"… neither thieves, nor covetous people, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor predators - will inherit the Kingdom of God."
(First Corinthians 6:10)
So, the "Great Reforms" of the 60s of the XIX century. committed. For Russia, they were of fateful importance, but the mass of feudal remnants remained. However, many innovations, along with a positive impact on the country, also had a negative component. The broken fates of the peasants convicted for illegal actions, the mass of people among the "lower classes" and among the "upper classes" who failed to find themselves in a new life, the seeds of discontent among the people - all this was a sad consequence of these reforms and there was no way to get away from this, although the revival in the economic life of the country and it was obvious.
Shevtsov's school for children of artisans, where they could get a working profession. It was located in Penza. However, it was a private establishment. And the government could and should have taken care of creating such schools on a massive scale on the eve of the reform.
By the way, it immediately affected the quality of life of the population of Russia, and caused such a phenomenon as an increase in average height and also weight among male conscripts. That is, per capita food production and consumption have clearly increased; the profitability of peasant farms has also increased; the tax burden has also decreased. By the way, the rate of taxation of peasant farms in Russia was much lower than in most European countries. The rise in grain prices, caused by the intensification of economic development in England and Germany, also played a positive role. On a positive note, the phenomenal increase in literacy was that literate people had more chances to make their lives better than illiterate people.
Each provincial town had its own “Vedomosti” as before …
All these data on the growth in the well-being of the Russian population give reason to look somewhat differently at some controversial issues related to the history of Russia in the period "after the reforms." Statistics show that in the post-reform period there was a decline in welfare, but it was associated either with a serious crop failure (for example, 1891 - 1892) or occurred during the years of the Russian-Japanese war and the revolution that followed it. And although most of the country's peasant population still lived very poorly, the overall dynamics of economic development was clearly positive. That is, the curve of economic profitability of peasant farms slowly but steadily went up, and not down, as it was considered an axiom in Soviet historiography! This fact is also confirmed by the so-called human development index or HDI adopted in 1990 by the UN, which links together such indicators as life expectancy, education level (i.e. literacy of the population in the country), as well as the volume of gross domestic product produced per per capita. So, although during the period of "Great Reforms" this HDI index in Russia was very low, but it was constantly growing. Moreover, the country noted high rates of economic development, which in the period 1861 - 1913. were quite comparable with the level of European countries, although they were somewhat lower than the rates demonstrated in the same years by the US economy.
Slowly but surely the latest cultural achievements reached the population of provincial cities. And, however, if you look at the dates, it is not at all slow! Announcement of December 1, 1896.
The political development of Russia in the years after 1861 can be characterized as successful. Russian society rather quickly followed the evolutionary path from autocracy to a constitutional monarchy of the Western European model, and in the period 1905 - 1906. in fact, it became. Political parties of different directions were created, literally (this is not a figure of speech!) Thousands of various public organizations, and even a free press, which largely shaped public opinion within the country. All this gives grounds to conclusively assert that it was enough for one or two more generations and these changes would have taken root in the life of Russian society, and then democratic changes in it would have become completely irreversible. By the way, the fact that just such a system (only without the monarch!) Was restored in Russia during the reforms already in the 1990s, which followed the failure of the experiment with the construction of a "socialist society", speaks volumes.
However, how can we combine the obvious successes of our country and the almost equally obvious growth of discontent and any opposition to the regime, both from the then liberal-democratic public and the “people” proper, which took place in Russia in 1905-1907? and later in 1917 ?!
This is the building of the noble assembly of the city of Penza at the turn of the century. There was enough money for the house, but not for the road in front of it!
Russian historian B. N. Mironov points out that two mass polls of public opinion were conducted in 1872 and 1902, and so they showed that contemporaries in their opinions on what became the position of the peasant masses after the abolition of serfdom, were divided: some believed that the conditions of its lives have clearly improved, the incomes of the peasant farms have increased, and that now they have both better food and better clothes. And the statistics confirmed it! The growth of conscripts and their weight increased from year to year! But there were those who argued that this was not so and also provided impressive data. It is interesting that, according to the general statement, the standard of living of Russians in absolute terms has nevertheless increased, but - and this is the most important thing - its improvement does not correspond to the aspirations of the masses, lags behind the level of their aspirations, and therefore - then it seems to many that their situation, on the contrary, has only worsened.
It is interesting that there were people who were aware of this even then. For example, such a famous poet as Afanasy Fet, who became a rural entrepreneur after the reform and was subjected to the most cruel defamation in the pages of the same liberal press by Nekrasov and Saltykov-Shchedrin, belonged to them. And this is what he wrote: “Artificial mental development, revealing a whole world of new needs and thus … outstripping the material means of a known environment, inevitably leads to new, unprecedented suffering, and then to enmity with the environment itself … I consider the greatest folly and cruelty to deliberately develop there are new needs in a person, without being able to give him the means to satisfy them. What good words! Isn't it true, they were said by an intelligent and far-sighted person and, one might say, directly about our day. After all, how many loans have our citizens grabbed and … they cannot pay back. Why take if there is nothing to give? But … I want external manifestations of a high quality of life, I want, I want, I want … That is, there are needs, but with the mind, alas, there are problems.
The interior of the Penza noble assembly was also impressive.
The privileged classes also affected the rise in the standard of living, and was also perceived by them as completely unsatisfactory, since, in addition to wealth, their representatives also did not receive the desired power and in the desired volume. And the very well-being of a significant part of the Russian nobility and a certain part of the clergy did not improve after the reforms, but, on the contrary, deteriorated. Well, the officers in Russia did not have enough money … even for their own uniforms. For this I had to constantly borrow, or to lead a life "beyond our means" at the expense of the sums that were sent from home. Moreover, this position of the military class was not changed by any of the military reforms, and even the introduction in 1908 of a new, and it seemed, was a cheaper protective form of khaki.
However, as we have already written about this here, people learned about all this not so much by themselves, as thanks to information received from outside. One heard or read something, told someone else. And now the image of the event and even your “own” attitude to it have already been formed. And here it should be noted that the Russian press already in the mid-70s of the nineteenth century began to show its "claws" to the authorities!
It began with the fact that Russia … lost the Crimean War to the allies and, according to the Paris Treaty of 1856, could no longer keep a military fleet on the Black Sea. When at the end of the 60s of the nineteenth century it was decided to restore it, it turned out that we had no money, as always. That is, there is no modern warships for that time, and - that's when they decided to build something completely unusual - "popovka" ships named after their creator, Vice-Admiral AA. Popov. They had the thickest armor at that time and were armed with the most powerful (when compared with other ships of that time) guns, but they were round like saucers!
And it is them that the Russian press, which has just fledged in essence, has chosen as a target for criticism! The first article about "popovkas" appeared in the newspaper "Golos", and everyone knew that the quality of the articles the newspaper did not shine, because they were written by non-specialists. "Golos" criticized "popovka" literally for everything: for their high cost, and for the absence of ramming on them, and for many other shortcomings, sometimes even frankly invented by the authors of these writings. Even in “Birzhevye vedomosti” and those criticism of these warships appeared, so one of his contemporaries even wrote: “All the newspapers (italics of the authors) are full of reproaches to the naval department (between the lines it is necessary to read: Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich)…”. But the whole point was that all this criticism was in non-specialized publications, and the departmental ones either simply kept silent, or limited themselves to the most stingy comments. The truth was that the newspapermen quickly realized that attacking "popovki" was quite safe, very easy, and even "patriotic." As a result, even the then heir to the royal throne (Alexander III) called these ships "filthy".
And this is how this building looks today. It houses the Legislative Assembly of the Penza Region. But the most important thing is what road is in front of him today. It took several decades to lay the dirty pavement in the asphalt! The one-story building in the foreground is the Museum of One Painting. There is no other such thing in Russia anymore. Pictures are changing. You look at one and tell you everything about it. Unusual and interesting.
That's how it is inside today …
But naval specialists saw all their shortcomings perfectly. But what could be done when there were no funds and the entire modern technical base for construction? The "popovs" themselves did an excellent job with the task! During the Russian-Turkish war, the Turkish fleet did not dare to shell either Odessa or Nikolaev. But if there were no "popovok" there, what then? Then there would be numerous casualties among civilians, destruction and "slap in the face of the authorities" that cannot protect their people! But then she defended and … it's still bad!
It seems that there was nothing special in all this? Well, the press has taken up criticism of bad ships, so what? You need to rejoice! This is a manifestation of citizenship in the press. In the same overseas England, both ships and their creators were also criticized in the newspapers, and how! However, there was a difference. There, in England, everyone was citizens, developed democratic institutions existed, as a result of which such an active position of the British press was in the order of things there. But in Russia at that time, there was no civil society. Therefore, any criticism of the authorities was viewed by the latter "as an attempt on the foundations." They were indignant, but … they just could not do anything!
But it was necessary … to act decisively and skillfully. To ridicule the absurdity of criticism of non-professionals through articles written by journalists paid for at the expense of the state, to remind that the opinion of amateurs in matters of naval development is a "worthless price", to cite as an example the fable of Ya. L. Krylov's "Pike and Cat" - "Trouble, if the shoemaker starts the pies" (by the way, and now we see a lot of examples of this, right?), And finally ban newspapers altogether from writing about what their journalists do not understand at all. But, as you can see, tsarism, as before, hoped for its own strength, and did not want to be scattered about "trifles."
Meanwhile, it was precisely the polemic about the “popovkas” that became the first example in the history of our country of a discussion in society of the naval policy of the Russian state. And an example is very indicative, because she demonstrated to everyone that "this is possible"! That there are topics and issues, considering which, you can kick an official at any level with impunity (even if only between the lines!), And it is completely unprofessional to write about anything.
True, as long as monarchism remained the foundation of public ideas about power both at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, it was not so dangerous. General A. I. Denikin wrote in his memoirs about the presence in the Russian mass consciousness of precisely paternalistic values, including the tsarist autocracy. And in 1905-1907, in his opinion, “the throne was saved only because most of the people still understood their monarch” and acted in his interests.
It is interesting that the supporters of the liberal reforms of that time, sincerely convinced that the autocracy had no historical perspective, for example, such as was … Minister of War A. F. Rediger, were completely loyal monarchists. But they saw the reforms of the autocratic system of government as a matter of a very distant future.
Note that the then official propaganda, including the periodicals, set itself three main goals, which corresponded to three parallel streams of information. First, it was necessary to show that only the existing government can continue the best traditions of the royal House of Romanov and ensure Russia's very existence. And if so, the autocracy must be supported and strengthened by all means. Secondly, paternalism was declared the main value of public consciousness. This was the doctrinal foundation of domestic politics. The people needed proof of the care and active patronage of the tsar-father, and the propaganda had to find this proof. That is why the Russians were called for permanent unity with the autocracy, and for overcoming the quite recognized gap between it and the entire people.
With the aim of killing many "birds with one stone" since February 21, 1913, replacing each other, an unprecedented series of mass festivities, colorful theatrical shows, magnificent parades and impressive prayers appeared to the eyes of the subjects of the Russian emperor. A special committee was created, which was engaged in organizing the tsar's jubilee, and it even provided for the minting of medals, and even about the laying of chapels, monuments and the amnesty of convicts could not be said. In the provinces, people lined up in long lines to receive these commemorative medals.
Traveling around many cities of the Russian Empire within the framework of these celebrations, the tsar could see with his own eyes the support of his throne by his people, which to the direct participants in the action most of all resembled … then, when passing, they were not only open, but literally littered with people). And they were closed almost from six o'clock in the morning. " “Brothers, let go. Let me see the king-father. So what if you drink a little … for joy, God knows, for joy … It's no joke, we'll see the Tsar's Majesty now. Well, I’m even that.” "Ignorant, pig" - the outraged voices of those around were heard. "I could not wait … I would have done it, then at least peel off."
It is interesting in this regard, the opinion of the editor of "Penza Provincial Gazette" D. Pozdnev, on the same occasion he wrote that the purpose of the printed word should be considered the elimination of disdain for everything "native, Russian, which is noticed in a certain part of our society", should be aimed at the destruction of "cosmopolitanism", which, according to his concept, was corrupting the national might of the country and poisoning the "Russian social organism". On this information "platform", and in its very center, it was necessary to fix the image of Nicholas II with all his "august family". To solve this problem, in the understanding of D. Pozdnev, meant directly linking the image of the tsar with “national self-determination” under the aegis of autocracy, with “the development of cultural unity” and “Russian nationalism”. Very similar to many of today's statements on the super-ethnos of the Rus, isn't it?
Penza Diocesan School.
Trying to enlist popular support, Nicholas II and his advisers tried by all means to reduce the gap that existed between him and his subjects, and which was, in general, obvious. For this, they tried to give him a resemblance to a common man. Such was the image of the tsar in his official popular biography "The Reign of Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich", which was first published in supplements to newspapers, and then as a separate book in 1913. Its author was professor and general A. G. Yelchaninov, who was a member of the imperial retinue, and although he praised the past past of Russia, the tsar's biography itself was shown to him very modern both in the nature of its presentation in the text and in its content. The author tried to create a completely new image of the tsar, who looks more like a missionary than an autocrat working in the sweat of his hands: "now diligence, not heroism, distinguishes the Russian tsar …". Nicholas II was presented as a "crowned worker", working tirelessly … invariably serving as a lofty example of his firm "loyalty in the performance of his own duty."
But with regard to information about really positive phenomena in the country, there was a typical ideological aberration. So, cadet A. I. Shingarev, in his book "An Endangered Village", which he wrote in 1907, quite deliberately exaggerated the colors in his descriptions of the everyday hardships of the life of the Russian peasantry, just to "denigrate" the hated tsarist autocracy more strongly. That is, any, more or less negative, fact that had a place in Russia at that time, instead of being scrupulously studied from all sides, was interpreted by the liberal intelligentsia unambiguously as a direct consequence of the "rottenness of the tsarist government." And the loud "lament for the peasantry" was also one of the most effective methods of information warfare against them!
Although, of course, there was no talk of any conscious "PR" then, all these publications fit well into the information schemes of PR-impact on society. However, practically all domestic and foreign researchers of this topic write about the pro-pyarist phenomena in society and the historical roots of PR today, so their very existence is beyond doubt.
And this is how this building looks today. Something they will not undertake in any way … And whether it is necessary to restore all junk?
It is known how great a role in the fall of the Romanov dynasty was played by the book-photo album “The Tsarina and“The Holy Devil”, published abroad by A. M. Bitter for money … received from the future member of the Provisional Government V. Purishkevich. This book was sold in shops and shops on Nevsky Prospekt in St. Petersburg freely and at the most affordable price until the very abdication of Nicholas II. Well, this "edition" was a pretentious selection of fragments of the tsar and tsarina's correspondence with Rasputin taken out of context, and even a frank … photomontage. But it played its role, adversely affecting the opinion of the masses, and even that part of the population that did not see it, but heard about the existence of this book through popular rumor.
Thus, the development of a free and independent press in the country is always a "double-edged sword", since everyone can use it both for the good and for … evil to the established law and order. But it was precisely the development of such a press in Russia in the period after the reform of 1861, especially on the eve and during the years of the revolution of 1905-1907. was both extremely fast and - it is important to emphasize this - virtually uncontrollable by anyone.
At the same time, as already noted, even the most seemingly innocent of these publications could, if desired, add a certain "fly in the ointment" to the picture they describe of the life and everyday life of Russian society at that time, and do it in an absolutely innocent way. For example, although in the second issue of Novaya Zarya, the editorial board, answering questions, stated that the public and political life of Russian society was ignored by it only because the purpose of the publication was “to provide readers with purely fictional material,” already in the third issue of Novaya Zarya "Was published material" on the topic of the day "-" Sexual Anarchy ". In it, a certain A. El wrote about the terrible wave of eroticism that had taken over the whole society and pathetically exclaimed that it had already borne fruit. “In almost every issue of the newspaper you will find reports of rape, attempts on the honor of a woman. The mores of the modern mass of the population have reached that point. Yes, the whole mass, which so willingly, one might say, eagerly pounces on pornographic works - magazines, pictures, postcards, etc.”, after which this topic was, of course, continued in the magazine.
Thus, there is no doubt that journalists and newspapermen in not only the central, but also in the provincial publications by the beginning of the twentieth century. already quite possessed the ability to give their information any desired or required shade of them. That is, to create by this the reader any desired impression for himself, including a negative one, about anything, and about anyone!
Historian B. N. In this regard, Mironov makes an interesting conclusion that, based on the totality of all the factors associated with the three revolutions in Russia, it can be concluded that they were all the result of the brilliant PR-activity of the opponents of the monarchy. The creation of "virtual reality", grandiose efforts to discredit it in the press and skillful propaganda of revolutionary ideas among the masses, with skillful manipulation of public opinion - all this ultimately bore fruit and demonstrated the broad possibilities of "public relations" and the printed word as tools of struggle for power. Moreover, it is obvious that the liberal-radical public first won the information war against the government in informing the population of Russia and only after that did it go to seize power in the country.
Well, and the events of the First World War in this regard most of all corresponded to the goals of the "overthrowers of the foundations", since they made it possible to explain all military failures by the shortcomings of the autocracy. At the same time, a process of rapid transformation took place in the mass sentiment during the war years. The unity of society and the monarchy in the face of the danger hanging over the Motherland was at first genuine and sincere. But in exchange for sacrifices, the people, according to the concept of paternalism characteristic of traditional society, had the right to wait for "royal favor", the ideas about which were very different among certain social groups. The peasants dreamed of allotting them land, the workers expected an improvement in their material situation, the "educated strata" - participation in the management of the state, the soldiers' masses - taking care of their families, well, and representatives of various national minorities - both political and cultural autonomy, etc. … The collapse of social aspirations and the immersion of Russian society in the chaos of anarchy and crisis, the "weakness" of the monarchical power and its inability to resolve the contradictions of social development that took place - that is what led to the formation of an anti-monarchist ideal in society, in which the sovereign turned from a "patron father" of his people in the main culprit of all national disasters.
At the same time, anti-war protests and even the pogrom movement that took place in the provinces can be equally attributed to the protest forms of popular discontent. Any, even an insignificant mistake of the government in organizing PR-impact on society was unambiguously interpreted in a negative way for it. Moreover, this was again facilitated by both the central and the provincial press, and even of the spiritual content. For example, the massive sale in the Penza province of postcards with "a joint image of his Imperial Majesty Emperor Nicholas II and Wilhelm II …" what did Penza Diocesan Vedomosti say on its pages: “Do you love the Germans? “How can I love them, when I had all their abominations before my eyes,” replied the peasant with indignation. Bessonovka S. Timofeevich, and these words of his were immediately published in the "Penza diocesan vedomosti". But the negative tone of this material was obvious, and the religious edition clearly should not have given it, so as not to whip up passions among the people once again!
"Tambovskie vedomosti". As you can see, the subscription price has fluctuated around 4 rubles for many years.
True, the mass consciousness during this period of time was still very contradictory and multi-layered. So at least one third of Russian society was still committed to traditional spiritual values. But the fate of the country, nevertheless, was a foregone conclusion, because this amount was no longer enough, and no efforts of either the central or local press (in those cases when he was still loyal to the throne!) Could no longer change anything.
