Alexander III: Tsar-Peacemaker. In those distant, remote years, the domestic policy of Alexander 3 in Russian historiography

On March 1, 1881, after a terrorist attack committed by members of the revolutionary organization “People's Will,” Emperor Alexander II died from severe wounds. The second son of the emperor, Alexander Alexandrovich, ascended the throne. Alexander III was crowned on March 15, 1881.

The future monarch was brought up in a military environment. Therefore, it is generally accepted that he did not receive a secular education, which was considered traditional and mandatory for his status, but he was very efficient and physically incredibly strong.

The young tsar was educated by the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, a famous theorist of the monarchy, who during the first months of Alexander's reign was the most influential person in the Russian government.

Shocked by numerous attempts on the life and tragic death of his father, realizing that Russia, which had just begun to reform, had plunged into a dark swamp of terror, at the beginning of his reign the tsar was faced with the need to choose a new course of government. This was a time of confrontation between two parties: liberal (who wanted to continue the reforms begun by Alexander II) and monarchical.

At the beginning of his reign, Alexander had to “maneuver” between liberals and supporters of reaction. As a result, the idea of constitutionality of the Russian Empire was rejected, and the tsar proclaimed a course to strengthen the monarchy, preserve traditions and reject the ideas of liberalism. At that time, public opinion, which was already customary to listen to, could have any influence on the choice made by the new king.

But the inhumanely cruel terrorist attack on March 1, which resulted in the death of not only the monarch, but also several absolutely innocent people, did not cause in society the rise of revolutionary consciousness that the terrorists expected. Traditional society, in anticipation of a harsh reaction from the authorities, became quiet and recoiled from the Narodnaya Volya. The assassination of the emperor caused panic confusion in society. Large-scale search and investigation measures led to the fact that soon all the surviving organizers and perpetrators of the terrorist attack were found, interrogated and convicted. Five participants in the assassination of the king were publicly executed. The revolutionaries' hopes that the assassination of the Tsar would cause a rise in the popular movement were not justified.

Alexander III, having studied the situation in society, decided to completely abandon the liberal plans of his father, setting a course for return to absolute monarchy. What influenced the young emperor's train of thought? The main reason was the hunt that terrorists staged for his father, not only the murder, but also the previous 6 assassination attempts. The new king decided to exclude the possibility of any threats to the monarchy.

Positive results of the reign of Alexander III

World. During his 13-year reign, the Russian Empire did not take part in a single war. The only military episode was an exception - in 1885, near the Kushka River, units under the command of General A.V. Komarov won a victory over Afghan troops.

Peace and tranquility within the country. During the reign of the 13th Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, the system of bodies that controlled the internal security of the state improved and became stronger than ever before. The main role in supporting the regime was played by the Police Department, whose activities acquired an unprecedented scale. By the mid-80s of the 19th century, terrorist activity in the country had completely ceased. For all this time, there was only one terrorist action that was crowned with success: in Odessa, in 1882, prosecutor V.S. was killed. Strelnikova.

In 1886, with the active participation of A.I. Ulyanov, the elder brother of the future leader October revolution, the “Terrorist faction” of “Narodnaya Volya” was created, which consisted mainly of students of St. Petersburg University. The terrorists decided to kill the emperor on the anniversary of his father's death, timing the attack to coincide with March 1. Thanks to the strong operational positions of the internal security agencies, the assassination attempt was prevented. The organizers were detained, convicted and executed.

Economic recovery and prosperity. The Tsar's desire to develop and emphasize everything Russian was extended to economic policy, which determined the growth of Russian industry and trade. State revenues exceeded expenses for the first time in a long time. During the period from 1881 to 1894, the country made a real economic breakthrough and created its own industry. The country modernized its army and navy (which the tsar recognized as the only real allies), and became the world's most important food exporter. 114 ships were built: 17 battleships and 10 armored cruisers. The army was brought into order after the disorganization that occurred during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. Construction began on the Great Siberian Railway - the Chelyabinsk-Omsk-Irkutsk-Khabarovsk-Vladivostok railway line about seven thousand kilometers long.

Making life easier for both peasants and workers. The measures taken for this included, for example, the termination of the temporary obligation position, the gradual abolition of the poll tax, and unsuccessful attempts to legitimize and put in order the relations between workers and their employers. Redemption payments were lowered, the redemption of peasant plots was legalized, and a peasant bank was created to make it possible to obtain a loan for the purchase of land. Factory work for minors was limited, as was night work for women and children.

Development national culture . Grandiose in their significance, pricelessness and splendor works of art of the times Alexandra III- this is an integral part of our spiritual “gold reserve”. According to S. Diaghilev, Alexander III became the best monarch for national culture. A real rise began in literature, painting, music and ballet. Truly great Russian art, which glorified our country, began at that time.

Development of museum-historical activities and dissemination of Russian culture. Alexander III took large-scale measures to develop historical knowledge about our Motherland. The activities of the Imperial Historical Society under the leadership of the Emperor himself intensified. The Historical Museum in Moscow and the Patriotic Museum in Sevastopol were created. The first Siberian university was founded, the project of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople was created, and the Russian Imperial Palestine Society began to operate. Many Orthodox churches have been built around the world.

Smart foreign policy. Russia's position in the international arena was strengthened. Russia continued to acquire reliable partners and sought to maintain peace with all states. The territory of the state has “grown” by 430,000 square meters. km. Kazakhstan, the Kokand and Khiva khanates and the Bukhara Emirate were annexed.

Negative results of the reign of Alexander III

Eliminating opportunities for local government independence. In the “City Regulations” of 1892, city government bodies included a system of state institutions.

Educational response. In 1884, a university counter-reform was launched, aimed at educating a loyal mass of intelligentsia. A university charter was introduced and universities were deprived of their autonomy. All learning programs came under control. An order was issued by the Minister of Education, which became known as the “law on cooks’ children.” Normative act made it extremely difficult for children from the lower classes to enter gymnasiums and universities.

Domestic policy did not solve the fundamental problems in the lives of workers and peasants. The measures taken to resettle peasants turned out to be insufficient to solve the problem of land shortage. The workers did not receive the expected amount of social guarantees; moreover, a start was made for the creation of factory legislation, which, on the one hand, restrained the arbitrariness of the owners of the enterprise, but on the other, excluded the freedom of speech of dissatisfied workers.

Excesses in national politics. Here the emperor intensified Russification, suppressing the slightest manifestations of national movements. The development of everything Russian was combined with the formation of hostility towards various “foreigners” - Poles, Finns, Jews, Armenians and representatives of other nationalities. The path to high schools, and even more so to universities, was made more difficult for Jews.

Conclusion

Until now, there is no consensus in our minds regarding the results of the activities of Alexander III. However, in history there are practically no top officials of the state (and this is especially true for monarchs) who left a hundred percent negative or positive impression of themselves.

For others, this is, first of all, a monarch who did not want progress in social relations, encouraged reaction, anti-Semitism, did not approve of the excessive education of the lower strata of society, and stopped “social elevators.”

The results of the counter-reforms are contradictory: Russia managed to achieve an unprecedented industrial boom and maintain peace, but at the same time social tension and various “fermentations” in society increased. The period of the reign of the peacemaker king was the calm before the inevitable storm. It was a time of a combination of technological progress, economic expansion and reaction, an unwillingness to recognize the need for progress in social relations and social compromise. At the same time, the police regime and the class privileges of the nobility were strengthened.

I. E. Barykina

INTERNAL POLICY AND PERSONALITY OF Emperor Alexander III: sources and historiography

One of the features of the history of the internal policy of a monarchical state is its personification. The history of the Russian Empire was no exception. The governance model characteristic of each reign is defined by researchers as “the policy of such and such an emperor” and under this definition is included in the scientific literature. However, this does not always mean that we are talking about the personality of the autocrat, which is often presented very schematically, only over time individual details emerge, creating a holistic image.

This article makes an attempt to trace the evolution of constructing the image of the emperor in historical knowledge. The chronological framework was not chosen by chance: this is a time of active development of economic and political life, when Russian society was carried away by the rapid flow of modernization. Features of the character and actions of Russian monarchs of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. had great importance for the fate of Russia, since at this time the problem of including the country in the process of fundamental changes in all spheres of social life arose with particular urgency. Despite the fact that the vector of the country's development had one general direction, the figures of Emperors Alexander II and Alexander III presented a striking contradiction, which was noted by both contemporaries and historians. A certain stereotype has developed in historiography: the conservative policies and counter-reforms of Alexander III are contrasted with the liberal course and reforms of Alexander II. The successor is in opposition to the predecessor. However, modern reconstructions of the past, opening new layers of cultural memory, clarify this picture.

The first attempt to determine the place and role of the monarch in the history of the state was made immediately after his death - in obituaries. In this genre of literature there was no place for criticism and details of private life; obituaries were traditionally replete with phrases about the “halo of glory” and “the impartial court of history.” However, they emphasized the main directions and results of the monarch’s activities. Against this background, speeches and articles that appeared in the first months after the death of Alexander III stand out.

Bulletin of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy. 2013. Volume 14. Issue 4

V. O. Klyuchevsky, Chairman of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities, in a speech delivered at a meeting of the Society, outlined two aspects of the reign of Alexander III: the peaceful development of foreign policy and the monarch’s patronage of Russian historical science1. And if the first aspect reconstructs political activity monarch, then the second relates more to private life. The figure of Alexander III appears in this obituary as more complex than the usual image of the monarch in the literature of this genre. Possessing a regal appearance, the Russian autocrat did not hide his preference for the life of a private person and made attempts to combine it with state activities. This feature of Alexander III did not go unnoticed by his contemporaries, including V. O. Klyuchevsky, who taught a history course to Alexander III’s middle son, George.

Representatives of various currents of the Russian social movement spoke about the state activities of Emperor Alexander III, simultaneously with Klyuchevsky.

The position of the conservative camp was expressed in a speech by K. P. Pobedonostsev, delivered at a meeting of the Imperial Russian Historical Society on April 6, 1895. In addition to patronizing the activities of the Society, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod highlighted the main, from the point of view of a conservative, features of the monarch: protection of the “Russian , history of bequeathed interest”, “faith and love for the Orthodox Church” and confidence in the “unshakable significance” of autocratic power2.

A detailed analysis of the events of the domestic and foreign policy of the reign of Alexander III from the side of the liberal camp was given by K. K. Arsenyev. A graduate of the School of Law, who gained fame as a lawyer and publicist, K. K. Arsenyev approached the analysis of the reign of Alexander III from the position of a legal approach. An article published in the "Bulletin of Europe" in December 1894 gives an idea of the government's legislative initiatives and draws attention to the involvement of a huge layer factual material, illustrating the author’s conclusions about the inconsistency of the policy of “people’s autocracy”3.

The revolutionary-democratic camp did not ignore the death of the autocrat. A review of the reign of Alexander III was published by G. V. Plekhanov in the German newspaper “Vorwärts” a month after the death of the monarch4. Of particular interest are Plekhanov’s arguments about the union of autocratic power and the Russian bourgeoisie, which the author calls the “octroied constitution.” Knowledge of Russian reality and analysis of internal political processes aimed at preserving the monarchical regime and which came into conflict with the process of modernization, allowed the Marxist theorist to draw a fair conclusion about the fragility of the autocratic system: “For thirteen years, Alexander III sowed the wind. Nicholas II will have to prevent the storm from breaking out. Will he succeed?”5.

1 In memory of the late Sovereign Emperor Alexander III. Speech delivered at a meeting of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University

2 Pobedonostsev K. P. Works. - St. Petersburg, 1996. - P. 168.

3 Arsenyev K.K. For a quarter of a century (1871-94). Digest of articles. Pg., 1915. P. 600-615.

4 Plekhanov G.V. Works. T. XXIV. M. - L., 1927. S. 161-168.

5 Ibid. P. 168.

Thus, immediately after the end of the reign, its results were summed up and highlighted character traits. However, all the publications mentioned above have not yet given a comprehensive assessment, without taking into account the biography and character of the autocrat.

As a rule, several decades after the death of the monarch, detailed description his life and reign. S. S. Tatishchev6 became the biographer of Alexander III. As the historian himself pointed out, his task was to “compile an accurate and, if possible, complete, pragmatic summary of the events” of the reign. The biography recreated the course of events, being a necessary but not exhaustive element in constructing the image.

Subjects Russian history the second half of the 19th century, marked by the increasing dynamics of the political process, attracted the attention of researchers already at the beginning of the next, 20th century. A. A. Kornilov devoted a special history course to the past period, three chapters of which relate to the reign of Alexander III8. The historian began with the period of succession, since preparation and education determined the nature of the future reign. One of the best biographical articles dedicated to the emperor was published in the Military Encyclopedia published by I. D. Sytin9. It presents a picture of the heir's training, his military service (including in the Rushchuk detachment during the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878) and participation in government activities during the period of succession (for example, when organizing assistance to victims of crop failure in 1867 .). The encyclopedic article points to the “long hesitation” of Alexander III when choosing the path of development of Russia after his accession to the throne and characterizes the main measures of his political course. The personal qualities of the emperor did not go unnoticed: “straightforwardness of convictions,” “firmness and intransigence,” “simplicity and courtesy” in private life.

A new impetus for the study of the internal politics of the Russian Empire in the second half of the 19th century. gave the revolution of 1917, which opened the archives of various departments. Historians were given the opportunity to examine state and personal documents, including those of members of the royal family. N. N. Firsov (1864-1934), a graduate and later a professor at Kazan University, took advantage of this opportunity in 1929-1931. who headed the Museum of the Proletarian Revolution, located in the Winter Palace (the successor to this museum is the Museum political history in St. Petersburg). Based on the diaries of Alexander III, N. N. Firsov undertook an experiment in characterizing the monarch10. He recreated the picture of upbringing and education, family life and government activities. Despite the bias caused by the era, in Firsov’s articles, through the negative attitude towards the personality of the monarch, correctly captured features of his image emerge.

The personality of Alexander III in the reconstruction of N. N. Firsov was significantly inferior to the image of his father. The historian was struck by spelling errors in the diaries

6 Tatishchev S.S. Emperor Alexander III. His life and reign. (Manuscript). RGIA. F. 878. Op. I. D. 4.

7 Tatishchev S. S. Alexander II. His life and reign. - M., 2010. - P. 6.

8 Kornilov A. A. Course on the history of Russia in the 19th century. - M., 2004. - P. 731-781.

9 Military encyclopedia. T. 1. - M., 1911. - P. 276-282.

10 Firsov N. N. Alexander III. Personal characteristics partly based on his unpublished diaries // Bygone. 1925. No. 1. P. 85-108.

heir to the throne and then emperor. This was largely due to negligence in the upbringing of the Grand Duke, who began to be prepared late for future activities. N.N. Firsov concluded that the monarch was ignorant, who “remained a semi-literate person for the rest of his life.” The historian exaggerated the conservatism of Alexander III, reducing it to the formula “drag and not let go,” but he correctly grasped the “archaic” attitude of the emperor to unlimited royal power and the desire to maintain the inviolability of its foundations.

The diaries of Alexander III gave the historian many details of his private life, which N.N. Firsov also sought to use to create a negative image. Attributing narrow-mindedness to the monarch, Firsov noted that “family interests were one of the most significant by which Alexander Alexandrovich lived, being the heir to the Russian throne.” Firsov contrasted the family joys associated with the birth of children with the difficult internal political situation in the country; in his opinion, in such a difficult period, the head of state had no right to focus on family life. Here the researcher correctly noticed Alexander III’s craving for private life, but drew a conclusion from this fact that was unfair to the monarch. The meaning of the emperor's diary entries, which fill Firsov's articles, is distorted thanks to the historian's comments. This is how the image of a narrow-minded man was formed, on whose will the fate of the state depended. This trend was inherited by Soviet historiography.

An outstanding representative of Soviet historical science, P. A. Zayonchkovsky, devoted a separate chapter to the personality of Alexander III of a monograph on the history of domestic politics of the late 19th century11. In it, the figure of the emperor was presented traditionally for Russian historiography of the mid-20th century. The historian emphasized the “stupidity,” “stubbornness,” and “primitivism of mind” of Alexander III. At the same time, Zayonchkovsky did not deny the monarch common sense, which he “was sometimes guided by” “in matters of foreign policy.” The historian dwelled on the details of the monarch's private life, paying attention to his reader's interests, however, presenting them as primitive as the emperor's mind. However, P. A. Zayonchkovsky noticed the connection between private life and government activities, explaining the anti-German sentiments of Alexander III to the influence of his wife, Empress Maria Feodorovna, a Danish princess who did not forgive Germany for separating from Denmark in favor of Prussia and Austria, Schleswig and Holstein.

New touches to the portrait of the autocrat are added by the memories of his contemporaries. The publication of these evidence began at the end of the 19th century. Several years passed after the death of the monarch, and memories of people who met him appeared in historical journals. The motives for turning to the past were explained by A.P. Bologovskaya, the author of memoirs about the childhood of Emperor Alexander III, published in No. 1 of the Historical Bulletin for 1914: “These memories are so dear to me that it was a pity to make them public. Now, in old age<...>you are involuntarily transported to the distant past<.>"12. Publications related to various aspects of the private life and state activities of monarchs were placed on the pages of “Russian Antiquity”,

11 Alexander III and his inner circle // Zayonchkovsky P. A. Russian autocracy at the end of the 19th century (political reaction of the 80s - early 90s). - M., 1970. - P. 35-46.

12 Bologovskaya A.P. Memories of the childhood of Emperor Alexander III // Alexander III. Memories. Diaries. Letters. - St. Petersburg, 2001. - pp. 41-46.

“Russian Archive”, “Historical Bulletin”. Since the 1920s memoirs and diaries began to be published in separate editions statesmen, primarily those who were very critical of the actions of the emperors13. Currently, the publication of memoir literature is expanding; sources that until that time were in archives are being published14. It is impossible not to mention the memoirs of Count S. D. Sheremetev, which were published not so long ago and represent the view of a person close to the emperor15.

The review of sources was included in a multi-volume reference publication of the 1970s - 1980s. edited by P. A. Zayonchkovsky, which has become a valuable aid for historians16. This direction of bibliography was continued at the beginning of this century with the publication of the biobibliographic reference book “Russian Imperial Family”, prepared by Yu. A. Kuzmin17. In 2013, on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the call to the Russian throne of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, Yu. A. Kuzmin posted on the website of the Russian National Library an electronic illustrated bio-bibliographic reference book “The House of the Romanovs. 1613-1917.”18. In addition to quick reference articles, site visitors can visit online resources on monarchs and view a collection of images that provide a visual representation of the autocrats.

Currently, publications of works of the epistolary genre are being added to the memoir literature: related correspondence of Alexander III during the period of succession and reign is being actively published19.

Official documents and the marginalia they contain - the monarch's notes - allow us to demonstrate different angles covering the activities of the autocrat. They characterize the manner of speaking inherent in the emperor and his attitude to events. This characteristic feature was noticed by the first publishers of documents, who came to the attention of all the reports. Review of the contents of the most important reports on the Main Directorate for Press Affairs for 1865-1909. and the resolutions of the monarchs themselves were presented in an article by V.V. Bush, an employee of the Institute of Russian Literature, written in 1919.20 Research

13 Witte S. Yu. Memoirs. M., 1960. T. I; Diary of E. A. Peretz, Secretary of State (1880-1885). M.; L., 1927; Diary of Secretary of State A. A. Polovtsov in 2 vols. T. I. 1883-1886. T. II. 1887-1892 M., 1966; Lamzdorf V.N. Diary 1891-1892. M.; L., 1934. His own. Diary 1894-1896. M., 1991.

14 Diaries of Emperor Nicholas II. M., 1992; Krivenko V.S. In the Ministry of the Court. Memories. St. Petersburg 2006.

15 Memoirs of Count S. D. Sheremetev. M., 2001.

16 History of pre-revolutionary Russia in diaries and memoirs. Annotated index of books and journal publications. Under. ed. P. A. Zayonchkovsky. V. 13 vols. M., 1976-1989.

17 Kuzmin Yu. A. Russian imperial family. 1797-1917. Biobibliographic reference book. St. Petersburg, 2005.

18 http://www.nlr.ru/

19 “I will sacredly fulfill My duty” // Source. 1993. No. 1. P. 39-50; From the correspondence of Alexander Alexandrovich Romanov and his wife Maria Fedorovna // Questions of history. 2000. No. 4-5. pp. 117-135; “There is no peace, either physical or moral”: Letters from Alexander III to Empress Maria Feodorovna. 1891-1892 // Historical archive. 1994. No. 3. P. 149-167; Letters from Emperor Alexander III to the heir to the Tsarevich Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich // Russian Archive. History of the Fatherland in testimonies and documents of the 18th-20th centuries. Vol. IX. - M., 1999. - P. 213-250.

20 Bush V.V. Most humble reports on the Main Directorate for Press Affairs. 1865-1909 Review of contents // Periodicals and censorship in the Russian Empire in 1865-1905. System of administrative penalties: Reference publication. - St. Petersburg, 2011. - P. 348-355.

The author dwelled in detail on the marginalia of Alexander III, who had the habit of expressing what he thought. This trait of the emperor appears in his diary entries.

V. N. Lamzdorf, assistant to the Minister of Foreign Affairs N. K. Girs, who reproduced royal resolutions in his diary21. Recent publications of sources clarify the origin of this feature of the autocrat. The diary of N.P. Litvinov, the teacher of Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich, presents a sixteen-year-old teenager whose upbringing was neglected, unrestrained and harsh towards others22. The mentor managed to smooth out, but not eliminate, the costs of education, and absolute power allowed this trait to manifest itself again in Emperor Alexander III.

As the sources were studied, the need arose for a more clear understanding of government activities in the second half of the 19th century, primarily about the reforms and counter-reforms carried out, and an explanation of the motives and results of the government’s actions was required. In the second half of the 20th century. Works appeared whose authors set themselves the task of showing the course of the internal political process and revealing the actions and intentions of the government.

Vector of research at the end of the 20th century. was most accurately defined in the title of the collective monograph “Power and Reforms” by employees of the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the relevance of which was confirmed by the reissue of the book, which immediately became a bibliographic rarity23. The collection presents the process of development of the Russian state from the perspective reform activities and power potential. In the chapters dedicated to Alexander III, B.V. Ananich examined the situation that developed in the government after March 1, 1881 and the confrontation between various political forces in the process of developing the “new course” of autocracy24.

An appeal to the personality of the monarch was made in the publication of the works of participants in the conference “The House of Romanov in the History of Russia”, held at St. Petersburg University in June 1995.25 The reports covered various aspects of relationships in the sphere of power, including the relationship between Alexander II and his successor on the eve of the change of reigns26. The image of Alexander III began to take on more prominent outlines; the feelings and emotions of those who were directly involved in them emerged through the course of political events.

Another direction in constructing the image of the monarch in the last century was museum work. It unfolded after the 1917 revolution in the former imperial palaces. The completed painting was created by the staff of the Gatchina Museum, the residence of Emperor Alexander III. After the death of the monarch, his widow Maria Fedorovna remained the mistress of the palace, and therefore the interiors of the living quarters did not undergo major changes. The revolution found them in almost the same form,

21 Lamzdorf V.N. Decree. op.

22 From the diaries of N.P. Litvinov, 1861-1862. // Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich. Collection of documents. - M., 2002. - P. 443-536.

23 Power and reforms. From autocratic to Soviet Russia. Ed. 1st. St. Petersburg, 1996. Ed. 2nd. M., 2006.

24 Ananich B.V. New course. “People's Autocracy” of Alexander III and Nicholas II // Ibid.

26 Ananyin B.V., Ganelin R.Sh. Alexander II and the heir on the eve of March 1, 1881 // Ibid. pp. 204-213.

in which they remained in the 90s. XIX century. In 1917, work began on creating a museum exhibition under the leadership of the first director V.P. Zubov, a descendant of Count P.A. Zubov, a favorite of Empress Catherine II and one of the participants in the conspiracy against Paul I. The museum director saw his task as to “restore the eras of Nicholas I, Alexander II and Alexander III, regardless of their aesthetic merit, as historical documents”27. In June 1918, V. P. Zubov was replaced as director by V. K. Makarov, a graduate of the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University, curator of the Gatchina Museum. He had to constantly resist the intentions of the Soviet government to sell the most valuable part of the collections abroad, and the Gatchina Palace “lost” over 100 thousand exhibits during this time.

Despite this, intense scientific work was going on in the museum. In May 1918, the palace opened its doors to visitors for the first time. In the 1930s museum staff developed excursion routes “Pavlovskaya Gatchina”, “Rooms of Nicholas I and Alexander II”, “Grade reception rooms of Alexander III”, “Rooms of the family of Alexander III” and “Exhibitions from the funds of the Gatchina Palace”, and photographer M. A. Velichko in 1938 -1940 created a photo gallery of the exhibitions.

After the Great Patriotic War The restoration took a long time, and the interiors of the Gatchina Palace Museum were inaugurated to visitors in 1985. Restoration work continues in the palace to this day. However, the living quarters of Alexander III and his family are not represented in the museum. The staff of the palace museum prepared an album, which included materials from scientific archive Gatchina Museum-Reserve "Gatchina": pre-war excursion routes and photographs taken by M. A. Velichko. Modern readers can “walk” through the living quarters occupied by the emperor and his family, and in the study “meet” the owner himself (the feeling of presence was created thanks to a mannequin that reproduced the figure of the emperor playing the helicon - this was one of the monarch’s favorite hobbies)28. It is known that the emperor loved small rooms; photographs “revive” this fact, revealing to the viewer the interiors of the Arsenal Palace palace, filled with Art Nouveau items. This album reconstructs the image of Alexander III in accordance with the plan of the first director of the museum V.P. Zubov - “as a historical document.”

An important role in the formation of a new methodological approach to constructing images of monarchs was played by the research of the American scientist R. S. Wortman. The researcher focused his attention on the “symbolism and imagery of the ceremonies,” viewing the imperial court as “an ongoing theatrical performance, a theater of power,” the main purpose of which was to present the ruler and endow him with “sacred qualities”29. According to the historian, each Russian emperor had his own “individual way” of presentation, to designate which Wortman introduced the concepts of “imperial myth” and “power script.” According to his interpretation, during the reign of Alexander II, the “scenario of power” gradually transformed, transformed

27 Zubov V.P. Troubled years of Russia. - M., 2004. - P. 44.

28 Astakhovskaya S. A., Shukurova A. E. Gatchina Palace. Pages of the history of the museum. Photo album. St. Petersburg, 2007.

29 Wortman R. S. Scenarios of power. Myths and ceremonies of the Russian monarchy. T. 1: From Peter the Great to the death of Nicholas I. M., 2002. Authorized trans. S. V. Zhitomirskaya. T. 2: From Alexander II to the abdication of Nicholas II. M., 2004. Per. I. A. Pilshchikova.

focusing more and more on unity not with the nobility, but with the people. The new union ran like a red thread through the “scenarios” of the last Russian autocrats: for Alexander III as the “resurrection of Muscovy” and Nicholas II as a “demonstration of piety.”

The "scripts of power" and "imperial myths" described by Wortman included the sphere Everyday life monarchs (marriage, birth and raising of children), and relationships with subjects, immediate environment, governance mechanisms. In recreating the imperial presentations, the historian used methods of semiotic analysis, focusing on body language, architectural and pictorial attributes, symbolism of ceremonies, literary and documentary texts.

The publication of R. S. Wortman's work in Russia marked the beginning of a shift in emphasis in the research of domestic historians from a positivist search for cause-and-effect relationships to a cultural explanation of the historical process (primarily, the process of public administration).

The problem of studying the representation of the image of the monarch, as a management technology, was put on the agenda by the work of G. V. Lobacheva “The Autocrat and Russia: The Image of the Tsar in the mass consciousness of Russians (late 19th - early 20th centuries)” (Saratov, 1999). It is no coincidence that the object of the study was the reign of Alexander III, when the government moved its fulcrum from the nobility to the masses. The choice of historical period also determined the peculiarities of the selection of sources: in addition to documents, periodicals, diaries and memoirs, folklore (historical and ritual songs, fairy tales) was involved. The undoubted advantages of the study include a detailed historiographical chapter in which the author analyzed the stages of studying the phenomenon of “perception of the supreme power by the people”30. G. V. Lobacheva did not ignore the articles of R. S. Wortman, which preceded the publication of his fundamental work.

In the book by G.V. Lobacheva, several aspects of the monarchical ideal are highlighted in the mass consciousness, which mythologized the image of the tsar: “the bearer of the traditional ideal of “truth,” “the focus of power sanctified by the Lord,” “the father of the people.” On this myth, the popular consciousness based the right of every subject to appeal to the supreme power, to appeal to the autocrat as the final authority in search of justice31.

Modern historians also highlight another feature of the autocratic model of governance - the phenomenon of “highest will”32. The problem of the autonomy of the monarch's actions was raised by the first publishers of documents of statesmen. In the preface to the diary of V.N. Lamzdorf, the historian F.A. Rothstein formulated the questions that confront the researcher of the state activities of Emperor Alexander III: “What was he guided by in his judgments and decisions? What influences and influences was he exposed to in his personal environment? What advisors did you listen to? 33.

Collections of documents can provide the answer to this question. This direction of constructing the image of the monarch, which appeared relatively recently, reveals

30 Lobacheva G.V. Autocrat and Russia: The image of the Tsar in the mass consciousness of Russians (late XIX - early XX centuries. Saratov, 1999. P. 5-36.

31 Ibid. pp. 112-113.

32 Dolbilov M.D. The birth of imperial decisions: monarch, adviser and “highest will” in Russia in the 19th century. // Historical notes. 2006. No. 9 (127). pp. 5-48.

33 Lamzdorf V.N. Diary 1891-1892. P. IX.

various aspects of the life and work of the emperor, giving the reader the opportunity to independently come to conclusions about the role of the individual in history. Among the collections of documents, the series “Russian statesmen through the eyes of their contemporaries” stands out. The volume dedicated to Alexander III was prepared by V. G. Chernukha. The collection opens with an introductory article by the compiler34, which formulates the approach chosen by the historian to the personality of the monarch. V. G. Chernukha set herself the task of showing the monarch in different circumstances and through the eyes of different people. The publication contains testimonies from contemporaries who were in varying degrees of closeness to the monarch and gave different, often opposing assessments of his actions. This allows us to present a palette of opinions, full of various shades, sometimes contradictory, painting a portrait of the autocrat with bright strokes. The introductory article, preceding the reader's acquaintance with the documents, introduces him to the inner world of an autocrat bearing the burden of power, aware of the severity of this responsibility, but at the same time experiencing the feelings of a private person. The author managed to convey this contradiction and “breathe life” into the constructed images.

Delving deeper into the repositories of cultural memory, historical knowledge is subject to adjustment. Today, the confrontation between the reigns of Alexander III and Alexander II and the personalities of the monarchs does not seem to be clearly oppositional. Modern researchers assess the policy of Alexander III “much more complex than just conservative or liberal”35, they see it not so much as counter-reforms as a “course correction” of their predecessor36, and “a simplified interpretation of the personality of this Russian emperor is becoming increasingly rare”37.

The figure of a person standing at the helm of power always arouses great interest. By constructing images of monarchs, historical knowledge seeks an answer to the question: what is a statesman? What traits should he have? Under what circumstances will it appear? The inclusion of new sources in scientific circulation reveals personality traits more clearly, and historical knowledge is filled with new content. In this process, much depends on the researcher, his ability to reconstruct the situation, reproduce feelings and thoughts in his mind historical character, create a holistic and “living” image.

literature

1. Ananich B.V. New course. “People's Autocracy” of Alexander III and Nicholas II // Power and Reforms. From autocratic to Soviet Russia. - M., 2006. - P. 338-416.

34 Chernukha V. G. Alexander III // Alexander the Third. Memories. Diaries. Letters. - St. Petersburg, 2001. - P. 5-40.

35 Chernukha V. G. Emperor Alexander III: his life and character, politics and its assessment // Department of History of Russia and modern historical science. St. Petersburg, 2012 (Proceedings of the Department of History of Russia from ancient times to the 20th century. T. III). P. 610.

36 Andreev V. E. Family conflict(on the issue of the relationship between Emperor Alexander III and Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich) // Emperor Alexander III and Empress Maria Feodorovna. Materials of the scientific conference. - St. Petersburg, 2006. - P. 17.

37 Ibid. S. 5

2. Ananyin B.V., Ganelin R.Sh. Alexander II and the heir on the eve of March 1, 1881 // House of Romanov in the history of Russia: [Materials for the report. Conf., June 19-22, 1995 - St. Petersburg, 1995. - pp. 204-213.

3. Andreev V. E. Family conflict (on the issue of the relationship between Emperor Alexander III and Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich) // Emperor Alexander III and Empress Maria Feodorovna. Materials of the scientific conference. - St. Petersburg, 2006. - P. 5-22.

4. Arsenyev K.K. For a quarter of a century (1871-94): Collection of articles. - Pg., 1915. - P. 600-615.

5. Astakhovskaya S. A., Shukurova A. E. Gatchina Palace. Pages of the history of the museum. Photo album. - St. Petersburg, 2007.

6. Bologovskaya A.P. Memories of the childhood of Emperor Alexander III // Alexander III. Memories. Diaries. Letters. - St. Petersburg, 2001. - pp. 41-46.

7. “I will sacredly fulfill My duty” // Source. - 1993. - No. 1. - P. 39-50

8. Bush V.V. Most humble reports on the Main Directorate for Press Affairs. 18651909 Review of contents // Periodicals and censorship in the Russian Empire in 1865-1905. System of administrative penalties: Reference publication. - St. Petersburg, 2011. - P. 348-355.

10. Witte S. Yu. Memoirs. - M., 1960. - T. I.

11. Power and reforms. From autocratic to Soviet Russia. Ed. 1st. - St. Petersburg, 1996. - Ed. 2nd. - M., 2006.

12. Military encyclopedia. - T. 1. - M., 1911.

13. Diary of E. A. Peretz, Secretary of State (1880-1885). - M.; L., 1927

14. Diary of Secretary of State A. A. Polovtsov in 2 vols. T. I. 1883-1886. T. II. 1887-1892 - M., 1966.

15. Diaries of Emperor Nicholas II. - M., 1992.

16. Dolbilov M. D. The birth of imperial decisions: monarch, adviser and “highest will” in Russia in the 19th century. // Historical notes. - 2006. - No. 9 (127). - P. 5-48.

18. Zayonchkovsky P. A. Russian autocracy at the end of the 19th century (political reaction of the 80s - early 90s). - M., 1970.

19. Zubov V.P. Troubled Years of Russia. - M., 2004.

20. From the diaries of N.P. Litvinov, 1861-1862. // Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich. Collection of documents. - M., 2002. - P. 443-536.

21. From the correspondence of Alexander Alexandrovich Romanov and his wife Maria Fedorovna // Questions of history. - 2000. - No. 4-5. - pp. 117-135

22. History of pre-revolutionary Russia in diaries and memoirs. Annotated

index of books and publications in magazines / Under. ed. P. A. Zayonchkovsky. - In 13 vols. - M.,

23. Kornilov A. A. Course in the history of Russia in the 19th century. - M., 2004.

24. Krivenko V. S. In the Ministry of the Court. Memories. - St. Petersburg, 2006.

25. Kuzmin Yu. A. Russian imperial family. 1797-1917. Biobibliographic reference book. - St. Petersburg, 2005.

26. Lamzdorf V.N. Diary 1891-1892. - M.; L., 1934.

27. Lamzdorf V.N. Diary 1894-1896. - M., 1991.

28. Lobacheva G.V. Autocrat and Russia: The image of the Tsar in the mass consciousness of Russians (late 19th - early 20th centuries. - Saratov, 1999.

29. Memoirs of Count S. D. Sheremetev. - M., 2001.

30. “There is no peace, either physical or moral”: Letters from Alexander III to Empress Maria Feodorovna. 1891-1892 // Historical archive. - 1994. - No. 3. - P. 149-167.

31. In memory of the late Sovereign Emperor Alexander III. Speech delivered at a meeting of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University on October 28, 1894 by the Chairman of the Society V. O. Klyuchevsky. - B.m., b.d.

32. Letters from Emperor Alexander III to the heir to the Tsarevich Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich // Russian Archive. History of the Fatherland in testimonies and documents of the 18th-20th centuries. Vol. IX. - M., 1999. - P. 213-250

33. Plekhanov G.V. Works. - T. XXIV. - M.; L., 1927.

34. Pobedonostsev K. P. Works. - St. Petersburg, 1996.

35. Tatishchev S. S. Emperor Alexander III. His life and reign. (Manuscript). RGIA. F. 878. Op. I. D. 4.

36. Tatishchev S. S. Alexander II. His life and reign. - M., 2010.

37. Wortman R. S. Scenarios of power. Myths and ceremonies of the Russian monarchy. T. 1: From Peter the Great to the death of Nicholas I. - M., 2002. Authorized trans. S. V. Zhitomirskaya. Wortman R. S. Scenarios of power. Myths and ceremonies of the Russian monarchy. T. 2: From Alexander II to the abdication of Nicholas II. - M., 2004. Per. I. A. Pilshchikova.

38. Firsov N. N. Alexander III. Personal characteristics partly based on his unpublished diaries // Bygone. - 1925. - No. 1. - P. 85-108.

39. Chernukha V. G. Alexander III // Alexander the Third. Memories. Diaries. Letters. - St. Petersburg, 2001

40. Chernukha V. G. Emperor Alexander III: his life and character, politics and its assessment // Proceedings of the Department of History of Russia from ancient times to the 20th century. - T. III. - St. Petersburg, 2012.

2. Think about whether there were similar trends in the reign of the Romanov father and son? Give reasons for your answer.

Document No. 6.1

S.Yu. Witte

Alexander III was not strong man, as many people think. This big, fat man was not, however, a “feeble-minded monarch” or a “crowned fool,” as V.P. Lamzdorf calls him in his memoirs, but he was also not the insightful and intelligent sovereign that they try to portray him as... Emperor Alexander III was of a completely ordinary mind, perhaps below average intelligence, below average abilities, below average education; in appearance he resembled a large Russian peasant from the central provinces.

Source:

Document No. 6.2

Contemporaries, descendants and historians about Alexander III:
IN. Klyuchevsky

This slow-moving king did not want the harm of his empire and did not want to play with it simply because he did not understand its position, and in general did not like the complex mental combinations that a political game, no less than a card game, requires. The government directly mocked the society, telling it: “You demanded new reforms, and the old ones will be taken away from you.”

Source: Chernova M.N. Personality in history. Russia – XIX century. M., 2004

Document No. 6.3

Contemporaries, descendants and historians about Alexander III:
A.N. Bokhanov

Speaking about the reign of Alexander III, it is appropriate to talk not about “counter-reforms”, but about adjusting the state course. The point is not that the emperor wanted to mechanically go back, but that the politics of the 60s “ran too ahead”... Alexander III should not be portrayed as narrow-minded and stupid, he was a bright personality. Before us is a man who organically fit into the circumstances of his time. He ruled the state surprisingly easily and naturally, while being fully aware of all the state responsibility of the monarch. Most strong point His personality is honesty and integrity.

Source: Chernova M.N. Personality in history. Russia – XIX century. M., 2004

Document No. 6.4

Contemporaries, descendants and historians about Alexander III:
D. Schimmelpennink

Under Alexander III, Russia experienced a significant economic recovery, which was closely related to the strengthening of the position of the private sector and the penetration of Western ideas about free enterprise into Russia. This was a wonderful period in the development of Russian society.

Source: Chernova M.N. Personality in history. Russia – XIX century. M., 2004

§2. Domestic policy of Alexander III. Counter-reforms.

Document No. 6.5

From the Manifesto of Alexander III on the inviolability of autocracy

QUESTIONS FOR THE DOCUMENT

1. Analyze the Manifesto of Alexander III.

2. What caused the appearance of this document?

3. How justified was the emperor’s subsequent policy, called counter-reforms?

April 1881

In God, Our deceased parent, having accepted autocratic power from God for the benefit of the people entrusted to him, remained faithful to death to the vow he had taken and sealed his great service with his blood... with kindness and meekness he accomplished the greatest work of his reign - the liberation of serfs, having managed to attract assistance in this from the noble owners, who are always obedient to the voice of goodness and honor; established a court in the kingdom, and called on his subjects, all of whom he made forever free without distinction, to manage the affairs of local government and public economy.<...>

In the midst of Our great sorrow, the voice of God commands Us to stand vigorously in the work of government, trusting in Divine providence, with faith in the power and truth of autocratic power, which We are called upon to affirm and protect for the good of the people from any encroachments on it.

May the hearts of Our faithful subjects, struck by confusion and horror, be encouraged, all those who love the fatherland and are devoted from generation to generation to the hereditary royal power.<...>

Devoting ourselves to our great service, We call on all Our faithful subjects to serve Us and the state faithfully and truly, to eradicate the vile sedition that disgraces the Russian land, to strengthen faith and morality, to raise children well, to exterminate untruth and theft, to establish order and truth in the actions of the institutions bestowed upon Russia by her benefactor, Our beloved parent.

Source: Dmitriev S.S. Reader on the history of the USSR. M., 1948. T.III

Document No. 6.5

From the “Highest Rescript to the Noble
Russian nobility"

QUESTIONS FOR THE DOCUMENT

1. In the context of the class policy of the great reforms of Alexander II and the counter-reforms of Alexander III, evaluate this document, published in 1885 on the occasion of the centenary of Catherine’s charter to the nobility.

2. Why did the emperor find it necessary to issue this rescript?

3. In what provisions of this document can one identify signs of the conservative policy of Alexander III?

“...We, for the benefit of the state, recognize it as good for the Russian nobles, now, as in the past, to retain a leading place in military leadership, in matters of local government and court, in disinterested care for the needs of the people, in spreading the rules by example faith and fidelity and sound principles of public education." .

Source: III PSZRI. T.5. No. 2882.

1. Analyze certain aspects of the internal policy of Alexander III, based on the given materials and additional sources. Special attention pay attention to solving peasant and worker issues.

2. Using these materials and additional sources, list the main reforms during the reign of Alexander III. Indicate the positive and negative aspects of these reforms.

Document No. 6.6

From the decree on the redemption of plots by peasants still in obligatory relations with the landowners

December 1881

... Emperor Alexander II, freeing the former landowner peasants from serfdom and establishing mandatory, in the sense of a transitional measure, land relations between them and the landowners meant that these relations should eventually end through the redemption of their plots by the peasants into ownership, with or without the assistance of the government. .. on the largest part of the landowners' estates, the peasants have already moved into the category of peasant owners, and there are now relatively few temporarily obliged peasants. Further leaving these latter in obligatory relations with the landowners, preventing the stable structure of both peasant and landowner land ownership, would be associated with important inconveniences, in the consciousness of which the nobility of some provinces in Lately itself petitioned for the transfer of all temporarily obligated peasants to ransom in the form of a general government measure.<...>

Considering, according to the covenant and example of Our unforgettable parent, it is our sacred duty to take care of the well-being of Our loyal subjects of every rank and condition and following His good plans for the best possible structure for the peasant population, we command:

1. Those remaining in obligatory relations with the landowners of the former landowner peasants in the provinces consisting of Great Russian and Little Russian local provisions shall be transferred to redemption and classified as peasant-owners from January 1, 1883.<...>

3. Before the transfer of temporarily obligated peasants for ransom, these peasants must be in the same relationship with the landowners as they are with them now; The redemption of plots of land by peasants can, until that time, be carried out on the previously existing basis.<...>

9. Assessment of the reign of Alexander III in historical science

Pre-revolutionary historians G.P. Annenkov, K.N. Korolkov, V.V. Nazarovsky - representatives of the official noble historiography - assessed the reign of Alexander III from a subjective, idealistic, apologetic position.

A characteristic feature of the historiographical situation at the beginning of the 20th century. The problem was that the counter-reforms of the 80s had not yet reached, as Klyuchevsky put it, “historical prescription”, due to which this plot turned out to be highly politicized. It attracted the attention of not only historians, but primarily publicists of all directions, and in assessing the essence of the reforms, their immediate and long-term results, the confrontation between liberal, conservative and left-radical forces in society became especially clear. A serious factor in the subsequent development of the historiography of reforms was the fact that the 1860-1870s were studied most deeply and professionally in pre-revolutionary science, while the politics of the 1880-1890s were the subject of mainly political and journalistic analysis.

The liberal tradition, represented primarily by A. A. Kornilov, A. A. Kiesewetter, P. N. Milyukov, recognized the enormous importance of the great reforms, and especially the peasant reform, which was a “turning point” in Russian history. Liberal historians unanimously stated that as a result of the reforms of the 1860s, the country stepped far forward, social relations in it became significantly more complex, new strata and classes emerged, and social inequality worsened. Under these conditions, the “autocratic bureaucratic monarchy” turned out to be unsuitable for solving more and more new life problems. When the issue of political reform came to the fore, the government embarked on a protracted course of reaction. According to the liberal concept, this was precisely what caused the growth of the opposition liberation and revolutionary movement and led the country to a deep political crisis at the beginning of the 20th century.

N. M. Korkunov, analyzing the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” of 1890, came to the conclusion that its drafters turned the question of transforming zemstvo self-government into a question of its destruction. The main conclusion made by the scientist was that in building a system of self-government, the interests of both the state and society should be taken into account.

A. A. Kornilov also tries to highlight this period in his course “History of Russia in the 19th century.” The author divides the reign of Alexander III into three stages: introductory 98

(from March 1 to April 29, 1881); transitional (until the end of May 1882); reactionary (until the death of the emperor in October 1894). With the transfer of power into the hands of D. A. Tolstoy in May 1882, A. A. Kornilov believes, the final turn to reaction begins.

Avoiding the term “counter-reforms,” liberal historians spoke of subsequent “distortions” and “revisions” of the reforms of the 60s in a reactionary spirit. They pointed out that the onset of reaction in 1866 did not interrupt the reform process, but gave it a “painful course and abnormal forms,” and in the 1880s, despite the reactionary course in matters of internal administration and education, the government had to follow the path of progressive financial and economic policy.

S. F. Platonov saw the main goal of Alexander III’s policy in strengthening the authority of the supreme power and state order, strengthening the supervision and influence of the government, in connection with which the laws and institutions created during the era of the Great Reforms were “revised and improved.” The restrictions introduced in the sphere of court and public self-government gave the policy of Alexander III a “strictly protective and reactionary character,” however, this negative side of the government course is balanced by S. F. Platonov with serious measures to improve the situation of the classes - the nobility, peasantry and workers, as well as good results in the field of streamlining finances and developing the state economy. ,. ,-

Pre-revolutionary left-wing radical historiography - Marxist and populist, represented by the works of V. I. Lenin, M. N. Pokrovsky, V. I. Semevsky and others, was extremely critical of the policies of autocracy in the second half of the 19th century.

Recognizing the critical role class struggle in history, M. N. Pokrovsky viewed the government policy of reforms and reactions from precisely these positions, without, however, using the term “counter-forms.” In his opinion, the reform process in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. represented a “partial liquidation of the feudal order”, carried out “in the direction and to the extent to which it was beneficial to the nobility.” Pokrovsky is not inclined to contrast the policies of the 60s and 80s of the 19th century, emphasizing the continuity of the inherently reactionary “noble” political course.

An assessment of the era of Alexander III was also given by G. V. Plekhanov in the article “The Reign of Alexander III.” This period was characterized by the author as a time of noble reaction. In addition, Plekhanov argued that the bourgeoisie had direct influence on the government policy of the autocracy; supposedly the bourgeoisie dictated its wishes to the Minister of Finance.

Of particular importance for the formation of Soviet historiography were the works of V. I. Lenin, for example the work “Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Annibals of Liberalism.” Lenin identified the reasons that made it possible to approve the reactionary government course, and gave a description of the individual stages of the internal policy of the autocracy. An important role in the formation of historical ideas about the era of the 1880s was played by Lenin’s characterization of the government policy of Alexander III as “an unbridled, incredibly senseless and rabid reaction.”

Soviet historical science adopted the term “counter-reforms,” which initially included the idea of the reactionary measures of the tsarist government at the turn of the 1880-1890s, taken in the interests of an obsolete class - the local nobility. In this interpretation, the counter-reforms - the introduction of the institution of zemstvo chiefs (1889), zemstvo (1890), city (1892) and partly judicial - eliminated the already modest achievements of the 1860s by restoring class statehood and strengthening administrative control. In Soviet historical literature, by the beginning of the 1960s, the content of the term had expanded significantly. The concept of “counter-reform”, which meant the reactionary transformations in Russia carried out during the reign of Alexander III, also included the “Temporary Rules” on the press of 1882, the restoration of class principles in the initial and high school, University Charter 1884

G. I. Chulkov, P. A. Zayonchkovsky, V. A. Tvardovskaya negatively characterized both the personality of Alexander III and his internal political course. The internal policy of Alexander III was studied most thoroughly - with the use of many unpublished materials - in the book by P. A. Zayonchkovsky “Russian autocracy at the end of the 19th century.” During these years, the works of L. G. Zakharova “Zemstvo counter-reform of 1890”, E. M. Brusnikin “The policy of tsarism on the peasant question during the period of political reaction of the 80s - early 90s” were also published. XIX century." Yu. B. Solovyov in his work “Autocracy and the nobility at the end of the 19th century.” thoroughly examined the noble question in the internal politics of tsarism under Alexander III, proving that “behind the façade of external power was hidden the growing weakness of the regime.” V. A. Tvardovskaya writes that with the accession of Alexander III, “the hope for transformation went away, and with it a brilliant galaxy of statesmen called for perestroika old Russia in a new way. Widely educated, talented, state-minded people were replaced by firm supporters of autocratic power with significantly less abilities and talents, ready not so much to serve as to be served, concerned more with their own careers than with the fate of the country.”

Generalizing character on the problem of reforms of the 1880s - early 1890s. is the book by N. A. Troitsky “Russia in the 19th century”, and the question of the judicial system of Russia at the end of the 19th century. A separate book by this author is dedicated - “Tsarism on trial by the progressive public (1866-1895).” In it, Troitsky came to the conclusion that “the unbridled “white terror” of the 80s. testified not so much to the strength of the tsarist regime, but to its weakness and lack of self-confidence.” N. A. Troitsky believes that Alexander III considered the ideal ruler “not his father, Alexander II, but his grandfather, Nicholas I. Like Nicholas, Alexander III relied on the executioner’s method of rule and marked his accession exactly as his grandfather did - with five gallows.” . According to the researcher, “since June 1882, a reaction reigned in Russia, which occupied the entire reign of Alexander III.” Characterizing the essence of the counter-reforms, N. A. Troitsky notes: “Tsarism went towards the feudal owners in their desire to revise the legislative acts of the 60-70s.” According to him, “all the counter-reforms of 1889-1892. were clearly, as far as possible in the conditions of the development of capitalism, of a noble-serf character and were accompanied by persecution of any dissent from the same noble-serf positions.”

In the post-Soviet period, with the reorganization of old and the formation of new institutions of power, interest in the problem of reforms of the late 19th century increased. In 1994, Rodina magazine held a round table about the era of Alexander III. In 1996, the book “Power and Reforms” was published. From autocratic to Soviet Russia." Modern historians note a combination of conservative and positive trends in the activities of Alexander III. Academician B.V. Ananich uses the term “counter-reforms” only once, and then in a historiographical sense. B.V. Ananich believes that in the circle of Alexander III, a struggle unfolded between opponents and supporters of reforms: “On the one hand, there was a process of restriction and conservative adjustment of reforms, which contemporaries often called a “retrograde movement,” and on the other hand, liberal reformers from the Ministry finance in the 1880s. carried out the abolition of the poll tax and prepared a number of economic reforms, implemented already in the 1890s. S. Witte." In this regard, the author poses the question: “... how acceptable is the concept of “era of counter-reforms”, widespread 102 in Russian historiography, and does it reflect the real state of affairs. When did this era begin and end? He speaks not about the “era of counter-reforms,” but about the “period of conservative stabilization,” focusing on the fact that the adjustment of the great reforms was accompanied by a number of important socio-economic transformations.

This caused objections at the discussion of the monograph (a round table in the journal “Domestic History” in 2000) and revealed a certain hidden confrontation between historians on the question of the very existence of counter-reforms in Russia and the content of this concept. Unfortunately, the current confrontation has ideological overtones: in the liberal reading, counter-reforms are interpreted as measures that prevented Russia's progress towards becoming a rule of law state, while the conservative view focuses on an unlimited autocratic form of government and "identity", emphasizing the wisdom of "stabilizing » government measures. The intermediate position expressed at the discussion by A. Medushevsky lies in a sober consideration of the realities of life, including the readiness of society to accept reforms. In the historical context of post-reform Russia, a conservative view of the strategy of transformation turns out to be ultimately more logical, the scientist believes, although he is inclined to present the general dynamics of reforms in Russia as “rather a dynamic spiral”, at each new turn of which the country moves towards civil society and the rule of law.

The role of Alexander III in carrying out reforms was reflected in the works of B.V. Ananich, A.N. Bokhanov, A. Koskin, Yu.A. Polunov, V.G. Chernukha and others. Many historians believe that the reforms carried out in the era of Alexander III, you need to approach it differentially. Speaking about the results of the transformations of Alexander III, all modern researchers emphasize their contradictory nature. A. Yu. Polunov identifies two stages in the activities of Alexander III. According to him, in “the first time (under the Minister of Internal Affairs N.P. Ignatiev) the government continued the course of Loris-Melikov” and only “with the appointment of D.A. Tolstoy to the post of Minister of Internal Affairs (1882) began the era of counter-reforms, which constituted the main content of the internal policy of Alexander III." At the same time, A. Yu. Polunov believes that the reforms carried out by Alexander III had a different focus. He adopted a series of legislative acts aimed at revising the main provisions of the liberal reforms of the 1860-1870s. But, the historian writes, “following a generally protective course in the socio-political sphere, the government at the same time adopted a number of acts that were actually a continuation of the “great reforms” of the 1860-70s.” According to A. Yu. Polunov, “certain measures stimulated the development of industry and railway construction, which entailed the intensive spread of capitalist relations in the economy.” At the same time, the author concludes that it was precisely the contradictory course of policy pursued by Alexander III that became “one of the factors that determined the extreme severity of social, political and national conflicts in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.”

L.I. Semennikova tried to extend modern assessments to the era of Alexander III: “To put it modern language, the reform of Russia under Alexander III followed the “Chinese version”: the inviolability of the political autocratic system, but active expansion market relations in economics. The measures taken during his reign prepared the way for a powerful industrial boom in the 90s. XIX century, they determined, after the completion of the industrial revolution, the transition to industrialization, which unfolded in the 90s.”

A.V. Sedunov draws attention to the attempt to return to the Uvarov idea under Alexander III. Sedunov highlights the positive aspects of conservative methods: “the revolutionary and liberal movement died down, Russian industry was experiencing a boom, there were no major social conflicts, except for isolated skirmishes.”

IN modern science There are also works that apologetically evaluate the activities of Alexander III. Thus, A. N. Bo-khanov believes that the emperor did not initiate “any course of counter-reforms,” this very concept was “invented” by the “detractors” of the tsar and it is “simply devoid of historical meaning.”

Sample exam questions

1. The structure of society in the first half of the 19th century: ethnic, confessional and class characteristics.

2. Economic development Russia in the first half of the 19th century. Discussions among historians about the beginning of the industrial revolution.

3. Internal political course of the government of Alexander 1 in 1801-1812. Reforms of M. M. Speransky.

4. Foreign policy Russia in 1801-1812.

5. Patriotic War of 1812: causes, balance of forces, course of military operations.

6. Historiography of the Patriotic War of 1812

7. Foreign campaigns of the Russian army in 1813-1814. Congress of Vienna and the Holy Alliance.

8. Internal political course of the government of Alexander I in 1815-1825.

9. The concept of “liberation movement”. Pre-Decembrist and Decembrist organizations (1814-1825).

10. Program documents of the Decembrists.

11. Decembrist uprising in St. Petersburg and Ukraine.

12. Assessment of the Decembrist movement in historiography.

13. The personality and reign of Nicholas I in sources and historiography.

14. Domestic policy during the reign of Nicholas I.

15. Attempts to resolve the peasant issue during the reign of Nicholas I.

16. Conservative ideology in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. Theory of "Official Nationality".

17. Formation of the liberal direction of social thought in the second quarter of the 19th century. Westernism and Slavophilism.

18. Radical democratic movement in the second quarter of the 19th century.

19. Russia’s suppression of peripheral and foreign revolutionary and national movements in Europe in the 2nd quarter of the 19th century.

20. Kazakh-Central Asian direction of Russian foreign policy during the reign of Nicholas I.

21. The Caucasian direction of Russian foreign policy during the reign of Nicholas I.

22. “Eastern Question” in Russian foreign policy during the reign of Nicholas 1. Crimean War.

23. Reasons and preparation for the abolition of serfdom.

25. Peasant reform of Alexander II in the state and appanage villages. Features of peasant reform in the national outskirts.

26. Consequences of the abolition of serfdom in Russia. Assessment of the peasant reform of Alexander II in historical science.

27. Changing the system of local government: zemstvo and city reforms of the 60-70s. XIX century

28. Judicial reform of Alexander II.

29. Military reforms of the 1860-1870s.

30. Historical meaning and assessment of the reforms of the 1860-1870s in Russian historical science.

31. Socio-economic development of Russia in the second half of the 19th century.

32. Populism and the main trends in it in the 1860s - early 1880s.

33. Assessment of the populist movement in historical science.

34. Russia in the system international relations in 1856-1871 "The Alliance of the Three Emperors" in the 1870s.

35. Balkan crisis of the mid-1870s. And Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878

36. Russian policy in the Far East in the 1860-1890s. Selling Alaska.

37. Russia and European powers in the 1880-1890s. Formation of the Franco-Russian alliance.

38. Annexation of Central Asia to Russia in the 2nd half of the 19th century.

39. Mass liberation movement in the 60-80s of the 19th century, national, workers, peasants, students.

40. Assessment of the policies of Alexander III in historical science.

41. The internal political course of Alexander III. The development of censorship, reforms in the field of local government and court in the 1880-1890s.

42. Nations and the national question in the 1880-1890s.

43. Historical conditions for the development of culture in the first half of the 19th century. Government policy in the field of culture.

44. Education and enlightenment in Russia in the 1st half of the 19th century.

45. Development of science in Russia in the 1st half of the 19th century.

46. Development of artistic culture in the 1st half of the 19th century.

47. Historical conditions for the development of culture in the post-reform period. Government policy in the field of culture.

48. Education and enlightenment in the second half of the 19th century.

49. Development of science in Russia in the 2nd half of the 19th century.

50. Development of artistic culture in the 1860-1890s.

The merits of each candidate for professor. This measure turned out to be no less effective than competitions and certifications. The reports of a significant part of the fellows represent a summary of experience higher education Russia and therefore were in the center of attention of Russian professors. The publication of the reports was a manifestation of the policy of openness pursued by the ministry in the early 60s, during a period of noticeable...

He was unfriendly towards the new French emperor, Napoleon III, who turned into a monarch from the president of the French Republic, formed as a result of the revolution of 1848. 2. Russian foreign policy in the second half of the 19th century 2.1 Eastern War of 1853-1855. Thus, both the governments and peoples of Europe feared and did not like Russia and its reactionary and arrogant tsar...

Russia was an absolutist and serf-owning state. At the head of the Russian Empire was the emperor, who had full legislative, executive and judicial power. The population of Russia was divided into classes. The most wealthy, educated, privileged and dominant class was the nobility. The most important privilege of the nobility was the ownership of serfs. ...

Signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom. The abolition of serfdom was accompanied by reforms in all aspects of the life of Russian society. Land reform. The main issue in Russia during the 18th-19th centuries was the land-peasant issue. Catherine II raised this issue in the work of the Free Economic Society, which considered several dozen programs for the abolition of serfdom...

Page 1

A. A. Kornilov also tries to highlight this period in his course “History of Russia in the 19th century.” The author divides the reign of Alexander III into three stages: introductory 98

Recognizing the decisive role of the class struggle in history, M. N. Pokrovsky viewed the government policy of reform and reaction from precisely these positions, without, however, using the term “counter-forms.” In his opinion, the reform process in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. represented a “partial liquidation of the feudal order”, carried out “in the direction and to the extent to which it was beneficial to the nobility.” Pokrovsky is not inclined to contrast the policies of the 60s and 80s of the 19th century, emphasizing the continuity of the inherently reactionary “noble” political course.

Anna Radziwill's mistake
At the beginning of the 16th century, the Radziwills were first named among the most influential magnate families of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Belarusian and Polish chronicles. From that time on, their weight in the political, economic and cultural life of the state increasingly increased, until the Radziwills’ contemporaries began to call them the uncrowned kings of L...

Hike to Novgorod
Batu rushed to Novgorod. Torzhok, standing on Batu’s way, held out for 2 weeks and was taken only on March 5th. The city was a transit point for wealthy Novgorod merchants and traders from Vladimir and Ryazan, who supplied Novgorod with bread. Torzhok always had large reserves of grain. Here the Mongols hoped to replenish what had become depleted over the winter...

Was there even a coming of the Varangians as rulers to Rus'?
Early Russian princes had clearly Scandinavian names, slightly altered among the people in a Slavic manner. There are trade documents in Greek chronicles from 912 and 945, signed from Rus' with clearly Scandinavian names. None of the princes denied their descent from Rurik, if in later generations this dynastic relationship became...

All about car tuning

Alexander III: Tsar-Peacemaker. In those distant, remote years, the domestic policy of Alexander 3 in Russian historiography

Positive results of the reign of Alexander III

Negative results of the reign of Alexander III

Conclusion