The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Ethnic question in the history of the Russian terrorism of the 19th century



t. V. Sholomova

The ETHNIC QUESTION IN THE HISTORY OF the RUSSIAN TERRORISM of the 19th CENTURY

In article relevant aspects the nationality problems in the history of terrorism in Russia in connection with identification of prerequisites of formation of the social conflicts of the present are considered of the 19th century.

The Russian terrorism of the 19th century is defined as socio-political today. Meanwhile the national component in the terrorist movement of this period was extremely important for contemporaries. For zemlevol-ets and narodovolets the ethnic question was not on the first place; but in the opinion of public opinion national origin of terrorists, starting with Karakozov, had extreme value.

In 1859 I.S. Turgenev published the novel "On the eve of"; the Bulgarian revolutionary Dmitry Insarov dreaming to exempt the homeland from the Turkish yoke was the main character of the novel. "To free the homeland! — the Russian girl Elena Stakhova in love with Insarov exclaimed — and it is terrible to utter these words — so they are big!". "To free the homeland" — it there could be an euphemism: in 1859 Russia was eager for release not less, than Bulgaria — but another. Perhaps, the author of the novel suggested the younger generation to think that now it is the most noble: to decipher an allegory or to apprehend an appeal to sympathy to oppressed Bulgarians literally. Turgenev was guided, most likely, by ideology of just ended reign: Nicholas I, as we know, refused

to help suffering brothers in faith (Bulgarians) not because of personal cruelty, but because, on his deep belief, in this life the right of the sovereign (the Turkish sultan in relation to the citizens — Bulgarians) had to stand above interests very1.

The critic N.A. Dobrolyubov was the person direct and severe; he, first, did not know and did not want to know any euphemisms; secondly — lived already in other time and other ideas. He did not see anything progressive in opposition of the right of the sovereign and the right of fight for national freedom. In Article "When Will the Present Day Come?" 2 devoted to the novel it demanded the unambiguous answer to a question, whose homeland it is necessary to save. And also explained to the inscrutable reader what the choice of the hero is based on: domestic censorship, silly and timid, would not miss the work about the Russian fighter for freedom. The choice of the Bulgarian is accidental, Dobrolyubov as on his place there could be any Slav, except the Pole and the Russian told: not only Bulgaria suffers from foreign oppression. Thus, it planned two oppositions: the first — all slav brothers (both the Pole, and the Russian); the second — the Russian and the Pole.

The Polish question was extremely painful for Russians of the 19th century and for sa-

my Poles: periodic partitions of Poland, accession of a part of its territory to Russia (officially was considered that this measure had extremely positive consequences — stabilization of the Polish economy and restoration of law and order) led to the fact that Poland which is on position of semi-colony was eager for independence. Poles excited rebellions (in 1830 and 1863), the Russian government cruelly suppressed these revolts. "The Polish patriot" Valerian of Lukasinskiy3 spent in solitary confinement of 48 years, from them 37 — in Shlisselburg, and by the end of its stay in fortress even the chief of the III Office did not know who is such and for what it is put (the last and remained a riddle — probably, there was enough only one "Polish patriotism" to die the prisoner).

A progressive part of the Russian society sympathized with Poles (so, the poetess E. Rostopchina suffered for the poem "Mismatch" where under the guise of a matrimonial quarrel the conflict of two people was presented what "well-wishers" immediately reported to Nicholas I about). In the middle of the 19th century the sympathy to Poland turned into a kind of political opposition; "decent" people identified each other from sympathy to the Polish revolt of 1863 goda4. Inhabitants and "patriots" were wary of Poles and were inclined to expect from them any mucks. For example, during the well-known St. Petersburg fires of 1862 among the people there was a belief that "students and Poles" are guilty of everything. "Students" and "Poles" were caught and beaten, being guided by exclusively external sign — length of hair.

This remarkable mytheme of narrow-minded consciousness (about unconditional fault in all national disasters of Poles and students [nihilists]) was realized by V. Krestovsky in the novel "Bloody Padded Stool" (1875) where the Polish plot

takes the ordinary place of Judeo-Masonic conspiracy: Poles everywhere, in all cities and in all population groups, they parasitize on a body of the trustful Russian people, they spin intrigues and skillfully manipulate revolutionaries (nihilists), forcing them to commit subversive activities — for example, to scatter leaflets and to lift on a revolt of peasants. Respectively, the fact that it seems preparation of the Russian revolution is actually preparation of the Polish revolt, and those whom you, perhaps, consider fighters for freedom of the killed Russian people, actually fight for freedom of the proud people Polish. Here an example of national insidiousness in the novel: fine themselves the Polish noblewoman, the governor's spouse, ryaditsya in a black dress and carries it day after day, and the Russian provincial ladies in which the imitative element is strongly developed, after for gubernatorshy also everything entirely dress black. Possibly, black color to the proud Pole to the person — on the contrary, she is in mourning for the unfortunate oppressed fatherland and, dictating fashion, forces to be in mourning for this occasion and naive ladies who so never and learn what recreancy was made.

To honor of the Russian society, the novel caused indignation, but not joy on the fact that at last though someone opened eyes on the events. By the way, the plot of the Polish negodyaystvo is expressed, though is not so bright, and in the novel by Krestovsky "The St. Petersburg slums", known to modern public thanks to a TV series "The St. Petersburg secrets". However today, when nobody perceives Poles as internal enemies, nobody is able and to understand what the author hints at, giving to the main rascal a surname Bodlevsky.

But the atmosphere of a narrow-minded polono-phobia made the business: when, on Dobrolyubov's call, the Russian figure, at last, was (Karakozov shot at Alexander II on April 4, 1866 at a lattice of Years -

it a garden), first, nobody was delighted, liberaly5, conservatives. Secondly, he was immediately considered the Pole. "No! It not Russian! It cannot be Russian! He is Pole!" — overstrained in "A northern bee" of M. of Katkov6. And though in several days the identity of the criminal was discovered — it was the Saratov landowner Dmitry Vladimirovich Karakozov, twenty six years ("Regrettably, but he Russian" — was melancholically noticed by the Sovereign Imperator) — the secret hope for his Polish origin did not die in the hearts of the authorities hard yet.

This hope also led to the fact that with unfortunate Karakozov (the insane, according to knowing him lichno7) managed extremely cruelly. Rumors about tortures of the prisoner were widely spread in the Russian society though tortures, literally this word, did not apply to Karakozov. But to it did not allow to sleep for day; if he fell asleep, he was awoken by everyone a quarter of hour (the poor creature even learned to sleep sitting on a chair and to swing in a dream a leg to mislead the torturers — however they exposed it and long were indignant with excess of ingenuity at the podopechnogo8). The purpose of this measure was as follows: it was supposed that once a sprosonok Karakozov will lose control over himself, will start talking in Polish and will give those the true origin. Then everything would speak, everything would rise on the places: the Russian people would still love the tsar-father, and the people Polish would be convicted of base ingratitude and low insidiousness again.

In business there is one more character — somebody Osip Komissarov, the Tula kartuznik who allegedly pushed the malefactor under a hand at the moment of a shot. Neither then, nor now nobody does not care about the truth — Komissarov made it or to him it was thought up. The reflektornost of its movement was treated as instinctive readiness hundred forty years ago

the Russian person to defend the sovereign, and in days of the Soviet power — as the annoying accident which interfered with execution of a grand design and exposing indifference of the people to the fate of the tsar: well you will think, the hand unintentionally moved...

Newspapers and magazines in 1866 eulogized Komissarov, compared his feat to Susanin's feat, and it is necessary — what unexpected, pleasant detail! — it just comes out of Kostroma, from the places which gave once to Russia Ivan Susanin! The country exulted: the tsar is wonderfully saved again. Thanksgiving prayers served in all churches (the being narodovolets Lev Tikhomirov, already during a time of the repentance, noticed that there was, actually, nothing to be happy because day when the Russian person shoots at the Russian tsar, it is necessary to consider not the most joyful, and the most regrettable...); Komissarov was urgently granted the nobility (from now on he began to be called Komissarov-Kostroma); patriotically adjusted workers in Moscow beat students, calling them "Poles" 9; the public at the Mariinsky Theater, on the dated representation of "Life for the tsar" catcalled the actors representing Poles; the government issued the decree forbidding to men to have long hair, and to women short on pain of administrative expulsion — so Russia started moving... And when a year later in Paris Pole Alexander Berezovsky shot at Alexander II, nobody neither was surprised especially, nor was upset because as in far London A.I. fairly noticed, "silly once again to be upset in the same occasion".

But a story with Poles unexpectedly did not end with unfortunate Karakozov's death and the counterbalancing Berezovsky's attempt. National and esthetic conclusions were drawn, and first of all the Russian revolutionaries: thirteen years later, spring of 1879, to St. Petersburg to the earth -

to rollers three who were disappointed circulation "in the people" and persons interested to kill the tsar were even. It were: Russian Solovyov, Pole Kobylyansky and Jew Goldenberg. At the time of their emergence the zemlevolets were not going to kill the tsar yet, they came to this decision some months later. But with three future heroes it was necessary to do something. Zemlevolets refused to help them in an official order, but in private — decided to support one, Alexander Solovyov because as Vera V. wrote many years later, "not the Pole and not the Jew, but Russian had to go on the sovereign" 10. Indeed, if reigning once Karakozov's nationality so upset, then he should be upset with the same once again. And, of course, such important issue as regicide, should not have looked uzkonatsionalny revenge, it had to symbolize renunciation of the Russian people of the Russian tsar. Coming "for business", Solovyov loaded the gun with bear bullets — according to the scale of a game.

If (at least, in narrow-minded consciousness) Poles chased hundred sixty years the Russian tsar — has to or there should not have come hour of a historical revenge? Whether always patriots Susanin and Komissarov have to interpose in the matter, following a breast ways of artful monsters? Came, at last, on March 1, 1881, day of triumph and not come true hopes of narodovolets. The tsar was killed with Ignatiy Ioa-khimovich Grinevitsky's bomb; the metalshchik was mortally wounded at explosion. And here we encounter difficult explainable facts: not only that fatally wounded Grinevitsky, for a minute who recovered consciousness for a question of the one who is he, whispered: I don't know». His senior party fellows, Perovskaya, Zhelyabov and others, persistently refused to tell on a sledst-viiya his name — why? They could damage nothing to the dead — unless to his relatives. On the contrary,

it is possible to assume that narodovolets were interested in that the name of the hero became known. But they were silent — for reasons of party discipline either to spite — or, perhaps, for other reason — because the young hero the origin contradicted national and esthetic installation of terrorists — "not the Pole and not the Jew, but Russian". It is impossible to claim, of course, categorically that Grinevitsky was Pole (the "litviny" ambassador of a number of reasonings calls him Tikhomirov11) — but he was a Catholic and, certainly, was not Russian in any way. Having made a feat which value narodovolets could not underestimate in any way, it, nevertheless, damaged them the song. Perhaps, be not the organization in such bad way because of the human losses caused by arrests Perovskaya and would not put it in a chain of metalshchik, maybe, if Timofey Mikhaylov was on the scene of action, and Nikolay Rysakov would throw the bomb slightly pritselny, the regicide and it would be Russian. But it did not happen.

"The ancient dispute of Slavs between itself" came to the end in 1918 when Lenin liberated Poland. Traces of "the Polish question" were absolutely erased in national consciousness, even in its narrow-minded option. It is curious, however, that already at the beginning of the XX century the national focus in the Russian terrorism is shifted towards other "ethnic minority" — Jews. A. Geyfman in the book "Revolutionary terror in Russia: 1894-1917" in detail investigates terrorist movements on the outskirts of the Russian Empire (in Poland, Finland, Armenii12) and points that the number of Jews in many maximal and anarchist groups most of all was evident and irritated contemporaries what the joke given in the book testifies to: "Eleven anarchists are shot in fortress; from them fifteen Jews" 13.

Studying evolution of "the internal enemy" in the XX century can be continued. Then, passing "foreign spies" and the "masked" advocates of a world imperialism who were diligently caught in days of the Stalin mode, we inevitably will come to the analysis of a modern situation and to history modern Russian terro-

prism. Years go, and we have the same picture with the small amendment: we still have a terrorist ethnic minority. The question of whether modern Russian terrorism is Chechen, that is uzkonatsionalny, or a wing of the international terrorism, remains a reason for discussions.

1 "For example, Turk Alexander I perceived a revolt of Christian Greeks against oppressors as "revolutionary sign of time" and considered it as a revolt of citizens against legitimate authority, apart from himself has the right to intercede for oppressed brothers in faith. & lt;...> To Nicholas I, the noble beginnings of Christian policy, preservation of peace, legality and European balance were close and clear in what he sought to follow the predecessor, inheriting together with it and his problems. He as to the consecutive lawyer and the resolute opponent of any revolutionary manifestations had even to intercede for the Turkish sultan from the risen Christians, not to allow propaganda in favor of Slavs in the Ottoman Empire and in Austria". B. Tarasov. Knight of autocracy//Nikolay the First and his time: In 2 TM, 2000. T. 1. Page 3-56. Page 43.
2 N.A. Dobrolyubov. When will the present day come?//N.A. Dobrolyubov. Compositions: In the 9th TM; L., 1964. T. 6. Page 96-104.
3 A.F. Smirnov. "Confidential prisoner"//Prisoners of the Shlisselburg fortress. L., 1978. Page 118-128.
4 For example, history of acquaintance of Apollinariya Suslova to writers E. Tour and M. Vovchok: M. Vovchok, having talked about creative plans and about A.I., started a "indecent" conversation about summer dresses; E. A tour and A. Suslova, having hardly got acquainted, rushed each other on a breast and "long sobbed over misfortunes of poor Poles". Then they were on friendly terms all life. (L. L. Dostoyevsky's beloved: Apollinariya Suslova. The biography in documents, letters, materials. M, 1994. Page 157).
5 "Shot on April 4 to us not to liking. We waited from it for disasters, we were revolted by responsibility which was undertaken by some fanatic. We in general hate surprises, neither on a name-day, nor in squares: the first are never successful, the second are almost always harmful". A.I. A.I. Irkutsk and St. Petersburg (on March 5 and on April 4, 1866)//A.I. A.I. Complete works: In the 30th TM, 1954-1964. T. 19. Page 58-65. Page 58.
6 A.I. A.I. quotes a fragment from Katkov's article: "Believe that it is the disguised revolutionary emissary" (A.I. A.I. Irkutsk and St. Petersburg (on March 5 and on April 4, 1866)//A.I. A.I. Complete works: In the 30th TM, 1954-1964. T. 19. Page 58-65, 63). "Revolutionary" suspicion was replaced by national: "He purely speaks Russian" — it is told in the first official information on a shot ("Northern mail", on April 5, 1866 to No. 70). "It not Russian, it cannot be Russian! & lt;...> He is Pole". (Katkov's article in the Moskovsky Telegraph newspaper. 1866. April 8. No. 73). The first authentic message about the identity of eaten appears on April 13 in No. 77 of "Northern mail": Saratov landowner D.V. Karakozov (Tsit. on: A.I. A.I. Complete works: In the 30th TM, 1954-1964. T. 19. Page 384).
7 About Karakozov's attempt by eyes of the person, it is good knowing it, see: Z.K. rally Z.K. Vospominaniya. Rally. M. Klevensky's publication//Revolutionary movement of the 1860th years. M, 1932. Page 135-146.
8 Kropotkin P.A. Notes of the revolutionary. M.; L., 1933.
9 Z.K. rally. Decree. soch. Page 144.
10 V. V. Alexander Solovyov//V. V. Complete works: In the 7th TM, 1932. Page 193-199; 197.
11 L. Tikhomirov. Memoirs. M.; L., 1927. Page 319.
12 A. Geyfman. Revolutionary terror in Russia, 1894-1917. M, 1997. Page 18-64.
13 A. Geyfman. Decree. soch. Page 51.

T. Sholomova

THE NATIONAL PROBLEM IN THE HISTORY OF RUSSIAN TERRORISM OF THE XIX CENTURY

The issues of nationality in the history terrorism in Russia of the XIX century have been considered with respect to the identification of premises of the formation of social conflicts of modernity.

Rose? Betty
Other scientific works: