“… And they worshiped the beast, saying: who is like this beast, and who can fight with them? And there was given him a mouth speaking proud and blasphemous … And it was given to him to wage war with the saints and to conquer them; and authority was given to him over every tribe and people and tongue and nation"
(Revelations of Saint John the Divine 4: 7)
We often argue about the role and place of information in the history of our society. But how can we argue? “You are a dreamer! It just can't be! - an unfounded statement is made in response to the thesis, confirmed (!) by a link to the source of information. Moreover, data from an archive or a solid monograph. Of course, a person has the right to doubt. But it is not a statement that needs to be opposed, but at least something similar. But where is the counter-argument with the same reference to the source? Unfortunately, the fact that the pen is the same bayonet, and it is necessary to know how to use and learn this as a weapon, is still not understood by everyone.
Meanwhile, it turned out that my colleagues and I had to work for many years with Soviet (and Russian, including pre-revolutionary) newspapers, that is, an important source of information about the past. For example, I personally had to read all the local newspapers "Gubernskiye Vedomosti" from 1861 to 1917, then my graduate student studied all local newspapers, including "Eparchialnye Vedomosti" from 1884 to 1917, and graduate student S. Timoshina did the same with printed publications Penza and the USSR from 1921 to 1953. During the Second World War the newspaper "Pravda" underwent the most careful study, and this work continues now, then all local newspapers of the era of perestroika and up to 2005 were studied. All this made it possible to accumulate a solid amount of information, and most importantly, to draw interesting conclusions and write a monograph "The poisoned pen or the journalists of the Russian empire against Russia, the journalists of the USSR against the USSR." However, the publication of such a monograph is not an easy and long-term affair, so the idea appeared to acquaint TOPWAR readers with it in the form of separate articles, which nevertheless fully convey its content.
IN. Shpakovsky
"Irkutsk Gubernskiye Vesti" of 1904 (48th year of publication!) - seemingly already quite modern edition. The announcement of theatrical performances in the most prominent place, because there were no TVs then, and people regularly went to the theater!
It hardly makes sense to convince someone that all the reality around us, although it exists, in general, independently of us (in any case, this is how learned philosophers explain it to us), in reality there is only that each of he sees and understands us. That is, any person is the Universe, and when he dies, then … she also dies with him. We didn't have the Battle on the Ice, but someone wrote about it, that's why we know about it! We also have not been at the foot of Angel Falls, but we know about it, firstly, because information about it is available in various magazines, encyclopedias and also in Wikipedia, and secondly - "it was shown on TV."
Well, in the past it was much more difficult for people to receive information. It was brought with them by "kaliki perekhozhny", carried by messengers and shouted privetails in the squares, and then the time came for the first printed newspapers and magazines. Everything published in them was extremely subjective, and it became even more subjective when it was reflected in the minds of their readers, who were not very literate, moreover. But the authorities very quickly understood the power of the printed word, and realized that the printed form of disseminating information allows it to easily change the picture of the world at its own discretion and thus change public opinion, since, without relying on it, it would not have lasted even a day. … This is how the authorities acted both in the West and in the East, and exactly the same thing happened in Russia. That is, it was realized that heightened tyranny is not always effective. This is how the step towards managing public opinion with information was taken. Moreover, this happened exactly when mass, large-circulation newspapers appeared in Russia, although the then Russian authorities did not know how to use it effectively.
Why are we writing about all this? Yes, because nothing is so simple and does not appear from scratch. And the journalists who, with their articles, also had a hand in the collapse of the USSR, were also brought up in our country not at all because of dampness, but were brought up in families, received a certain education, read books, in a word, absorbed the mentality of the people to whom they were same and belong. Modern sociologists have proved that in order to radically change the views of a significant group of people, the life of at least three generations is needed, and the life of three generations is a century. That is, some events that took place, well, for example, in 1917, have their roots in 1817, and if in 1937, then they should be looked for in 1837. And, by the way, this was exactly the year when the authorities in Russia finally realized the meaning of the printed word, having established the newspaper “Gubernskiye Vedomosti” on June 3 by the “Highest Command”. As early as January 1838, Vedomosti was published in 42 provinces of Russia, i.e. the coverage area of this publication of the territory of the state turned out to be very high. Thus, this happened not at the initiative of individual individuals and not at the interest of local readers, but at the behest of the government. But, like everything that in Russia came out (and comes out!) From the hands of the government, and this "seal" turned out to be some kind of obviously "undeveloped".
The same edition, but in Tambov, 1847. Boring, isn't it?
Here is what the editor of the unofficial part of "Nizhegorodskie gubernskie vedomosti" wrote and at the same time an official for special assignments under the governor A. A. Odintsove A. S. Gatsisky: “Having started to read the provincial statements, you see the poverty and poverty of the content. Apart from local statistical data devoid of full interest, apart from information about the progress of the case on the introduction of charter letters in the province, some decisions of the provincial presence on peasant affairs and government orders on the peasant question, there is almost nothing. Provincial Gazette differs from all other existing in the world that no one reads them of their own free will and of their own free will …”And such newspapers were printed in Russia almost everywhere!
In the Penza province "Penza Provincial News" flocks were published in 1838 from January 7, and consisted, as elsewhere, of two parts: there is an advertisement. And it's all! There was no journalism in it! The size of the sheet was small, the “blind” font was small, so it was not even so much a newspaper as … an information sheet, the use of which was very minimal. In 1845, an all-Russian section appeared, which was the same for all provincial newspapers, as well as censorship “blank spots”. On January 1, 1866, Penza Diocesan Gazette began to appear in the province. Penza Gubernskie Vedomosti was first published only once a week, in 1873 already twice, and only since 1878 - every day. But we got too ahead of ourselves.
In the meantime, we need to tell what Russia was like at that time, so that it is easier to imagine who in those years was the consumer of information from domestic newspapers.
What a wretched life, isn't it? But … someone liked this squalor. "That is why Russia was strong, that, covering the shame of the face with a brad, like a dove, in holy ignorance, offered up prayers!" Who said that?
And this is best done on the basis of the opinion of an "outsider", for example, the French envoy, Baron Prosper de Barant. He was in Russia just from 1835 to 1841, that is, when this very "provincial seal" was introduced in our country, and left behind interesting notes called "Notes on Russia", which his son-in-law published later in 1875.
It is interesting - and this is very important - that Baron de Barant did not idealize Russia at all, but managed to see the main thing in it: in his opinion, Russia at that time had already embarked on the path of modernization and was slowly (albeit steadily!) Moving in the same direction with Europe … He further wrote that Russia in 1801 (Russia of Paul I) and Russia in 1837 (Russia of Emperor Nicholas) are, in fact, two different countries, although the form of government is the same. The Baron saw the difference in the strengthening of the strength of public opinion, which was awakened by an acquaintance with Europe during the campaigns of the Russian army to the West during the Napoleonic Wars. At the same time, the Russia of Nicholas I to the French diplomat did not at all appear to be the kind of police state that Herzen saw it, and where free speech was immediately suppressed in the bud.
"Tula Provincial Gazette" in 1914.
Barant wrote that in Russia absolute power no longer relied on the "personal fantasies" of its suzerain and was not a visible personification of "Eastern barbarism and despotism." The monarchy was still absolute, but already "feeling its duty towards the country."
But not only the power has changed, the people themselves have changed. The monarch was forced to take into account the factor of public opinion; public opinion had already appeared, although it did not have "tribunes and newspapers"; the working population, yes, still far from social life, but having all the potential for this - this is such a Barant, a politician of the most liberal persuasion, Russia at that time saw. As for the need to abolish serfdom, in his opinion, only a madman could demand a sudden reform in this direction, which would become a real disaster for the country … - the diplomat considered.
And this is a "special interest edition." See how whimsically and diligently it is designed. Well, yes, and the year is already 1888!
The main drawback of the Russian education system, according to de Barant, was the narrow-profile system of training specialists created by Peter I. But Nicholas I was also a supporter of such a system. “It is necessary,” he said to the ambassador, “to teach everyone what he should be able to do in accordance with the place prepared for him by God,” which greatly saddened Barant. In his opinion, where there was no public education, there can be no public; there is no public opinion, science and literature are not developing, there is no that intelligent atmosphere that is so necessary for an armchair scientist and an erudite who is completely immersed in his scientific books. Most try to learn their craft, that's all. But at the same time he was amazed that many representatives of the lower strata of society in Moscow and St. Petersburg could read, and they were coachmen … fiacras or even men dressed in rags, but with a book in their hands. He regarded book publishing in Russia as one of the best signs. And if thirty years ago in Moscow and St. Petersburg there were one or two bookstores and that's all, then "today it has become a big business."
He further noted that there are two directions in the development of culture and spirituality in the country: enlightenment by the government in the form as it understood it. And at the same time, his own social movement, expressed in the desire to develop his mind and acquire new knowledge. However, both of these movements are hampered by the Russian character, which is inherent in apathy and lacks the spirit of competition. That is, a Russian person understands that by his work he can improve his position, but very often he is just … lazy!
The reason for this, in his opinion, was the fact that Russia chose the Eastern, that is, the Byzantine type of Christianity, in which the idea of progress was initially absent. Therefore, what in Europe is called free or liberal professions never took place in Russia. Since Peter I, as attention has already been paid to this, limited himself only to that education, which allowed the country to receive only narrow specialists, and nothing more.
In Germany, interest in the Russian provincial pre-revolutionary press is so high that such monographs are published there …
Barant regretted that the Russian merchants, as the most active stratum of the Russian population, did not have the same advantages and social rights in Russia as the nobility, and noticed that the problem that the Russian emperor was trying to solve was that he wanted Russia and trade with industry developed, and the budget grew, and so that Russia would be equal to Europe, but at the same time, so that merchants remained submissive and controlled - this is the current situation in Russia, isn't it ?! That is, the Russian emperor dreamed of "reforms without reforms", and following European fashions, and even more so a way of life, he was considered almost the most important cause of all misfortunes and troubles in Russia.
