The 30s of the 19th century is a special period in the development of Russian literary criticism. This is the heyday of the so-called "journal criticism", an era when criticism, as never before, is tightly intertwined with literature. It was during these years that social and political life intensified, and the works of liberal and democratically minded writers of the lower classes began to penetrate into purely noble literature.

In literature, despite the emerging realism (, ), continued to hold a strong position. But it no longer represents a single monolithic trend, but is divided into many trends and genres.

Keep creating:

• Romantic Decembrists A. Bestuzhev, A. Odoevsky, V. Kuchelbecker,
• poets of the Pushkin circle (E. Baratynsky, P. Vyazemsky, D. Davydov).

M. Zagoskin, I. Lazhechnikov, N. Polevoy come up with brilliant historical novels with pronounced romantic features. The historical tragedies of N. Kukolnik (“Torquato Tasso”, “Dzhakobo Sannazar”, “The Hand of the Most High Saved the Fatherland”, “Prince Mikhail Vasilievich Skopin-Shuisky”, etc.) retain the same romantic orientation, which were highly appreciated by Emperor Nicholas I himself. In the 1830s, a talent flourishes, forever included in Russian literature as one of the most "violent romantics" of the 19th century. All this required its reflection on the pages of critical publications.

"Journal Criticism" as a Reflection of the Struggle of Ideas

The era of the 30s of the 19th century is also sometimes called the era of the struggle of ideas. Indeed, the Decembrist uprising in 1825, the struggle between the “Westerners” and “Slavophiles” on the pages of literary almanacs and magazines forced society to take a fresh look at traditional problems, raised questions of national self-determination and the further development of the Russian state.

Cover of the magazine "Northern Bee"

Decembrist magazines - "Polar Star", "Mnemosyne" and a number of others - for obvious reasons, ceased to exist. The previously quite liberal "Son of the Fatherland" N. Grech became close to the semi-official "Northern Bee"

Made a roll towards conservatism under the editorship of M. Kachenovsky and the authoritative journal "Bulletin of Europe", founded by N. Karamzin.

Cover of Vestnik Evropy magazine

The main purpose of the magazine was educational. It consisted of 4 major sections:

• science and art,
• literature,
• bibliography and criticism,
• news and mixture.

Each section provided readers with a wealth of diverse information. Criticism was of fundamental importance.

The history of the publication of the Moscow Telegraph is usually divided into 2 periods:

• 1825-1829 - cooperation with noble liberal writers P. Vyazemsky, A. Turgenev, A. Pushkin and others;
• 1829-1834 (after the publication of Karamzin's "History of the Russian State") - protests against the "dominance" of the nobility in the cultural and social life of Russia.

If in the first period the Moscow Telegraph expressed the concepts exclusively, then in the 40s the beginnings appeared in the work of Xenophon Polevoy.

Critical activity of Nikolai Polevoy

N. Polevoy in his review-review of the 1st chapter of "Eugene Onegin" (1825), on the book by A. Galich "The Experience of the Science of Fine" (1826) defends the idea of ​​the creative freedom of the romantic poet, his right to the subjectivity of creativity. He criticizes the views and promotes the aesthetic views of the idealists (Schelling, the Schlegel brothers, and others).

In the article "On the novels of Victor Hugo and in general on the latest novels" (1832), N. Polevoy interpreted romanticism as a radical, "anti-noble" trend in art, opposed to classicism. Classicism he called ancient literature and imitations of it. Romanticism for him is modern literature, rooted in the nationality, i.e. true reflection of the "soul of the people" (the highest and purest aspirations of the people), and "the truth of the image", i.e. vivid and detailed depiction of human passions. Nikolai Polevoy proclaimed the concept genius as an "ideal being".

A true artist is one in whose heart "heavenly fire" burns, who creates "by inspiration, freely and unconsciously."

These and subsequent articles reflect the main methods of N. Polevoy's critical approach - historicism and the desire to create comprehensive concepts.

For example, in the article “Ballads and Tales” (1832), reviews of the work of G. Derzhavin and A. Pushkin, the critic gives a detailed historical analysis of the work of poets, considers their works in connection with the facts of their biographies and the upheavals of public life. The main criterion for the creativity of poets is the correspondence of their works to the "spirit of the times". The series of these articles published in the Moscow Telegraph became the first attempt to build a unified concept for the development of Russian literature in Russian criticism.

Closing of the Moscow Telegraph

However, following the principle of historicism eventually caused the closure of the magazine. In 1834, N. Polevoy made a review of N. Kukolnik's drama "The Hand of the Most High Saved the Fatherland."

Being consistent in his judgments, the critic came to the conclusion that in the drama

“There is nothing historical at all - neither in events, nor in characters<…>Drama in its essence does not withstand any criticism.

His opinion did not coincide with the enthusiastic response to the play by Emperor Nicholas I. As a result, the publication of the review served as an official reason for closing the magazine.

Shaken by the closure of the Moscow Telegraph, N. Polevoy changed his place of residence from Moscow to St. Petersburg and joined the reactionary criticism in the person of Grech and Bulgarin. Until the end of his critical career, Polevoy remained faithful to the principal of romanticism. Therefore, the appearance of works in the style of Gogol's "natural school" aroused their ardent rejection in him.

Critical activity of Xenophon Polevoi

In 1831-1834, Xenophon Polevoy, the younger brother of Nikolai Polevoy, actually took over the management of the journal. He writes articles about the work of Griboyedov, the lyrics of Pushkin and the poets of the Pushkin circle, historical tragedies (in particular, the tragedy of A. Khomyakov "Ermak"), stories by M. Pogodin and A. Bestuzhev, romantic novels by V. Scott and his imitators.

In the article "On Russian Novels and Tales" (1829), the critic speaks of the tilt of Russian literature towards prose. He attributes this to the growing popularity of novels by W. Scott and other Western romantics. At the same time, Xenophon Polevoy spoke out against "exoticism" in short stories and novels, calling for the description of "acute modernity". Pushkin with his fairy tales and Zhukovsky with romantic ballads fell under his critical pen.

But the main merit of Xenophon Polevoy is that in his speeches, reflecting on the differences between literary "parties", he introduced the concept « literary direction. Polevoy called the literary direction that "internal desire of literature", which allows you to combine several works according to some leading feature. The critic noted that the journal cannot be a spokesman for the ideas of various authors -

it "should be the expression of a certain kind of opinion in literature" ("On Directions and Parties in Literature", 1833).

Did you like it? Do not hide your joy from the world - share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- 19th century portrait

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

- Cologne Cathedral in the XIX century.

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

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

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

- 19th century

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

- Conservatism in Russia in the 19th century

- Physiological prose in Russian journalism of the XIX century.

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

Generation of the 30s of the XIX century in the lyrics of M. Lermontov

Sadly, I look at our generation!

M. Lermontov, "Duma"

Poems of the 30s of the 19th century are a further development of civil lyrics by Lermontov.

The poet comes to the conclusion that Sao society is responsible to future generations for the aimlessness of the life it lives. The poems of these years reflect very important for Lermontov in the last years of his life and work the problems of the struggle for spiritual values, the problems of human behavior, his beliefs. The poet wants to find a way out of the contradictions of the life around him. He ceases to find satisfaction in confession, in the depiction of subjective feelings; he conveys his innermost experiences as a generalization of the phenomena and thoughts of not one person, but many.

Even in the youthful poem "Monologue" (1829), Lermontov accurately defined the essence of the tragedy of the best people of his time - the impossibility in modern conditions to find application for the best human aspirations:

Why deep knowledge, thirst for glory,
Talent and passionate love of freedom,
When can we not use them?

The depressed state of mind of Lermontov is explained by the social atmosphere:

And it seems stuffy at home,
And the heart is heavy, and the soul yearns ...

In two closely related poems "Borodino" (1837) and "Duma" (1838), Lermontov turned to the problem of active service to society and raised the question of a figure worthy of this lofty goal.

In the first of these poems, the poet embodied his idea of ​​\u200b\u200bstrong and courageous people who were in the era of 1812 and who cannot be found now.

- Yes, there were people about our time,
Not like the current tribe:
Bogatyrs - not you! -

says a participant in the battle of Borodino. The connection between the poem “Borodino” and Lermontov’s ideological quest was correctly understood by Belinsky, who felt here a complaint “against the present generation, slumbering in inaction, envy of the great past, so full of glory and great deeds.” But Lermontov turned to the topic of the Patriotic War of 1812 not just as a romantic repulsion from reality that did not satisfy him. The Patriotic War of 1812 showed the whole world the heroism of the Russian people and marked the beginning of that movement of noble revolutionaries, the decline of which in the reactionary era was so acutely and painfully felt by the poet.

Naturally, he contrasts his contemporaries, incapable of social struggle, precisely with the figures generated by the era of 1812. Lermontov is deeply right when he connects the courage and steadfastness of the heroes of the Patriotic War with their fiery patriotism, with their selfless devotion to the Motherland:

Guys! Isn't Moscow behind us?
Let's die near Moscow
How our brothers died!

In The Duma, Lermontov sharply criticizes his generation, again recalling the strong and courageous people of the previous era. The very name of the poem is also characteristic: “Duma” is a deep philosophical reflection on the fate of the country and, at the same time, an indictment of the contemporary reality of the poet. The poem appeared when Russian society was in severe spiritual apathy. Lermontov resented the indifference of people who refused to fight.

The generation that grew up in conditions of gloomy reaction considers the socio-political struggle of the Decembrists as a mistake:

We are rich, barely from the cradle,
Fathers mistakes...

The new generation moved away from participation in public life and delved into the pursuit of "barren science." It is not disturbed by questions of dora and evil, it shows shameful cowardice in the face of danger. Lermontov bitterly speaks of the bleak fate of his generation:

Crowd gloomy and soon forgotten
We will pass over the world without noise or trace,
Not throwing for centuries a fruitful thought
Nor the genius of the work begun.

Lermontov, as a young man, said:

How boring life is when there is no struggle.

“A greedy desire for work, active intervention in life” was recognized by A. M. Gorky as a feature of Lermontov’s poetry.

Indifference to public life is the spiritual death of a person. Severely censuring for this indifference, Lermontov calls for moral renewal, for awakening from spiritual hibernation.

In the poem "Duma" we are talking about three generations: about the generation of fathers, people of the 20s of the XIX century, about the poet's peers and about the descendants who will judge them. To what generation does the poet himself belong? Chronologically to the one that condemns. But mentally he joins the next generation, looks at his peers with his eyes and judges them "with the severity of a judge and a citizen."

Lermontov is convinced that freedom does not come by itself: people fight for it, suffer, go to hard labor and die proudly. The poet calls for vigorous activity, for the awakening of the civic conscience of a generation suffering in inaction.

Synopsis on the history of Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Agency for Education

Volgograd State Technical University

Department of History, Culture and Sociology

Essay on national history

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

Volgograd 2010

Content

2.1Slavophilism 6

2.2Westernism 8

Introduction

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

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

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

1. conservative ideology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. liberal direction

Slavophilism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Westernism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. revolutionary direction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of used literature

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

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

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

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

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

   Coursework >> History

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

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

   Coursework >> History

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

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

   Abstract >> State and law

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