about land shortages or the severity of redemption payments. But the preaching of socialism was not successful. The words of the visiting “master” were met with ironic smiles. The haste of propaganda did not allow the Narodniks to draw sober conclusions as to whether the socialist doctrine corresponded to popular views.
It was not possible to raise an uprising anywhere. The police caught everyone suspicious. In 37 provinces, 770 people were involved in the inquiry. The surviving propagandists fled to the cities. "Going to the people" undermined the ideas of Bakunism and promoted the spread of Tkachev's ideas. Among the populists, the conviction was ripening that in order to prepare for the revolution, it would not be possible to create a strong organization.
In 1876, a new organization emerged with the old name - "Land and Freedom". It included a number of members of the “going to the people” who survived the arrests - M. A. Natanson, G. V. Plekhanov and others. Later, S. M. Kravchinsky, N. A. Morozov and S. L. Perovskaya joined it. ... In total, there were over 150 people in the organization. "Land and Freedom" was built on the basis of centralism, albeit still weak. Its core was the “main circle”. The society was divided into several groups. The "villagers", the largest group, were sent to work among the peasants. The "disorganizing group" had the goal of bringing disorder to the ranks of the enemies, fighting spies.
The society's program was aimed at preparing the people's socialist revolution. The members of Zemlya i Volya were supposed to conduct explanatory work among the peasantry - both in verbal form and in the form of "propaganda by facts." Terrorist activity was seen as an aid. The program demanded the transfer of all land into the hands of the peasants, freedom of worldly self-government. The landowners learned a lesson from “going to the people” by putting forward demands that were close and understandable to the peasants.
December 6, 1876 "Land and Freedom" organized a demonstration in front of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. It was assumed that this would be a review of the revolutionary forces of the capital. They hoped to gather several thousand people, unfurl the red banner, make speeches and maybe. even walk through the city. But only 300-400 people gathered. The townspeople began to beat the demonstrators. About 20 people were arrested, the rest fled.
After that, the Narodniks decided to concentrate again on work in the countryside. The landowners preferred to settle for a long time in groups in the most restless places: in the Volga region, the Caucasus, the Kuban and the Don. It seemed to them that it was there. where the traditions of the Cossack freemen and the legends about Razin and Pugachev were alive, it is easiest to raise an uprising.
The “sedentary” activity did not bring much success. The landowners were discouraged, their settlements were hunted down and trashed by the police. By the fall of 1877, there were almost no populist settlements left in the village. A serious crisis was brewing in Earth and Freedom.
THE INTERNAL SITUATION OF RUSSIA AFTER THE RUSSIAN-TURKISH WAR OF 1877-1878
Revitalization of the liberal movement.
The Russian-Turkish war caused a rise in patriotic sentiments in society. On this wave the liberal movement revived. Referring to the constitution drawn up for Bulgaria, the liberals asked the following questions:
why does the government refuse to introduce a constitution in Russia? Does it really think that the Russian people are less ready for a constitution than the Bulgarian people who have just come out of the power of the Turks?
The government forbade zemstvo leaders to come to all-Russian conferences and even in individual regions. Therefore, the Zemstvo people began to gather for illegal congresses. They conspired as well as revolutionaries, and the police never found out about some of the congresses. In the late 70s. an illegal "Zemsky Union" arose.
In 1878, the government, worried about the strengthening of the revolutionary movement, issued an appeal to society, in which it called on it to help in the fight against the "gang of villains." But the appeal did not contain promises to change domestic policy and resume reforms, and therefore it did not find the support of the liberals.
Zemsky leaders, having gathered for an unofficial congress in Kiev, tried to negotiate with the revolutionaries about joint actions. They made the suspension of terrorist acts an indispensable condition. The negotiations were unsuccessful, and the Zemstvo people developed their own plan of action. The first was the Kharkiv Zemstvo, which declared that without a change in the internal policy of the government, no assistance from society was possible. The Minister of Internal Affairs immediately sent out a circular prohibiting the discussion and adoption of such statements at the Zemstvo meetings.
Therefore, the vowel of the Chernigov zemstvo I.I. Petrunkevich did not obey and, supported by the assembly and the audience in the choirs, continued reading. Then the chairman summoned the gendarmes and with their help closed the meeting. This was one of the first political speeches of Ivan Ilyich Petrunkevich (1844-1928), who later became one of the prominent figures of the liberal movement. After the incident in the zemstvo assembly, Petrunkevich was exiled to the Kostroma province.
The Tver, Poltava and Samara provincial zemstvo assemblies also demanded the introduction of a constitutional system. The Tver Zemstvo directly stated that the Russian people should enjoy the same benefits of constitutional freedoms that the Bulgarian people received.
In 1879, an illegal zemstvo congress was held in Moscow, which was attended by about 30 representatives from 16 zemstvos. It was decided to begin widespread propaganda in the zemstvos and the publication of literature abroad. The program of the Zemsky Union included three main points: freedom of speech and press, guarantees of personal immunity and the convocation of the Constituent Assembly.
The trial of Vera Zasulich.
In the summer of 1877, the St. Petersburg mayor FF Trepov, during a visit to the prison, ordered the flogging of the prisoner Bogolyubov, a participant in the demonstration in front of the Kazan Cathedral. On January 24, 1878, the populist Vera Zasulich came to Trepov for a reception and shot him with a revolver. Trepov was seriously wounded, but survived. Zasulich did not belong to any revolutionary organization. Conservative newspapers portrayed Trepov as a victim of the call of duty. The government, hoping to stir up public sentiment against terror, sent the Zasulich case to a jury.
The trial took place on March 31, 1878. At first, the mood of the courtroom was not in favor of the accused, but in the course of the proceedings, it changed dramatically. The jury found Zasulich not guilty, and the court chaired by A.F. Koni delivered an acquittal. The audience gave a standing ovation. On the one hand, Zasulich's shot drew public attention to the fact that the authorities commit lawlessness at every step. But on the other hand, he shook the negative attitude towards terror that existed in society. The extreme revolutionaries, who had long insisted on terror, decided that society fully sympathized with such methods of struggle. They sensed both the indecision and weakness of the government.
Revolutionaries and power.
In the late 70s. tensions in Russia increased. The students were worried. The voice of the supporters of the constitution grew louder and louder. After V. Zasulich's shot, a wave of terror swept across the country. The executions of the murderers increased the general tension and provoked new assassination attempts. It is not for nothing that historians say that at that time a revolutionary situation developed in Russia.
But the village remained relatively calm. And this led to despair of the “villagers” from “Land and Freedom”. Disappointment with their work grew among them. One of them, Alexander Soloviev, in 1879 tracked down the tsar while walking on Palace Square and rushed at him with a revolver. Alexander was not taken aback and ran, making zigzags. Soloviev fired five times, but did not hit the tsar, but wounded the policeman who arrived in time.
Land and Freedom was rapidly becoming a terrorist organization. Some of its members protested against this, citing the program. Supporters of terror raised the question of revising it. We decided to gather at the congress in Voronezh to look for a compromise. But by this time the "disorganizing group" had become so isolated that it gathered for its congress in Lipetsk. The most striking figure at this congress was A.I. Zhelyabov. He said that a social revolutionary party, in principle, should not demand political reforms and civil liberties. This is the business of the liberals, but in Russia they are flabby and powerless. Meanwhile, the absence political freedoms hinders the development of agitation among the peasants. This means that the revolutionaries must take on this task - to break despotism, in order to then get down to work on the preparation of the social revolution.
At the Voronezh congress, Zhelyabov headed a group that took shape in Lipetsk. But she failed to gain the upper hand and a compromise was reached. Without revising the program, they decided to intensify the struggle against the government, responding with terror to the executions of revolutionaries. The only participant in the congress who decisively and consistently protested against terror as a method of struggle was Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov (1856-1918).
The compromise was not life-saving. Each side interpreted it differently. In August 1879, at the St. Petersburg Congress, the factions were finally separated. The "villagers" created the "Black Redistribution" organization. She tried to establish propaganda among the peasants and workers, but failed. In 1880, Plekhanov, the recognized leader of the "Black Redistribution", went abroad.
Supporters of terror united in the organization "People's Will". It was headed by Andrei Ivanovich Zhelyabov (1851-1881) and Sofia Lvovna Perovskaya (1853-1881). They were brave, determined people. They felt dissatisfaction with the existing order in the country, but were not accustomed to understand the means to achieve goals. Narodnaya Volya became a well-conspiratorial, ramified and disciplined organization. It was headed by the Executive Committee, which had almost unlimited powers. Local circles and groups obeyed him. The party made a sharp tilt towards the weavers' theories. She considered her main task to be a political coup and seizure of power. After that, it was supposed to convene the Constituent Assembly and propose to it a program of measures for the transfer of land to the peasants, and factories and factories - to the workers. Following the political upheaval, a socialist revolution was to come.
If these plans were implemented, Russia was threatened by everything it experienced in a few decades, including the bloody chaos of the civil war and social experiments with dire consequences.
The tactics of seizing power by the Narodnaya Volya consisted in intimidation and disorganization of the government by means of individual terror. An uprising was also being prepared. No longer hoping for peasant revolts, the Narodnaya Volya tried to organize students, workers and infiltrate the army. Attempts to establish contacts with the officers were unexpectedly successful. Narodnaya Volya officers' circles appeared in Kronstadt, in some military academies and schools in St. Petersburg, in the Volga region and in the Caucasus. In addition to the ideological side, "Narodnaya Volya" attracted young officers with their usual discipline and one-man command.
After the attempt on the life of Solovyov, Alexander II appointed governor-generals with dictatorial powers in St. Petersburg and a number of other large cities. The police grabbed all suspicious ones, often missing the real conspirators.
In the fall of 1879, the People's Will began a real hunt for the tsar. They were not embarrassed by the number of innocent victims. Twice they planted mines under the rails, keeping watch for the Tsar's train. One time the explosive mechanism did not work, another time by mistake
the wrong train was derailed. The explosion also rang out in the Winter Palace under the Tsar's dining room. Once again, only an accident saved the emperor.
“Dictatorship of the Heart” by M. T. Loris-Melikov.
By 1880, the situation in the country had changed so much that P.A. Valuev remembered his project of a nationwide zemstvo assembly. The Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich began to express similar thoughts. In January 1880, Alexander II discussed these issues in a narrow circle of elected officials. The heir to the throne, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich, strongly objected to the proposals of Valuev and Konstantin Nikolaevich, and the question was dropped. The heir demanded the establishment of a "high commission of inquiry" with extensive powers. The emperor was not sympathetic to this idea. But a few days later he suddenly announced the creation of the Supreme Administrative Commission. It was headed by the Kharkiv Governor-General Count M. T. Loris-Melikov.
Mikhail Tarielovich Loris-Melikov (1825-1888) came from Armenian nobles. A fighting general, a hero of the Russian-Turkish war, as the governor-general of Kharkov, he waged a decisive struggle against the revolutionaries. But at the same time, he tried to improve relations with the peaceful opposition.
The Supreme Administrative Commission had great powers, but rarely met, in fact did not function, and all its powers were in the hands of Loris-Melikov. But it seemed to him inconvenient to act as a temporary worker, a “grand vizier” in the Turkish manner, and a few months later the commission was dissolved, and the tsar appointed Loris-Melikov as minister of the interior. The scope of his powers has hardly changed.
Loris-Melikov considered his main task to be the fight against terrorism. In it, he was merciless. Just a week after his appointment, in February 1880, a terrorist shot at him, and two days later the man was hanged. However, Loris-Melikov strove to ensure that the repressions were directed exclusively against the revolutionaries and did not affect peaceful inhabitants. At his suggestion, it was liquidated. The third branch of the Imperial Chancellery, which deserved notoriety and showed its failure when things took a serious turn. Instead, a Police Department was created within the Ministry of the Interior.
DA Tolstoy was removed from the posts of Minister of Public Education and Chief Prosecutor of the Synod. Several more controversial figures were removed. More liberal leaders were appointed to the vacated positions. It was then that Senator K.P. Pobedonostsev became the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod.
Under Loris-Melikov, the censorship oppression was weakened, and the zemstvos were able to work in peace. Loris-Melikov from time to time gathered the editors of the capital's newspapers and zemstvo leaders to meetings, trying to clarify relations with them and find out their opinions on various issues. Liberals, not spoiled by such attention, called the reign of Loris-Melikov "the dictatorship of the heart." But the revolutionaries and their sympathizers remained wary. NK Mikhailovsky, a critic of Otechestvennye zapiski, believed that this was the policy of a “fluffy fox's tail” and “wolf's mouth”.
Under the leadership of Loris-Melikov, a reform program for the coming years began to be developed. It was supposed to lower the redemption payments, to abolish the poll tax, which was paid by the lower estates. The question arose about the representative meeting.
Loris-Melikov understood that without a solution to this issue he would not be able to get closer to the “good-minded part of society” and isolate the revolutionaries. But he was against the immediate creation of a representative body on the Western model, believing that such an institution would bring "complete confusion" to Russia. In his report to Alexander II, he proposed to use the experience gained in the development of the peasant reform: to convene "temporary preparatory commissions" and a general commission with the participation of representatives of zemstvos and some large cities. It was a distant prototype of a representative assembly.
Meanwhile, the police managed to track down Narodnaya Volya and stab it. On February 27, 1881 Zhelyabov was arrested. But Perovskaya remained at large. The leadership of the organization passed into her hands, and she insisted on the immediate implementation of the plan developed in all details. The Narodnaya Volya knew that regicide would not lead to an immediate uprising. But they hoped that tensions would escalate and panic would begin at the top. Step by step, blow by blow, and the government will lose all its prestige and all its power, which will fall at the feet of Narodnaya Volya.
March 1, 1881 In the last year of his reign, Alexander II felt tired and lonely. Failures in external and domestic policy supplemented by family misfortunes and troubles. After the death of Empress Maria Alexandrovna, he married a second, morganatic marriage to Princess E. M. Yurievskaya. But the heir to the throne refused to recognize her. A tense relationship has developed between father and son.
On Sunday, March 1, in the morning, the emperor received the Minister of the Interior. Alexander liked the plan of Loris-Melikov, which, as it were, returned him to the happy days of the beginning of the reign. He approved the minister's report and appointed a meeting of the Council of Ministers for the 4th of March - this body then met only in exceptional cases and under the chairmanship of the king himself.
At 3 o'clock in the afternoon, the emperor was on his way to the palace from a divorce. We drove to the Catherine Canal - and then it was as if someone had fired from a cannon. The carriage shook and enveloped in smoke. The coachman added speed, but Alexander ordered to stop. Climbing out of the carriage, he saw two bloodied Cossacks and a boy screaming in pain, accidentally running by. At a distance, a young man with long hair (Nikolai Rysakov) fought off the pressing crowd:
"Don't touch me, don't hit me, unfortunate delusional people!" Alexander approached him and asked: "What have you done, madman?" The chief of police ran up: "Your Majesty are not wounded?" “Thank God, no,” said the king, who still could not believe that he was lucky again. "What? Thank God? - Rysakov suddenly asked with a challenge. - Look, you are not mistaken?
Alexander bent over the calmed boy, made the sign of the cross over him and went to the carriage that had driven off. Suddenly - again like a shot from a cannon, a thick cloud of smoke. When the smoke cleared away, the remaining unharmed saw about twenty seriously wounded, the tsar leaning against the lattice of the canal, in a torn greatcoat and without legs, and opposite him - in the same condition - his murderer Grinevitsky. "To the palace ... There - to die ..." - Alexander II said barely audibly. A little over an hour later, he died in his office in the Winter Palace.
End of reforms, end of “Narodnaya Volya”.
The Council of Ministers only met on 8 March. The new emperor, Alexander III, presided over. It seemed to many that since the late emperor approved the report of Loris-Melikov, the discussion in the Council of Ministers was a mere formality. But Alexander III said that "the question should not be considered a foregone conclusion." Opinions were expressed for and against. The scales fluctuated until K.P. Pobedonostsev, thin and nondescript in appearance, took the floor.
The Chief Prosecutor of the Synod argued that only a “pure” autocracy, such as it took shape under Peter I and Nicholas I, could resist the revolution. Inexperienced reformers with their concessions and half-concessions, reforms and half-reforms can only undermine the building of the autocratic state.
When Pobedonostsev finally fell silent, Loris-Melikov felt retired. Alexander III said that the project still needs to be thought over. More did not return to him.
Meanwhile, the Executive Committee of Narodnaya Volya was almost completely arrested. On April 3, 1881, five People's Volunteers were publicly hanged: A.I. Zhelyabov, S.L. Perovskaya, N.I. Rysakov, T.M. Mikhailov and N.I. Kibalchich (designer of projectiles).
In these events - March 1 and 8, April 3 - the political crisis was defused. The military cells of Narodnaya Volya were soon defeated. The formidable organization split into a number of small circles and groups.
Under Alexander II, the autocracy followed the path of reforms. This path - from unlimited autocracy to a stable constitutional regime - is very dangerous. While transforming, the autocratic state loses its stability and becomes very vulnerable. This path can be passed calmly and prudently, steadily moving from reform to reform, following the logic of their development and not stopping before those to whom the soul does not lie. For the most dangerous thing along the way is stopping. A country following the government on the path of reform cannot suddenly stop.
Alexander II was largely responsible for the ensuing drama. Fortunately, the reins of power were seized by the imperious hand of Alexander III. But that was the hand of a conservative.
Alexander II left behind a good memory among the people. Many years have passed, many events have happened. And when (already at the beginning of the 20th century) Russian peasants were asked which of the historical figures they knew, the peasants answered, straining their memory: Stenka Razin, Emelka Pugachev ... Peter, Katerina (Catherine II) ... Suvorov, Kutuzov. Skobelev ... Alexander, Tsar-Liberator ...
Labor and labor movement.
During the last third of the 19th century. the number of workers in Russia tripled and by 1900 amounted to about 3 million people. The main source of replenishment of workers' cadres was still the peasants. They were lifted off the ground slowly. Health and accident insurance did not exist then, and there were no pensions either. The worker considered the land plot in his native village to be his only insurance.
In factories that worked in one shift, the working day reached 14-15 hours, in enterprises with a two-shift regime, it was 12 hours. The labor of women and adolescents was widely practiced.
The wages of workers in Russia were 2 times lower than in England, 4 times lower than in the United States. But the worker did not receive this pay in full. The administration fined workers not only for absenteeism, but also for singing (women peasants could not give up their village habit of singing while working), for “not one by one at the office,” for smoking during work, etc. In most factories wages were paid irregularly or at long intervals - at Christmas, Easter, Pokrov. Until the next paycheck, the worker was forced to take food on credit from the factory store - usually of poor quality and at high prices.
The workers lived in barracks at the enterprises. Some of the barracks were assigned to common bedrooms, and some were partitioned off into closets. In the dorms, bunks were arranged along the walls. They accommodated adults and children, men and women for the night. Only by the end of the century, separate bedrooms began to stand out for men and women. The closets were set aside for family workers. For each family, a separate closet was not enough. More often, two families lived in one closet, or even more. Only highly skilled workers who permanently lived in the city had the opportunity to rent an apartment or buy their own house.
Industrial crisis in the early 80s. hit the textile industry with particular force. The owners began to cut production, stop factories, lay off workers. Decreased wages, increased fines. But it soon became apparent that the workers did not at all possess the infinite patience that the peasants had. The same people in the factory behaved differently than in the countryside, where they were shackled by their paternal authority and patriarchal traditions. The peasant brought with him to the factory the accumulated discontent in the village, here it grew even more and broke out.
The first strikes, very similar to riots, began in the 70s. In the 80s, in connection with the industrial crisis, they acquired a significant scale. In 1880 there was a strike at the Yartsevskaya manufactory of the Khludov merchants in the Smolensk province. Quitting their jobs, the weavers broke the glass in the factory. The authorities suppressed the strike by sending troops to Yartsevo. In subsequent years, unrest broke out in the Moscow province, in Yaroslavl and St. Petersburg in 1885, the famous Morozov strike began.
The Nikolskaya Manufactory of Timofei Morozov (near Orekhov-Zuev) was the largest cotton factory in Russia. It employed about 8 thousand workers. With the onset of the crisis, wages at the manufactory dropped five times. Fines have sharply increased, reaching 24 kopecks from the wages ruble. The leaders of the strike were Pyotr Moiseenko and Vasily Volkov. Moiseenko was from these places, worked in St. Petersburg, participated in several strikes. After one of them he was exiled to Siberia. Then he worked at the Nikolskaya Manufactory. The young weaver V. Volkov emerged as the leader of the workers during the speech.
The strike began on the morning of January 7th. The leaders failed to keep the weavers on strike from arbitrariness. The crowd began to smash the apartments of the director and especially hated craftsmen, as well as the food store. By the night of the same day, troops arrived in Orekhovo-Zuevo. The next day, soldiers' patrols appeared in the streets.
The governor has arrived. Volkov came out of the crowd that surrounded the main office and presented the requirements that had been worked out in advance. These included raising wages, streamlining fines, and accepting manufactured products in front of witnesses. The workers also demanded that the administration give 15 days' notice of dismissal. During the negotiations, Volkov was arrested. The indignant crowd rushed to free him. There was a fight with a military guard. The police made new arrests. Many workers were sent to their villages. Under the influence of repression, the strike began to decline. Moiseenko was also captured. On January 18 the strike ended.
The trial of the strikers the following year attracted the attention of the whole country. The prosecutor filed 101 charges against them. The jury, convinced of how ugly the order at Morozov's factory was, found the defendants innocent on all counts. The conservative newspaper Moskovskiye Vedomosti called this verdict 101 a salutary shot "in honor of the labor issue that appeared in Russia." Moiseenko was exiled to the Arkhangelsk province under the administrative procedure.
Impressed by the Morozov strike, the government passed a law in 1886, according to which participation in a strike was punishable by arrest for up to a month. Entrepreneurs were forbidden to impose fines in excess of the established amount. Control over the implementation of the law was entrusted to the factory inspection.
The promulgation of the law did not stop the strike struggle of the workers, mainly textile workers. Strikes broke out now in St. Petersburg, now in Tver, now near Moscow, as before, accompanied by pogroms and the expulsion of especially hated managers. An eyewitness recalled that in 1893, during a strike at the Khludov manufactory in the Ryazan province, the Guslyanka River almost overflowed its banks, "heaped up with skeins of yarn. Almost every major strike ended in clashes with the authorities, which always sided with the owners. Only with the onset of the industrial upsurge in 1893 did the unrest of the workers gradually subside.
Liberal movement at the end of the XIX century.
During the time of Alexander III, the liberal movement was going through difficult trials. Minister of Internal Affairs DA Tolstoy made the struggle against zemstvo liberalism one of the main directions of his policy.
The "Zemsky Union" ceased its activity. Zemstvo counter-reform soon followed.
Many zemstvo workers at that time went into "small affairs", in undertakings to spread literacy, education, and culture among the people. But also on the basis of “small deeds” and “culturalism” they faced national problems and looked for their solution. This quest expanded and enriched the liberal program.
During these years, the slogan of the constitution in the liberal movement receded into the background. The requirements developed on the basis of the zemstvo practice have come forward: 1) the introduction of a universal primary education; 2) the abolition of corporal punishment (in those years, they applied only to peasants); 3) the creation of a small zemstvo unit on the basis of the volost administration.
These demands were expressed at zemstvo meetings, propagandized in the press (in the Moscow newspaper Russkiye Vedomosti, in the magazines Vestnik Evropy, Russkaya Mysl, Russian wealth”).
In 1885-1886. the St. Petersburg Literacy Committee under the Free Economic Society included young liberals - Prince D. I. Shakhovskoy, novice scientists, brothers S. F. and F. F. Oldenburg, V. I. Vernadsky. Since then, the activities of the committee have focused on the publication and distribution of popular books to public libraries. The committee raised the issue of universal primary education and conducted studies that confirmed the feasibility of this. At the request of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the activities of the Literacy Committee were placed in a rigid framework. Almost all of its members left the Committee in protest. They continued their work in the “Reading Aid for the Sick and the Poor” community.
The police persecution of the Literacy Committee sparked protests from the Free Economic Society, the oldest social scientific organization founded in 1765. In 1895, Count Peter Alexandrovich Heyden (1840-1907) became the head of the Society. It decided to petition for the abolition of corporal punishment and for the introduction of universal education. The Society opened its doors wide to the public, inviting guests to its meetings. It turned into a kind of club where the most burning issues were discussed.
In 1898, when the peasantry was once again starving, the food issue was put on the Society's agenda. His discussion was used as a pretext for criticizing the government. In response, the authorities banned the publication of reports on the Society's meetings in newspapers and the admission of outsiders to them. The society was obliged to submit the program of its meetings for approval. In protest, it closed the general meetings of its members.
In 1883, the Society of Russian Physicians was founded in memory of N.I. Pirogov. The main task of the society was to organize the Pirogov congresses. Active participation Zemstvo doctors took part in their work, and they raised the issue of abolishing corporal punishment and helping the starving. The Pirogov Society's petitions to participate in aid to the hunger strikers were rejected by the authorities as “inconsistent” with its charter.
The question of the small zemstvo unit grew out of the urgent needs of the zemstvo economy. As it developed, it became more and more difficult to manage it directly from the district center, without intermediate links, "The idea of the need for a small zemstvo body is pushed decisively into all the doors of the zemstvo business," said the decision of the Ryl uyezd zemstvo council (Kursk province). Zemstvo officials pinned their hopes on the arrangement of such a body for rapprochement with the peasantry and its involvement in the liberal movement.
The local administration often prohibited the discussion of the issue of a small zemstvo unit. The zemstvos filed complaints with the Senate, and in 1903 the Ryazan zemstvo succeeded in winning the case in the Senate.
With the development of the zemstvo economy and the revitalization of the zemstvo movement, the need for a coordinating body, like the disintegrated Zemsky Union, was felt more and more sharply. In 1896, during the coronation of Nicholas II, the chairman of the Moscow provincial zemstvo council D.N. The first such meeting, with the permission of the administration, took place in the summer of the same year at the All-Russian exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod... But the next year, the Minister of Internal Affairs I, L. Goremykin, forbade the meeting.
Since 1899, on the initiative of the princes Peter and Pavel Dolgorukov, prominent zemstvo leaders began to gather for private meetings for conversation. This circle began to be called “Conversation”. At first, it discussed only zemstvo-economic issues, and then moved on to political ones.
The liberal movement was slowly on the rise. At the end of the XIX century. it was no longer limited to a narrow circle of nobles. A significant part of the Zemstvo intelligentsia joined it. It captured universities, scientific and educational societies, and extended its influence to wide circles of the urban intelligentsia. In terms of numbers and activity, the liberal camp was now not inferior to the conservative, although it did not equal the radical democratic one.
Liberal populism.
After the liquidation of Narodnaya Volya, its peaceful, reformist direction began to play a more prominent role in the populist movement. It received the name of liberal populism.
The liberal populists believed that there was still no real capitalism in Russia. Banks, joint stock companies, stock exchanges - this is not capitalism, this is a "game of capitalism", they argued.
Therefore, there is still an opportunity to avoid capitalism by supporting the community, artel and other more or less collective forms of production familiar to the Russian people. They called these forms of labor "people's production." The liberal Narodniks outlined a number of measures to support it: the expansion of peasant land tenure through resettlement and purchases of land from the treasury and landowners, providing peasants with cheap credit, and equalizing their rights with other estates.
The ideas of liberal populism spread especially widely among the “third element” in the zemstvo. But the influence and authority of the ideologists of this trend (N. K. Mikhailovsky, V. P. Vorontsov. S. N. Krivenko and others) went far beyond the boundaries of the zemstvo intelligentsia.
Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky (1842-1904) was one of the leading collaborators of Otechestvennye zapiski, keeping in touch with the People's Will. After the events of March 1, 1881, Mikhailovsky was expelled from St. Petersburg. When the link ended, he began to collaborate in the journal "Russian wealth", published by the writer V. G. Korolenko. This magazine is known as the main printed organ of the liberal populists.
Mikhailovsky was a publicist, literary critic and philosopher. In the center of his teaching lay the idea of personality, individuality. He considered personal development to be the yardstick of historical progress. The general laws of history, he wrote, determine only the order in which historical epochs follow one another. The specific content of the eras, their light and shadows, their tonality largely depend on the people who then lived and acted. A living personality, Mikhailovsky argued, “sets goals in history” and “moves events towards them” through all obstacles. Mikhailovsky's theories inspired young people, brought up an active attitude to life in them.
In personal relationships, Mikhailovsky would be restrained, even slightly dry, avoided beautiful phrases, but close people noted his nobility, enormous self-discipline and business solicitude towards everyone whom he loved, respected, valued (there were many such people).
But human friendship is a delicate fabric, expensive and fragile. Mikhailovsky eventually parted with both Vorontsov and Krivenko. In addition to personal conflicts, ideological differences also played a role.
Vasily Pavlovich Vorontsov (1847-1918) at one time was close to the Chaikovites, belonged to the number of moderate laurels. Many years of work in the zemstvo convinced him that there was no way to count on the success of revolutionary agitation among the peasantry. Too frightened and downtrodden, it does not trust strangers and lives its own isolated life, realizing its creative potential in the community, artel, working peasant family.
Vorontsov, a talented scientist and economist, did a huge work on the systematization and processing of the material accumulated as a result of the statistical research... His contemporaries owed a significant expansion of their knowledge about the peasant community to his writings. Before, they talked and argued a lot about her, but they knew little. Mikhailovsky highly appreciated the economic work of Vorontsov, but condemned him for being overly keen on ideas of Russian originality. He also believed that Vorontsov idealized the peasantry.
Was it especially hard for Mikhailovsky to break up with Sergei? Nikolaevich Krivenko (1847-1906). Associated in due time with “ By the people's will”, Krivenko went to prison and exile, and ate his return, he began to write about rural teachers, doctors, about their inconspicuous, but so necessary work. Mikhailovsky reproached him for his outspoken preaching of the "theory of small matters." Krivenko replied that “small deeds” can be combined into large ones and serve great purposes.
Krivenko's favorite topic of journalism was agricultural communities created by intellectuals. He admitted that almost all attempts to form such communities ended in failure. They fell apart due to internal strife and mutual intolerance. He believed that this was due to the fact that communities were always created on ethical, Tolstoyan principles, and economic tasks were relegated to the background. He's a dream. to organize such a community, which would not set the goal of achieving personal righteousness, but would be distinguished by a business, socially useful orientation. Escape from city life, a return to nature, Krivenko considered an internal need that is gradually awakening in modern man.
He acquired a plot of land near Tuapse and tried to organize an agricultural community. Despite tremendous efforts, this endeavor ended in failure. Krivenko died in Tuapse.
Conclusion
The post-reform era was marked by a sharp exacerbation of social tension in the country. The lone revolutionaries were replaced by organized revolutionary groups armed with radical ideology and adamant in their desire to harm the autocracy. The relatively peaceful propaganda of Herzen and Chernyshevsky in less than two decades turned into rampant terrorism and regicide. All attempts by the authorities to contain public discontent could only lead to a temporary attenuation of anti-government activities. The populists were replaced by outwardly innocent admirers of Marxism, whose destructive work in the near future will sweep all the traditional foundations of Russian life from the face of the earth.
LITERATURE
1. Sakharov A.N., Buganov V.I. History of Russia 1995
2. Rodin I.O., Pimenova T.M. The whole story in one volume. 1997
3. Khalanchuk L.L. Russian history. 1997
On the eve of the terrible events of the revolution and during the revolution itself, French art was captured by a new wave of classicism. It was quite clear to the advanced thinking part of France during these years that the Bourbon monarchy was finally falling apart. The new demands of life have caused the needs for a new art, a new language, and new means of expression. Passion for ancient culture coincided with the most urgent requirements of the art of the heroic, highly civilian, creating images worthy of imitation. Neoclassicism manifested itself primarily in architecture, where artists-architects, embodying the dream of a harmonious world, tried to solve the grandiose tasks of an ideal city, which is already evident in the urban planning projects of Claude Nicolas Ledoux. Ledoux's ideas were utopian (project of the ensemble of the city of Chaux, 1771-1773). But the more rationally-minded Jacques-Ange Gabriel, with his design of the Place Louis XV (Place de la Concorde), open to the Tuileries park and the Seine and connected with the wide green massifs of the Champs Elysees; with his decision of the Lesser Trianon, striking in the accuracy of calculation, constructive clarity and consistency, he embodied the aesthetics of neoclassical art in complete, visible architectural images. With the coming to power of Napoleon and even earlier, from the Directory, along with the change in the historical situation, the leading artistic direction, neoclassicism, was transformed. It has become more conventional, cold, more external. Neoclassicism at the beginning of the new century is called the Empire style, the style of the empire. The Empire style is monumental, representative in the exterior, exquisitely luxurious in the interior, using ancient Roman architectural forms and ornaments.
In painting, classicist tendencies are most clearly manifested. Again, in art, the role of reason is put forward as the main criterion in the cognition of the beautiful, again art is called upon, first of all, to instill in a person a sense of duty, civic consciousness, to serve the ideas of statehood, and not to be fun and enjoyment. Only now, on the eve of the revolution, does this demand acquire a more specific, purposeful, tendentious programmatic character.
On the eve of the Great French revolution Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825) appears in French painting. In his work, ancient traditions, the aesthetics of classicism merged with the political struggle, organically intertwined with the politics of the revolution, and this gave a new phase of classicism in French culture, so to speak, “revolutionary classicism”.
The son of a major Parisian merchant who graduated from the Royal Academy, David in his early works is close to the traditions of the late Baroque and even to some stylistic elements of Rococo. And only after having received the "Roman prize" as the best student of the Academy in Italy (1775), having become acquainted with the monuments of antiquity, having experienced, like many artists of those years, the influence of Winckelmann's works and the painting of the German classicist artist Raphael Mengs, David finds his way.
On the eve of the revolution, the ideal of French bourgeois society, to which David belonged, was antiquity, but not Greek, but Roman, from the time of the Roman Republic. The priests from the pulpit are not quoting the Gospel, but the Roman historian Titus Livy; the theater plays with great success the tragedies of Corneille, the playwright of the previous century, who, in the images of ancient heroes, glorified civic valor and a sense of patriotism. Thus a new style crystallized, and David, in his painting "The Oath of the Horatii" (1784-1785), acted as its herald. A civil journalistic theme based on a plot from the history of Rome: the brothers of Horace swear an oath of fidelity to duty and readiness to fight enemies to their father, resolved in a straightforward, almost ascetic manner, was the battle banner of new aesthetic views. A logically clear composition, where figures, similar to antique statues or rather to antique relief, are clearly divided into three groups corresponding to the three arches of the background colonnade (on the left - brothers, on the right - women mourning them, the castle of the composition - the figure of the father taking an oath), linearly -plastic interpretation of the form, sharp drawing, hard local color, which does not allow any complex nuances, all precise and laconic language create the solidity of the work. Undoubtedly, the "Oath" has features of some pompous declamation, which was akin to the play of the actor Talma, who plays the role in Corneille's tragedy "Horace".
With the onset of revolutionary events, David decorates mass celebrations, is engaged in the nationalization of works of art and the transformation of the Louvre into a national museum. National holidays were held, for example, on the anniversary of the taking of the Bastille or the proclamation of the republic, in honor of the "Supreme Being" or the solemn transfer of the remains of Voltaire and Rousseau to the Pantheon. Most of these festivals were prepared directly by David. Each such design was a synthesis of arts: visual, theatrical, musical, poetic, oratory.
In 1793, the Louvre was opened National Museum... From now on, the Louvre has become not only the center of artistic culture, but also an art school, where artists have come and still come not only to copy, but also to comprehend themselves.
In 1790, David embarked on a large painting commissioned by the Jacobins "The Oath in the Ballroom" (1790-1791), conceived to create the image of the people in a single revolutionary impulse, which, however, he managed to complete only in the drawing (the cardboard is preserved, shown in the Salon of 1791, preparatory drawing, canvas with outlined figures, album with pencil sketches). Since 1792 he is a member of the Convention, the People's Assembly of revolutionary France, then, at the end of 1793 and the beginning of 1794, - its secretary and even chairman. After the death of the "friend of the people" Marat, David, on behalf of the Convention, painted one of his most famous paintings "The Killed Marat", or "The Death of Marat" (1793). David accurately portrayed the setting of the event: Marat lies in the bathtub, a letter of petition is still clutched in his hand, with which Charlotte Corday entered him (even the text is visible: "It is enough to be unhappy to have the right ..."); the head, wrapped in a towel, and the hand that still holds the feather hung limply; on the curbstone where the writing materials lie, it is written in large size, like on an antique stele, "Marat - David". Large color spots of gray-yellow (face and sheet), bright ocher (curbstone) and green (bathtub), statuary-plastic, linear interpretation of the form - everything makes David's picture a work of a stern, purely classicist style and gives it a memorial character. The Death of Marat was perceived by the spectator, the participant in revolutionary events, as a genuine realistic genre. But the plot is big historical significance with a living modern form, he turned it into a historical picture. In this sense, NN Punin's remark is true that all historical paintings, starting with The Death of Marat, grew out of genre painting, including many works by Gericault, Delacroix, and Courbet.
J.L. David. Death of Marat. Brussels, Museum of Contemporary Art
Since 1793, David has been a member of the Committee of Public Security - the organ of the revolutionary dictatorship of the French bourgeoisie - and becomes close to the head of the Jacobin party, Robespierre. Naturally, after the fall of the Jacobin dictatorship, the events of 9 Thermidor, the artist's political career was cut short, and he himself was (briefly) arrested.
J. O.D. Ingres. Portrait of Madame Devose. Chantilly, Museum Condé
His subsequent path is the path from the first artist of the republic to the court painter of the empire. During the Directory, he wrote "The Sabine Women" (1795-1799), a bulky archaic work, far from the harsh and laconic decisions of previous years. He responds to the rise of Napoleon with the canvas Leonidas at Thermopylae (1800-1814), in which, although Sparta is glorified, in the image of the Spartan hero, traits of idealized resemblance to the first consul, who became emperor in 1804, appear quite clearly.
During the period of the empire, David was the first painter of the emperor. By his order, he painted huge paintings (Napoleon at St. Bernard Pass, 1801; Coronation, 1805-1807), although executed with pictorial brilliance, but cold, pompous, full of false pathos and theatrical pathos. There is still a lot of romantic feeling in the depiction of Napoleon on Saint Bernard: the hero on a reared horse, in sharp movement, with an inspired face. In the "Coronation", as researchers have correctly noted, Napoleon is impassive and majestic. Surrounded by relatives, the clergy led by the Pope, brilliant marshals and the diplomatic corps, the emperor crowns the humbly knelt Josephine. The brilliance of braid, red velvet, white silks and jewelry is all aimed at conveying the glorification of the imperial power.
The overthrow of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons force former member Convention, which once voted for the death of the king, to emigrate from France. From now on, David lives in Brussels, where he dies.
In addition to historical compositions, David left a large number of beautiful portraits in terms of painting and characterization. In such portraits as the paired portraits of the Seresias spouses (1795) or the famous portrait of Madame Recamier (1800), David, with the strict grace of his writing, predetermined the characteristic features of that classicism of the early 19th century, which was called the Empire style in art.
J.O.D. Ingres... Thetis pleading with Jupiter (Zeus and Thetis). Aix, Granet Museum
David was the creator of a huge school of students. François Gerard, Anne-Louis Girodet, Antoine Gros and, finally, the great artist Ingres came out of his workshop.
In the first decade of the 19th century. the position of classicism as the leading style in art was still very strong. The formation of one of the leading masters of the classicist direction, Jean Auguste Domenic Ingres (1780-1867), dates back to this period. It was Ingres who appeared to transform David's classicism into an academic art, with which romantics entered into confrontation.
Coming out of the Toulouse artistic intelligentsia and studying at the Toulouse Academy of Fine Arts, Ingres at the age of seventeen ended up in revolutionary Paris, in the atelier of David. Having mastered the classicist system with its cult of antiquity, Ingres deliberately abandoned the revolutionary character of David's classicism, denying modernity, and expressed his only desire in his work - to escape from life into the world of the ideal. Ingres admired antiquity. Wanting to gain complete independence from his time, he turns only to the past. The work for which he received the "Grand Prix de Roma" - "The Ambassadors of Agamemnon at Achilles" - testifies to the fact that he completely mastered the classicist system: the composition is strictly logical, the figures resemble antique relief, the coloristic solution is subordinate to drawing, linear plastic modeling ... In "Self-portrait at the age of 24" (1804), the basic principles of Ingres's portrait art are already clearly traced: the bright individuality of the characteristics, the refinement of the form, the laconicism of strictly thought out and selected details. Ingres looks at the model more aloof than his teacher David. Plastic and linear rhythm in the interpretation of the image, the chasing of the form, the clarity of the drawing play a significant role for him. So, in the portrait of Madame Riviere, the composition of an oval inscribed in a rectangle chosen by him is of particular importance. This oval is emphasized by the fluidity of the folds of the dress, the cashmere shawl, the softness of the blue velvet pillows. A three-quarter turn narrows the shoulder line, making Mademoiselle Riviere's figure more fragile and constrained against the backdrop of a clear but distant landscape. The dazzlingly light, cold color scale emphasizes the model's youth, clarity, and uncloudedness of her inner world (both portraits were painted in 1805, exhibited at the Salon in 1806).
At this time, Ingres leaves for Italy, where he paints a lot of the architecture of the Eternal City, and it is significant that on one of the small tondos, made in oil technique, he captures the house of Raphael, the artist, who for his whole life remained a role model for him, a true idol ... In Rome, Ingres creates in 1807 one of the best portraits of his friend, the artist François Marius Granet. He places it against the backdrop of a Roman landscape, half-turned, calmly looking at the viewer. But behind this external calmness is hidden internal tension, which is felt in the pre-storm atmosphere, in the gray clouds hanging over Rome. These gray-greenish clouds echo the dozens of semitones that are used to paint the model's green cloak. The entire mood portrait foreshadows a new outlook of romantics. So, fully and perfectly comprehending the classicist method, Ingres did not always follow only cut-off, linear-plastic modeling. Finally, the very appearance in Ingres's works of such an exotic motif as odalisques, with all their conventionally oriental attributes: a turban, a fan, a shank, and so on, was a kind of departure from the usual scheme of classicism, a foreshadowing of the romantic direction.Not chiaroscuro, but subtle color gradations, by gently dissolving the contours in the air, he sculpts the volume of the body of one of the "nu", which was called in art "Bather Walpinson" - after the name of the first owner of the picture. The pink spots of the Bathers' headband do not appear by accident in addition to the olive green color of the curtain, adding warmth to the overall experience.
Ingres in the portrait of Madame Devos (1807) is the subtlest colorist who admires the classical perfection of the model. In the following female portraits, Ingres will have an excessive passion for entourage, accessories, various textures of objects: silk, velvet, lace, damask wallpaper. All this creates a complex ornamental pattern, the image sometimes multiplies, reflected in the mirror ("Portrait of Madame de Senonne", 1814; "Portrait of Madame Ines Moatessier", 1856).
In the thematic paintings of the 10s, Ingres remains faithful to classicist themes. Unlike David, he, far from political unrest, seeks to penetrate the essence of the pagan myth. A clear violation of classicist norms was Ingres's big picture Thetis pleading with Jupiter (1811), the plot of which is borrowed from the first song of the Iliad. In the name of special emotionality, the artist makes Jupiter immensely huge next to Thetis, whose body also seems to be devoid of anatomical correctness, her left arm is unnaturally twisted, her neck is too large - and all this in order to increase the excitement of her state, the passion of her prayer.
Developing the traditions of French pencil portrait, Ingres creates "Portrait of Paganini", 1819; group portraits of the family of the French consul in Civita-Vecchio Stamati, 1818; family of the Emperor's brother Lucien Bonaparte, 1815, etc. No matter how Ingres was committed to antiquity, it could not exhaust all the beauty of the world, which he worshiped. Ingres refers to subjects from the Middle Ages, and to the early Renaissance, and to the period of the High Renaissance.
But his main work at this time was the altarpiece for the church of his hometown of Montauban, called "The Vow of Louis XIII, asking for the patronage of the Madonna for the French kingdom." Ingres deliberately decided the image of the Madonna to be close to the Sistine Madonna, expressing his admiration for Raphael and following the precepts of the great artist, but this direct relationship only emphasized the artificiality of the work and gave it a deliberately archaic character. The paradox, however, is that it was this creation that brought the artist, previously not officially recognized, success at the Salon of 1824. From now on, he becomes the recognized head of the official French school. Note that at the same exhibition was exhibited "The Massacre on Chios" by Delacroix. Was it not because the opponents of the new trend, romanticism, which was born, turned to Ingres, making him the "keeper of good doctrines" of weakening and decaying classicism, because a new powerful opposition to it was approaching ?!
In 1824, after an 18-year absence, Ingres returned to his homeland, was elected an academician, was awarded the Order of the Legion of Honor, opened his atelier and from now on and until the end of his days remains the leader of the official academic direction. Ingres was always far from politics and did not take part in the events of 1830. But at this time he wrote a wonderful portrait of the head of the political press of the 30s, the owner of the Journal des Debats, Louis François Bertin the Elder (1832), a mighty gray-haired old man with He writes with such power and fidelity that his contemporaries called him the image of “Jupiter the Thunder God of modern times,” and when Bertin appeared on the street, they said: “Here comes the portrait of Ingres”. In this work, in the severity and monochrome of writing, Ingres turned out to be the closest to the traditions of the school of his teacher David.
The last years of the master, generally recognized and revered by all, are overshadowed by his fiercest battles, first with the romantics led by Delacroix, then with the realists, whom Courbet represented. Ingres works a lot in these advanced years, without losing his creative activity. The most captivating work of the old master is his Source (1856). This image of a young girl holding a jug from which water pours is an allegorical image of a life-giving eternal source of life, in which he managed to glorify life with extraordinary power and passion, combining the concreteness of forms with plastic generalization. This is precisely what the artist's numerous imitators, his epigones, who assimilated only the bare scheme of Ingres's techniques, but did not comprehend its essence, were not able to do this.
Ingres died when his main opponents were no longer romantics, but new artists who loudly declared their addiction to depicting unadorned reality.
Loading...