The student movement and the current political situation A student strike was declared at St. Petersburg University. A number of other higher education institutions joined it. The movement has already spread to Moscow and Kharkov. Judging by all the data that

M. V. Novikov, T. B. Perfilova

Student unrest on the eve of the “era of Great Reforms”

The article examines the problem of reflection of Russian university students on the end of the era of Emperor Nicholas I and the hopes associated with this event for positive changes in the life of higher education in Russia.

Keywords Keywords: student movement, student self-government, protest sentiments, charity funds, scientific and literary associations, student gatherings, academic responsibilities, permissiveness, new rules of behavior for students.

M. V. Novikov, T. B. Perfilova

Student's Disorders on the Eve of "the Era of Great Reforms"

In the article is regarded the problem of reflection of students of the Russian universities in the end of the epoch of Emperor Ni-kolay I and connected with this event hopes for positive changes in life of the higher school of Russia.

Keywords: students" movement, students" self-government, protest moods, charitable cash desks, scientific and literary associations, students" meeting, academic duties, permissiveness, new rules of students" behavior.

In the history of the student movement of the period under study, several stages can be distinguished.

In 1855-1857 the first attempts of students to oppose themselves to the university administration appeared by creating independent organizational structures based on the idea of ​​self-government and the principle of election. The forms of general student organizations that embodied the corporate spirit of students included libraries, reading rooms, charity funds, scientific and literary associations, legal proceedings, and gatherings.

Student libraries, not controlled by university authorities, appeared in universities by 1856. They were compiled from periodicals and scientific literature in demand by students, which were not available in state repositories. Here one could find banned and illegal publications, copied by hand or lithographed by students. “Reading rooms” arose at libraries, which soon turned into university clubs intended for friendly conversations, literary and political debates, and gatherings of “compatriots” - natives of one region or region who arrived at universities from remote corners of Russia. R. G. Eymontova provides information that under the “guise of libraries” there will later be

hiding secret revolutionary societies of students.

Student mutual aid funds, replenished by voluntary contributions from students, donations from individuals, and income from literary evenings, performances, concerts of charitable artists, debates and public lectures by professors, also became widespread in university centers.

During the first year and a half of the existence of such a cash fund at St. Petersburg University (from 1857 to 1859), nine thousand rubles were given to “insufficient” young men, while the board of the university during the same period was able to find only seven thousand rubles for scholarships and benefits for students thousand one hundred sixty rubles.

In some universities (St. Petersburg, Kazan, Kiev) a student court was created, at which judges, prosecutors and lawyers, jurors and witnesses chosen at meetings, examined the misdeeds of their comrades, as well as conflicts that arose between students and outsiders. The perpetrators could be arrested and imprisoned. The court had the right to impose penalties and even expel from the university. Student court verdicts were not subject to appeal by a trustee or inspector.

When students took the initiative to publish their collections and handwritten journals,

© Novikov M. V., Perfilova T. B., 2013

There was a need to elect editors and deputies from each faculty to manage the cash desk, and this, in turn, gave rise to student gatherings. The gatherings were never legalized, but were allowed by the university authorities, because the students themselves perceived them as “a fundamental condition of student life, a kind of palladium of liberty.”

It is difficult to doubt that the meetings, along with all the above forms of student government, to which in 1859-1861. The work of students in Sunday schools and the teaching (sometimes at home) of poor children were also added, contributed to the development of a spirit of unity and a sense of solidarity among young people studying at universities, and contributed to the rapid spread of protest sentiments. At the same time, it is difficult not to discover the dangers lurking in the neglectful attitude of students towards their academic responsibilities, which made itself felt more and more clearly as the most active participants in student government began to liken studying to the only socially significant actions that were important to them at that time .

Both the students themselves and the teachers of those years point to this. Thus, from the memoirs of student V.M. Sorokin, we know that “the students studied little, in the sense of carefully attending lectures and diligently memorizing professorial notes, but they were extremely receptive and strong in their thinking... The comprehensive revival of Russia... was not only for everyone on the tongue, but also in the mind and heart."

Professor of St. Petersburg University V.V. Grigoriev openly condemns students who completely abandoned their studies for the sake of far-fetched matters, giving them a false sense of urgency and arch-importance. He noted: “The efforts to publish the collection. The affairs of the cash desk were conducted with such a waste of time on meetings on all these subjects that they took away the opportunity to deal, as they should, with their direct business - work on the subjects of university teaching - not only from all kinds of stewards and deputies, who were elected in abundance by their comrades. but also among the rest of the students.” If we were to count, he suggested, all the time that was spent by students at meetings to discuss the structure of the cash register, establish the rules for its functioning, and then to review the reporting and state of affairs, then it would become obvious to even the most ardent defenders of such events

the ineffectiveness of the efforts expended, because the cheapest work - and not talking about it at meetings - would bring significantly more material resources to the student treasury. In addition, the professor saw the harm from excessive student activity in the fact that new “fashionable ideas. They taught university youth to look at the implementation of these events as something very serious, they taught them to take words and vanity for action. inflating. petty vanity of the proud and... justifying in the negligent their aversion from real work.”

Similar considerations about the very modest benefits of all emerging forms of student self-government are expressed by Senator P. A. Kapnist, who was a student at Moscow University in 18602.

In 1857, the second stage of the student movement began, which took place under the slogan of disobedience to the authorities: it was accompanied by clashes between students and the police, military officials, and university administration.

In Kyiv, noisy student gatherings took place in 1857, when students decided to defend the honor of their comrade, insulted by an officer. Alexander II himself took part in the investigation of the incident, which shook up all the university youth, with whose sanction the colonel responsible for the clash with the student was demoted: this is how he paid for his rough treatment of the young man.

In the fall of 1857, a protest against police lawlessness was heard in Moscow. On false suspicion of criminal activity, a student at Moscow University was accused of criminal activity; an entire army of policemen, led by a policeman, burst into whose apartment, where young people were having fun at a merry “feast.” The students defended themselves from the arbitrariness of the law enforcement officers with bottles, which is why they were severely beaten, and some were even chopped with cleavers. The very next day, meetings began at the university, proclamations appeared calling on students to highly respect their dignity, defend their integrity, and use the right to protection stated in the Charter of 1835.

To examine the incident, a special investigative commission was created, which worked under the supervision of deputies elected from the student activists. She was forced to hand over the guilty police officers to a military court.

The story of “police robbery” received wide publicity: it was discussed not only in the press and the Ministry of Public Education,

but she also found herself under the control of the king himself. “It was a spark,” recalled B. N. Chicherin, “that ignited flammable materials that had long accumulated. The guilty policemen were punished. This instilled in the youth the consciousness of their strength."

The following year, a group of students from St. Petersburg University clashed with an officer and sailors of the Guards crew at a fire near a burning apartment building. The students affected by the disaster filed an official protest against the arbitrariness of the officer, who not only did not allow them to remove their property from the fire, but also ordered the soldiers to beat the angry youths with rifle butts.

Similar excesses took place at Kharkov University (1858), where students tried to challenge the decision of Governor General Luzhin and his trustee P.V. Zinoviev, who supported him, to expel twenty student troublemakers from the city after the arrest for causing a riot, and at Kazan University (1859), where the police were again punished, accused of arbitrariness - beating a tipsy young man.

The stage of episodic outbreaks of discontent among students, who closed their ranks in the struggle to eliminate impunity, violence, and the omnipotence of the arbiters of justice, which ended in almost complete victory, gave them a reason to begin “campaigns” against “undesirable” professors and instilled hope for the success of the planned enterprise. The clearly expressed goal of collective action among university youth (getting rid of unpopular teachers) allows us to identify another stage in the student movement.

As sources show, students could take up arms against teachers for literally anything: for what they thought was an irrelevant content of lectures, for retrograde thoughts, backward views, inert beliefs, an archaic worldview, modest pedagogical talents, for the behavior of professors: excessive, in their opinion, severity, intemperance, tardiness, inappropriate antics, etc. The circumstances of forced resignations of professors known to us are so varied, and the reasons are so illogical and contradictory, that one can involuntarily become convinced that the reasons for expressing student discontent were often fabricated. They could hide not only the students’ desire to have a truly scientific, modern

constant education from first-class scientists and teachers who were not inferior to scientific authorities Western Europe, but also completely opposite attitudes - avoidance of conscientious fulfillment of one’s academic duties.

A real “raid” on professors was organized by students of Kazan University, when the physiologist V. F. Bervi, the chemist F. Kh. Grakha, the physicist I. A. Bolzani, the surgeon F. O. Elachich, and the historians V. M. Vedrov had to leave the departments , F. A. Struve, R. A. Sharbe. This list included not only mediocre scientists with backward scientific ideas, but also talented specialists well-known in their fields of knowledge. For example, I. A. Bolzani caused student dissatisfaction with the complexity of the content of lectures, and F. O. Jelacic - with his refusal to teach classes in Russian.

As for the other professors who found themselves on this “elimination list,” then, unfortunately, we have to admit that the level of science in their lectures was quite low, and their attitude towards teaching work was official-indifferent. This is also indicated by P. D. Bobory-kin, who, for the above reasons, left Kazan University in 1855 to study in the “German” Dorpat, and especially by V. A. Manasein, who was in this educational institution in 1861. In particular, he noted: “Most of our professors are below mediocrity, library. in terrible disorder. there is only one laboratory. offices in embryo. In a word, there are almost no means of work, and that is why all our efforts are aimed at acquiring the greatest possible freedom of study (abolition of transition exams, compulsory listening to lectures, etc.), selecting more tolerable professors and, for this purpose, expelling all the existing rubbish, to give yourself the right to vote not only in relation to professorial lectures, but also. all university affairs in general."

At Kazan University, it seems, even in the early 60s. XIX century “reigned” were professors of the old school, who stood out only for their good intentions. It was to them that the students declared a “crusade.” Professor V.F. Bervi received a letter from students of the Faculty of Medicine in which they thanked him for his long service and asked him, in view of his advanced age, to resign from the difficult responsibility of teaching, which requires young and fresh strength. The professor tried at first

find protection for himself in the Ministry of Public Education, but even having received it, he was forced to leave the university, since the students flatly refused to attend his classes.

Professor of World History V.M. Vedrov lost the support of students for composing his lectures “so stupidly and incoherently that sometimes it was difficult to even understand them.” Two professors of antiquity were also not popular: professor of Greek literature R. A. Charbet and Latinist F. A. Struve, whose “survival” from the university, students used such methods of obstruction as invective, whistling, “bossing”, expulsion from the classroom shouting: “Get out! Get out!”

The students defeated the “undesirable” professors with relatively small losses: only two instigators of the “harassment” of the Latinist F. A. Struve were expelled from the university and expelled from Kazan.

Moscow University was also rich in its stories of students “squeezing out” mediocre scientists and failed teachers.

The conflict between Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy of Moscow University N.A. Varnek and student youth received great resonance. He, in the assessment of N.V. Nikitenko, belonged “to the number of our best scientists,” and the students considered him “backward” and did not want to forgive him for his rude treatment of them, in particular, the contemptuous nickname “aristocratic servants”, vulgar jokes and personal insults. Students of the Faculty of Medicine refused to attend N.A. Varnek’s lectures and declared a boycott of him. A commission was formed to resolve the conflict; The new Minister of Education E.P. Kovalevsky also intervened in the scandalous case. The university council made a “Solomon” decision: N. A. Varnek was forced to leave the department, but twelve students guilty of interfering in the educational process were expelled from the university.

Following N.A. Varnek, S.N. Ornatsky, a professor of the encyclopedia of jurisprudence, a “general laughingstock”, was boycotted and expelled from the university; a threat also hung over P. M. Leontyev, a professor of Roman literature. Busy with work at the Russian Messenger, he was late for lectures or “neglected” them, read without proper preparation and often made unforgivable mistakes; scolded and offended students who did not “grasp” lecture materials well and were not ready to answer without preparation

his questions. The students filed a complaint against P. M. Leontiev, but it was not accepted either by the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology, S. M. Solovyov, or by the rector of the university, A. A. Alfonsky, and soon the instigators of the expulsion of P. M. Leontiev (five people ) were themselves expelled from the student body.

In 1859, discontent broke out against A. A. Maikov, who read Russian literature - “complete mediocrity,” according to B. N. Chicherin. His lectures were neither attractive in content nor in the form of presentation of the material, and students were openly irritated by Orthodox-monarchist views. The students expressed their attitude towards the professor with their favorite “hissing” and demonstrative departure from the classroom (by the way, V.I. Guerrier was among the discipline violators).

From the information provided, as well as from the analysis of all the information that we have, we cannot help but state that the most suitable environment for the manifestation of outbreaks of student discontent has developed at the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University. Without seeking to justify the actions of students, in fairness we note that at the turn of the 50-60s. XIX century The Faculty of History and Philology of the oldest university of the Russian Empire could not boast of a brilliant composition of professors

teaching corps. Even delicate

V. O. Klyuchevsky, not prone to tricks and vulgar assessments of professors, in his letters to friends, admiring the talent of F. I. Buslaev (an outstanding philologist and literary historian), devotion to the high ideals of science

S. V. Eshevsky (professor of the department of general history), the relevance of the content of lectures by N. A. Sergievsky (professor of theology), “touching a nerve... with healthy, critical thought” of S. M. Solovyov (dean of the faculty), nevertheless , claims that these “luminaries. Russian science. you can count it on your fingers.” What can we say about students who have never experienced admiration for the knowledge and talent of teachers, and, instead of “science, light, truth, activity, progress, development,” received only disappointment from their stay at the university. Among them was, for example, I. A. Khudyakov, who barely survived two years of study. In his opinion, “the philological and law faculties of Moscow University. resembled the mental council of the deanery.

Almost all the professors presented their subject from a conservative point of view. German teacher Goering. Instead of lectures on German literature, he told only jokes. Emeritus Professor [of Greek. -M. N., T.P.] Menshikov devoted his life to composing Greek poems in honor of the coronation and other imperial holidays. N. S. Tikhomirov [Professor of the history of Russian literature. - M.N., T.P.], although he read better than others, sometimes he gave no more than two or three lectures over the course of six months. Soloviev read with noticeable talent, but presented the subject [Russian history. - M.N., T.P.] from the bureaucratic-centralization point of view and was completely inaccessible to students.” .

The characteristics of the teachers of the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University in the late 50s were similar in their directness and impartial assessments. D.I. Pisarev also gave it.

With irony, he recalls Professor M.I. Kastorsky, who “read any history that was assigned, sometimes ancient, sometimes Russian, sometimes modern” - for all occasions he would have “a ready-made notebook, written twenty years ago.” The fame of a scientist did not attract him, although he was willing to flaunt his scientific knowledge and broad outlook whenever he made many “microscopic” objections and comments to the applicant at master’s debates. Wanting to make his lectures more entertaining, he told anecdotes and rumors about historical characters, and, getting used to the images of his heroes, acted out, wasting all his “spiritual strength” on “groaning” and “mimic art.” This amused the audience, who was having fun with the teacher, to forget about the essence of the subject of study. As a result, M.I. Kastorsky, who became isolated on his theatrical effects, earned the reputation of a jester and lost almost all his listeners: they, not seeing the benefit of such “readings,” stopped going to his classes, and in order to have at least one complete copy of his “notes” to prepare for the exam, took turns “serving duty”, appearing at the lecture.

In contrast to M. I. Kastorsky, a virtuoso in his reincarnations, private associate professor N. D. Astafiev, who read the history of the Middle Ages, amazed listeners with an indifferent and apathetic attitude to the subject. Having chosen F. Guizot’s work “History of Civilization in France” as a guide for his “readings,” he indifferently conveyed its contents without opening his eyes.

away from his notes, and clearly did not have enough control over the material to color it with the “imprint of his personality” and his own analysis.

Professor of World History M. M. Stasyulevich initially created a real sensation with his deep understanding of his subject, its ideological content, modern scientific approaches to considering the essence of the historical process, so the listeners were delighted with the “civilized European”, took their seats in the audience in advance and even they applauded him. However, gradually M. M. Stasyulevich began to cause irritation with “a frantic desire to dazzle listeners with the originality and richness of his foreign impressions,” which accumulated quite a lot during his two-year stay in Germany.

Disappointment in the professor came when the most gifted students, who knew French and German perfectly, managed to discover that M. M. Stasyulevich’s brilliant lectures were his “secret translation” of I. Taine’s study “Historical and Critical Experiments.” He shamelessly used the ideas of the famous French historian, unceremoniously appropriating them for himself and passing them off with aplomb as his own vision of modern foreign historiography. The discrepancy between the teacher’s stated claims of “foreignness and panache” and the plagiarism exposed by the students - “peacock feathers for rent” - turned out to be so strong that it cast a shadow on all the professors of the department. Students began to doubt the ability of the professors who taught them - these "priests of science" - to ever meet the "serious mental demands of society."

D. I. Pisarev’s best memories were from Professor M. I. Sukhomlinov, who taught the theory of language and the history of ancient Russian literature in his first year. He did not pursue brilliance and panache, “did not show off dust,” but really strived “to be both a useful professor and an efficient scientist.” He constantly read, was aware of all scientific innovations and “gave us many good things in his lectures,” loved students and “sought popularity among them.” M.I. Sukhomlinov devoted himself to science, was not interested in politics and tried to get his listeners addicted to painstaking, diligent, regular independent scientific work. D.I. Pisarev, being among his students, spent sixteen months on translation

from a complex German philosophical work about W. Humboldt and publication in the student's "Collection" of a brief extract from the work done. This activity, with its labor intensity and excessive complexity of the tasks set, for a long time discouraged him from any desire to engage in science and, in addition, sowed distrust in the insight of teachers, indifferent to the true intellectual needs of students and, in fact, not ready to guide their introduction to science.

Summarizing his impressions of the first two years spent at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University, D. I. Pisarev categorically defined them as “purely negative”: “Words, aspirations, running around the corridors of the university, fruitless reading that did not leave. no pleasure, no benefit, mechanical work with a pen that did not satisfy the needs of the mind. schoolchildren preparing for exams and schoolchildren answering exams, boredom during lectures. “That’s all,” he concluded, “with which the magical world of the university rewarded me for my passionate and unreflective love for the unattainable and unknown treasures of thought.”

Constantly complaining about the cramped, “musty” scientific atmosphere at the faculty, the isolation of teachers on narrow problems of their research, divorced from the urgent needs of life, which from the outside look like “trash,” “a motionless and gloomy den of scholarship,” “the complacency of sworn specialists,” he nevertheless, he was able, having suppressed his arrogance and bias, to admit: his fellow students were happy to engage in scientific research, to which the same teachers were able to accustom them, which caused him obvious disdain. Moreover, he did not hide the fact that his university friends, who had entered the service in different departments, longed for the mental work instilled in the classrooms for a very long time, so in their hearts they were ready to return to the scientific path and flattered themselves with hope to successfully pass the candidate exam required for this.

In the presence of students “imbued with a selfless and conscious desire for education”, ready to devote themselves to the service of science, the question of the quality of teaching was, indeed, very relevant, so the indignation of the authors of “Diaries” and “Notes” - graduates of mainly humanities faculties, those -

more than anything else associated with modernity, the indifference of professors to the needs of students, their rejection of ignorance and the hopeless backwardness of scientists from the discoveries that were made but passed them by.

But such “hungry” for knowledge clearly made up a negligible percentage of the student body. D.I. Pisarev himself, characterizing the students of his course, noted: “Along with me, personalities of all kinds entered the university: there were complete idiots who remained true to their nature right up to leaving the university; there were young veils already spoiled by the high society element; there were young men on their own; there were stupidly serious young men; there were good guys; they were just patient donkeys; They were, finally, very smart." . Let us note in passing that the “very smart” are placed at the very end of the list, and therefore, they really constituted a minority compared to all the other groups of student youth listed by the author.

A much larger number of students (compared to the “smartest”) were those who, during all four years of study, had not decided “either on the inclinations of their mind” or on the choice of a future specialty, were poorly oriented in their needs and capabilities, abilities and interests and brought to the university “only a vague curiosity.”

In addition to them, as now, one could meet those who, when entering the university, were guided by purely everyday calculations: they needed a university certificate, which promised in the future “reward with ranks,” “service advantages,” “insignia,” “large salary.” ".

In this very contradictory group in terms of mental demands, interests, and behavioral motivations in the late 50s. a group of “new students” also joined, who, as soon as they started classes, took control of student life into their own hands, began to change the way of university life that had been formed over the years in their own way, and established their own routines that copied the life activity of adults that had come into motion. These were “men of action” - the instigators of new, previously unknown university affairs: libraries, student cash offices, gatherings, which were able to quickly push into the background the “book smarts”, closed, as if in shells, on only useful and important scientific searches, and began to make dramatic changes that were noticeable to everyone, overturning the usual,

established ideas about the values ​​of university life.

It was on their initiative that a “crusade” was launched against “worthless” teachers, which A.V. Nikitenko recalls. In his notes for January 1859, he reports: “There is a sheet circulating among students with the names of those professors whom they want to leave the university.” It was they who began to overthrow from their pedestals yesterday’s idols of student youth, who in their eyes looked hopelessly behind the times as “learned ascetics”3. For example, in the early 60s. completely lost his influence on the students of the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University M. I. Sukhomlinov, who was listened to with rapture just recently, in the late 50s. Professor N.N. Bulich began to be perceived as a phrase-maker who preferred eloquence to clarity and simplicity of presentation. Even K. D. Kavelin, who was reputed to be the main mentor in liberalism of the students of St. Petersburg University, lost their trust because he did not even allow the thought of political action by university students and during the unrest of 1861 he tried to keep them exclusively within the framework of solving academic problems .

The “new students” were able to attract into their team those of the “old people” who were deeply indifferent to academic laurels, and, thus becoming the majority, they easily managed to destroy the well-established university “universe”4. They not only refused to tolerate the “old-regime” professors and “squeezed” them out of the universities, but also, inspired by success, began to reshape the professors and their lecture courses in their own way. Teachers were now expected to please not the authorities, but the audience of listeners with changeable and unformed scientific guidelines, and if the professor refused to curry favor with the audience and continued to be guided only by scientific and pedagogical considerations, then he, too, turned into a target for threats and curses from presumptuous students who instantly they forgot about their recent admiration for him and began to persecute them, just like the “old regime”5.

There were cases when respected professors (for example, A.P. Shchapov) were required to change the concept of the course, to make the problems raised in lectures more controversial and, in order to break down age and status differences, they entered into disputes with them right during classes._

However, fanatically devoted to their studies and attached to scientific activity among the “new students” there were, as they say, too many to count on one hand. D.I. Pisarev directly calls all newcomers (who entered in 1858 and 1859) “antagonists of university scholarship.” This information is confirmed by St. Petersburg University student B. L. Modzalevsky, who bluntly reports that students “soon stopped attending lectures by old and boring professors who taught science in some dead forms, and went to the classrooms only to those who tried to apply science to solve pressing issues, to destroy old evils and revealed new, fresh ideals to us.” A. V. Nikitenko recalls a conversation in 1861 with one student who was sincerely attached to him, who, like many others, participated in the “ridiculous movement among young people” directed against law and order, “seeking participation in the discussion of political issues and government reforms." To the professor’s words that “we need to study and not do stupid things,” he replied, “that from now on it is not science that should occupy students, but contemporary issues» .

Clearly sympathetic to the bad, shocking antics of the students, R. G. Eymontova, as if not noticing their rudeness and promiscuity, is trying to convince us that the lack of blind admiration of young men for the authority of professors was brought up by the educators themselves, who were distinguished by progressive views. Without sharing these convictions, we, for our part, want to note that even the students have views free from prejudice, a critical attitude towards everything that happened in Russia and within the walls of universities on the eve of the “era of Great Reforms”, an unshakable desire to immediately and radically change the world , cannot serve as an excuse for their mockery of professors and indifference to the aspirations of that part of the students who deliberately neglected politics and were determined to cooperate with teachers, and not to sabotage their classes.

Only one circumstance, in our opinion, gives us the right, at least to some, most insignificant, extent to understand the actions of the new generation of students of the mid-19th century: perhaps the aggressive, hysterically defiant struggle with professors was dictated by a more serious problem - “university question" in general.

Perhaps, through inept and very painful measures for teachers of those years, students sought to arouse public opinion and, through this communication channel, force the government to look at the entire complex of academic problems and immediately begin to liberalize university policy in Russia. If you follow the argument that the end justifies the means, then you involuntarily begin to discern a certain logic in the unsightly actions of students: the fight against “undesirable” professors was the first step in implementing a system of their new demands, in tune with the “spirit” of the era: the abolition of clerical and administrative arbitrariness , democratization of the entire structure of university life, self-government, the right to vote in academic affairs, the elimination of entrance and transfer exams. By the way, the idea of ​​“freedom of learning,” free from “formalities” such as exams and compulsory attendance at lectures, was widely propagated by the liberal and democratic press. At the same time, students were not afraid to “throw out the baby with the bathwater” - protesting against everything inert, routine, outdated, they were not afraid to completely destroy university science, which for many was associated not with an “ivory tower”, but with a politicized school of life .

A.V. Nikitenko indignantly unleashes his anger on those professors of St. Petersburg University, thanks to whom students developed an arrogant and dismissive attitude towards educational duties, those who irresponsibly involved young people in the “adult business” of rebuilding Russia. “Instead of reading science to them,” he writes reproachfully, “you indulge in political flirting with them. This appeals to foolish youth who... begins to seriously think that she is a force that can make requests to the government and control its actions.”

The dissolute behavior of students, who devoted all their time to the struggle for the restructuring of academic life, irritated many professors who knew their worth6.

For example, B. N. Chicherin, barely restraining his anger, noted: “Students could do whatever they wanted, and, of course, they often used their freedom for evil.” Having become the “owners of the university,” they held meetings for any reason, “to which the rector and deans were sometimes called, and they went, explained themselves, and tried to calm the youth down. All power has disappeared. Pope-

The teachers Kovalevsky and after him Bakhmetev were gentle and kind people, but completely alien to the university, who had no idea how to treat young people: they tried only to please them. Of course, they completely stopped thinking about regularly attending lectures. If this was the order at Moscow University,” he laments, “then at St. Petersburg University, subject to the direct influence of Chernyshevsky and his company, the situation was even worse. The same phenomena were repeated in the provinces."

The professors of Moscow University, earlier than their other scientific colleagues, realized the danger posed by the permissiveness of students who were more involved in politics than in their studies7 and did not meet with a worthy rebuff to their claims and demands. “Misdeeds committed by the crowd,” it was stated in the “Historical Note” compiled by professors of the historical, philological and law faculties, “remained unpunished or ended in success for the students. Success confirmed the students in the idea that they, in their mass, constitute a force against which the authorities are afraid to act.” decisively." .

The trustees, or “bosses,” of the universities mentioned in the “Historical Note” were really afraid of unnecessary publicity: insults for their powerlessness to resist the “dictatorship” of unbridled students and hasty accusations of their inability to cope with emerging problems in a timely manner and overcome academic difficulties. A stream of accusations of immorality and complaints about the behavior of students who had completely gotten out of hand came to the Ministry of Public Education from all university centers. Minister of Education E.P. Kovalevsky, fending off reproaches against his Ministry for condoning the debauchery of university youth, initially tried to protect them from attacks by professors and members of the government, but was unsuccessful. Yielding to the pressure of criticism, he was forced to take a series of measures aimed at eradicating spontaneously emerging forms of student government, “curbing” youth and “improving” university life.

Thus, forms of student behavior that do not fit into our consciousness: pressure on teachers with the help of “noise effects” (whistles, stomping, hissing) and their literary delights (parodies, complaints, criticism), direct bullying of professors, disobedience to superiors, sabotage of classes -

tiy - finally a barrier was put up. Consequently, the completion of the “thaw” in universities was accelerated by the students themselves: their rejection of the existing way of university life, persecution of professors, and an ill-considered desire to replace academic activities with the preparation of socio-political upheavals.

At the end of 1858, E.P. Kovalevsky addressed the trustees of educational districts with a circular prohibiting students from “publicly expressing signs of approval (through applause, etc.) or censure to their professors.” The Minister of Education reminded that “all kinds of gatherings and demonstrations” are strictly prohibited by law8, therefore he warned that those guilty of these offenses would be immediately expelled from universities, “no matter what the number of perpetrators.”

At the same time, deans of faculties were asked to monitor the content of professors’ lectures and suppress their “vain search for popularity among students.” E.P. Kovalevsky admonished teachers that “the true goal of education is in the forms of public order and subordination to established authorities,” thus making a belated nod towards the “gloomy seven years.”

Six months later, in May 1859, a decree of the Council of Ministers appeared, stating that “outside university buildings” students must submit to police supervision “on a general basis”, so the student uniform could no longer serve as a cover for them, as before, when punishing for crimes committed9.

At the beginning of 1860, a decree was published raising the age of applicants from sixteen to eighteen years and increasing the severity of admission exams. According to the new rules for admission to universities, only graduates of gymnasiums who graduated with honors were exempt from exams. Those who did not have a gymnasium certificate had to pass full tests10 in special commissions of professors and gymnasium teachers.

The last order of the government was perceived by society as a “cleansing” of applicants, assessed as a “beating of young men,” since of the total number of young people entering the capital’s universities in 1860, less than one third were able to pass the entrance examination.

“By putting these brakes,” says I. N. Borozdin, “the government began a new circle in the history of persecution of universities.” Note that not only on them. In 1858, according to

According to A.V. Nikitenko, “the turn back becomes obvious from certain measures,” and lists them below: Russia was again divided into governorships-general; It was forbidden to use the word “progress” in the press, and “censorship restrictions” were renewed; “spies” and secret committees revived their activities; There was a ban on lecturing on political economy. Summarizing his impressions of the government’s new attempts to “restrain, oppress and intimidate,” he exclaims: “This is the success of glasnost! It seems that we are not jokingly evoking Nikolai Pavlovich’s shadow.”

He mentioned numerous “constraints” (in the order of universities, in the life of Sunday schools, etc.) in his letters to like-minded people and

B. A. Manasein.

The culmination of the government's renewed offensive on the rights of universities was the appointment of Admiral E. V. Putyatin to the post of Minister of Education. The resignation of his predecessor E.P. Kovalevsky was predetermined by the student unrest of the early 60s11, which was gradually led to by the demonstrative disregard on the part of young people studying at universities of the formidable orders about the rules of conduct in classrooms and the ban on gatherings. The new unrest that broke out among students was no longer academic, but political in nature (which allows us to identify the fourth stage in the student movement): in the spring of 1861, students

St. Petersburg and Moscow universities participated in memorial services for the Poles who died during the Warsaw political manifestation on February 13, and Kazan - in a mournful procession in memory of the bloody massacre of peasants from the village of Bezdna who challenged the granted “will”.

Political demonstrations by students were accompanied by criticism of the government, demands for a democratic constitution, and calls for radical measures to fight for their rights. The government, not wanting to continue to put up with students who were becoming increasingly dangerous, took a number of decisive measures, which, after approval by the Council of Ministers and two special commissions12, were approved by the emperor.

New instructions to the academic class, called the Rules of May 31, 1861, contained orders on admission and transfer exams, on the abolition of student uniforms, on scholarships and benefits, and prohibited “all kinds of

gatherings without the permission of the authorities,” demanded “precise attendance at lectures in compliance with the necessary order and silence.” In addition, they revived the famous “Instructions to Rectors and Deans” of 1851: these representatives of the university administration were again given responsibility for the political reliability of teaching, instilling in students “reverence for sacred things, devotion to the sovereign and love for the fatherland.”

These “ridiculous”, in the assessment of P.V. Dolgorukov, “resolutions regarding students” marked a new round of “persecution of students”13. Their implementation began with the removal of E.P. Kovalevsky from the post of Minister of Education. Appointed in the summer of 1861 as the new minister, Count E.V. Putyatin considered it necessary to increase the severity of the May 31 Rules. The first ministerial circular of July 21, 1861, addressed to the trustees of educational districts, clarified and supplemented the Supreme Command of May 31, and also strengthened its protective orientation.

Student meetings, as well as explanations between students and their superiors through deputies, were strictly prohibited. Managers of student mutual aid funds, libraries, “reading rooms” and other representatives of student youth chosen at meetings were replaced by persons appointed by the university authorities. The control of the mutual aid fund passed to the inspector and the rector.

One of the most scandalous rules of the circular was the prohibition to exempt more than two students from each province that was part of the educational district from tuition fees. This meant the abolition of the previously widely used benefit of exempting poor students from tuition fees, and, consequently, denied access to the university to the “student proletariat” - the most politically unreliable, in the eyes of the government, group of young people.

The circular contained recommendations to deal not only with “insufficient” students, but also with underachieving students too. If previously, if the student’s performance was unsatisfactory, a student was retained for the second year15, then from now on everyone who failed at least one of the transition exams was expelled from the university16. The same punishment should have been imposed on all those guilty of violating ministerial instructions.

Attending lectures was recognized as a mandatory condition for students’ stay at the university.

aunt. Professors received the right to remove students from classes who were guilty of violating order. In turn, professors found to have “unreliable or erroneous directions” in their beliefs regarding faith or the way of government in Russia were deprived of their chairs.

All the blame for the behavior and mood of the students was placed on the teachers, who were openly recognized as “the cause of the misfortune of many young people.”

Students were made completely dependent on the general police, which was facilitated by the abolition of the uniform student uniform. Supervision over the behavior and intentions of students within universities was entrusted to the vice-chancellor (and not to the inspector, as required by the Charter of 1835), who was chosen from among the professors specifically to perform police functions.

It was decided to include the new rules of behavior for students in special books - “matricules” (which had long been in circulation at the University of Dorpat), which were simultaneously supposed to serve as an identification card for a student enrolled at the university, a residence permit, a library card, and a “record book” [With. 19].

The circular of the new Minister of Education not only caused a protest from students, but also received rebuff from university councils, who in their reviews expressed doubts about the possibility of implementing all the measures prescribed to them in practice. According to A.V. Nikitenko, St. Petersburg University “was offended by the minister’s circular and became opposed to it.” . At Moscow and Kiev universities, “indignation and the spirit of opposition” also manifested themselves. The depressing impression from the first steps of the head of the Ministry of Public Education, who immediately received the nickname “narrow-minded,” was also experienced by society, frightened by both the new wave of measures to limit the number of university students and the strengthening of police control over their behavior. Even people far from the sphere of education understood that new student unrest could not be avoided.

And indeed, the beginning of the next academic year, according to the stories of A.V. Nikitenko, was marked by gatherings prohibited in the circular, and by students boycotting all the restrictions introduced. The largest in scale and most significant events took place in St. Petersburg and Moscow.

The university authorities of St. Petersburg, including the new trustee G.I. Philipson, formerly the chief of the Main Staff of the Caucasian Army and ataman of the Cossack army, did not even notify students about the introduced matriculi, and while they were on vacation, they learned about the new “ embarrassment”, mainly according to rumors. The tense attitude towards the expected drastic measures and contempt for the professors who allowed new government arbitrariness manifested themselves in the disruption of classes. The auditoriums began to be used for holding meetings, reading proclamations and appeals,17 which forced the university management to temporarily close it until the matriculi prepared in the printing house were issued in early October.

After a week filled with incessant rallies and competitions of orators in political eloquence18, students decided to demonstrate the “indestructibility of their social strength” during a mass procession from the university building (Vasilievsky Island) to the house of trustee G. I. Philipson (via the Palace Bridge, Nevsky and Vladimirsky Prospekts ). The column, stretching for a mile, was accompanied by mounted and foot police, fire brigades, and a rifle battalion, led by the Governor General and Chief of Police

St. Petersburg. To negotiate with the trustee, deputies were elected from the excited, “furious” crowd, who were initially promised immunity. G.I. Philipson, agreeing to enter into dialogue with the students only in the university building, assured them of his determination and steadfastness to follow the letter and spirit of the ministerial circular and called on all participants in the meeting to immediately begin their studies, guided by the rules of the matriculi.

Thirty-seven students were treacherously arrested at night: in addition to parliamentarians, the editors of the student “Collection” and the heads of the mutual aid fund were behind bars. This served as the reason for a new meeting, at which a petition was drawn up to E.V. Putyatin for the release of his detained comrades from custody. Seven hundred people signed the address. The participants of the meeting were not afraid of the battalion of the Finnish Regiment, the gendarmes and the police who surrounded the university building, and dispersed only after the threat of Governor General P. N. Ignatiev to use weapons.

Over the next two weeks, this scenario was repeated again and again: in the morning, students gathered for a rally, they were surrounded by police and troops, the most active speakers and some of the cadets and officers who had joined the strikers were taken into custody as a warning, and as lunchtime approached, “ the gatherings dispersed." The gatherings in the university courtyard stopped only when, during a raid, thirty-three people were arrested at once, including all the members of the student committee who led the protest movement: Gen, Michaelis, Stefanovich.

Having lost their leaders, students became more flexible and willing to compromise, which gave the university authorities the opportunity to open the university on October 11. Six hundred and fifty people (out of one and a half thousand students and volunteers) expressed their readiness to resume the educational process and submitted a petition for the issuance of matriculation cards. Everyone else was ordered to leave St. Petersburg within two days.

However, it was not possible to resume classes, despite the fact that the split among the students into “matriculists” and “non-matriculists” was obvious. The classrooms were empty - the professors were reading for two or three people; the rest wandered aimlessly along the corridors, doubting the correctness of their offense - a concession to the university authorities, and those who repented of the betrayal of their comrades the very next day began to destroy the matriculi, littering the university courtyard with them. “Non-matriculists,” on the contrary, sought to enter the university under various pretexts.

To restore order, troops were again sent in, and this time a collision with them could not be avoided - at least twenty people were injured from rifle butts and bayonets. Arrests also resumed: over three hundred students were arrested during the three weeks of unrest. The Peter and Paul Fortress, where they awaited the court's verdict, was jokingly called "St. Petersburg University."

The arrests and expulsions of “non-matriculists” did not change the situation: St. Petersburg University actually did not work. Students did not attend lectures, law faculty professors stopped coming to classes. Liberal-minded professors: K. D. Kavelin, V. D. Spasovich, M. M. Stasyulevich, B. I. Utin, A. N. Pypin, “who nourished the spirit of opposition in students,” resigned, thereby discrediting their activities government and supporting students affected by the October events. This predetermined the outcome of the student unrest. On December 20, 1861, by the highest order, St. Petersburg University was closed for an indefinite period - “until the university charter is revised.”

The student movement was not limited to St. Petersburg alone and soon arose in Moscow. Students at Moscow University took the news of the closure of the capital's main educational center as a signal for active protests. At the end of September, the classes that had begun amicably were stopped here and meetings began to be convened, at which the arriving deputies of St. Petersburg students made agitational and inflammatory speeches. They received the greatest response from students of the first two years of the Faculty of Law, many of whom were extremely poor. The university council, trying to stop all further manifestations of students, decided to stop classes in the “rebellious” courses of the law department and expel all participants in the riots for a year19.

However, gatherings continued to take place every day, although their venue was no longer in the classrooms, prudently isolated by faculties with cast-iron bars, but, with the permission of Governor General P. A. Tuchkov20, in the university garden. He also volunteered to edit the address compiled by students addressed to Alexander II. Confident that the university trustee, Lieutenant General N.V. Isakov, would give the emperor an address asking him to soften the ministerial circular of July 21, the students turned to him for help, but were met with a categorical refusal. Negotiations with the trustee were conducted in a rude, undignified manner - the students, persuading their boss to take their side, threatened and intimidated him, which caused a natural reaction. At the request of the trustee P. A. Tuchkov was forced to arrest the instigators of the scandal and deploy a police team to protect the university.

Alarmed by the arrest of their comrades, the students decided to talk to the Governor-General personally, and in a large, crowded procession they headed to his house on Tverskaya Square. However, the deputies chosen for negotiations were arrested, and the demonstrators themselves, awaiting a fair decision from their former defender at the Dresden Hotel, were...

are surrounded by police and gendarmes who suddenly attack them. About two hundred people were herded into the nearest police station; those who tried to escape turned out to be easy prey for the mounted police: they were caught, strangled, beaten with the handles of broadswords and scabbards, and trampled under the hooves of horses. Those arrested had their faces bloody and were dragged by their hair to police headquarters. The Moscow “rabble” also took part in torturing the students, specially inciting them against young people who had been slandered for defending serfdom21.

The “bloodbath” that took place on October 12, 1861 (the same day as the clash between students and law enforcement officers in St. Petersburg) went down in the history of the student movement under the name “Battle of Dresden.” The outrageous violence against students caused an outburst of indignation among all student youth. However, “compassionate Moscow reacted to the unrest of young people far from as cordially as harsh St. Petersburg.” If in St. Petersburg those imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress were collected money, linen, food supplies, books, cigarettes, and those released were given a warm welcome, like the most dear guests, if even in the investigative commissions “the hobbies of youth” were treated cordially and condescendingly, and the new St. Petersburg Governor-General A. A. Suvorov (“the humane grandson of a warlike grandfather”) visited the prisoners and vouched for the reliability of fifty students, in order to give them the opportunity to graduate from the university, then in Moscow everything was different. Here, from the very beginning of the student unrest, the teachers took an irreconcilable position of boycotting the rebellious students: “The professors behaved impeccably,” recalled B. N. Chicherin. - Both old and young unanimously stood for the restoration of order. None of us approved of the new measures, but all of us - from first to last - were convinced that an end to the unrest was necessary to restore proper university life. The professors tried to convince the students of this, and the senior courses were largely inclined to their admonitions.”

The prominent publicist A.S. Aksakov called the student unrest in Moscow “senseless noise and din,” and even reproached the students for lack of respect for science.

The student unrest was also condemned by one of the most famous Moscow professors at that time, F.I. Buslaev, who was in

despair from the news of the “massacre of babies” on Tverskaya, which ended with the temporary closure of Moscow University. However, he took a tough position of rejection of the rules of “emancipation” of students from science, the transformation of universities into “political arenas” and reproached the university administration for the illiterate position of “currying favor” with the demands of students.

Let's look at how the student unrest of 1861 ended, which marked the end of the student movement in the second half of the 50s and early 60s. XIX century

The “most zealous leaders” - seventeen people - were expelled from Moscow University, thirty-seven students from St. Petersburg University, the rest - the most active participants in conflicts with government officials and troops - were allowed to study by decision of investigative commissions: in Moscow on subscription comply with all university rules, in St. Petersburg - under the guarantee of responsible persons and with the obligatory condition of obtaining matriculations.

A wave of student unrest swept through other university cities. But there they did not reach such proportions and did not acquire such severity as in the capitals: local managers, warned from St. Petersburg, managed to prepare to repel the student onslaught, acting more decisively and far-sightedly. For example, in Kazan the university was closed on October 8, that is, a few days before the “Battle of Dresden” in Moscow and the clash between students and troops in St. Petersburg. The student unrest of 1861 least affected Kharkov University, where the movement of student youth was beheaded in 1858 due to the defeat of the secret political society. Dorpat University, which developed completely separately from other domestic university centers, “in the German way”22, until the very end of the 19th century. was away from the social movement of the central regions of Russia.

Minister of Education E.V. Putyatin lost his post, like his unlucky predecessors: A.S. Norov and E.P. Kovalevsky. The chief of staff of the Gendarme Corps and the manager of the III department, P. A. Shuvalov, as well as the trustee of St. Petersburg University G. I. Philipson were removed; Governor-General P.N. Ignatiev and Chief of Police A.V. Patkul, who led the

Those who suppressed student unrest in St. Petersburg were replaced by other persons capable of winning over the population of the capital in favor of the government; Moscow chief police officer Kreutz also lost the trust of the emperor and lost his place.

Student unrest contributed to the aggravation of the situation in the country: they stirred up opposition sentiments in society and pushed the government to make significant adjustments to the emperor’s constantly fluctuating course regarding university policy. The open protest of students in large cities, sympathy for universities among students of other educational institutions (including the military) and officers, public irritation, excitement and “hype” in the press prompted the emperor and his entourage to realize the danger of openly reactionary actions in the university issue and necessitated the use of more flexible and less risky methods of managing higher education flagships. In the highest echelons of power there was a realization that in order to bring universities out of the state of crisis it was necessary to focus on reform. The government was forced to seriously prepare for the transformation of universities, to speed up the adoption of a new university charter, the development of which, which began in 1857, had clearly “stalled.” All this can be seen as a kind of concession of tsarism to public opinion, the influence of liberal and radical sentiments, as well as student unrest that remains in the memory for a long time. A positive role in changing the shaky, contradictory position of the tsarist administration regarding universities was also played by the fact that in some major managerial positions in the 60s. staunch supporters of radical changes in the field of education appeared: A. V. Golovnin, E. P. Kovalevsky, N. I. Pirogov, G. A. Shcherbatov. They understood more deeply than other representatives of the bureaucracy the painful attitude of society towards all attempts to restore the worst consequences of the counter-reforms of Nicholas's reign: a reduction in the number of students, an increase in tuition fees, the replacement of scientific knowledge with obscurantism.

At the same time, the student unrest, which was a terrible warning and a possible harbinger of nationwide unrest, could not but cause concern among the authorities about their intentions not only to suppress them, but also to completely eradicate them.

thread. This should have been facilitated by the University Charter that was being prepared, in which there could not be even a microscopic gap for relapses of “willfulness” of students and any of their intentions to escape the control of the university leadership and the police. Student unrest is also to blame for the ripening of this kind of sentiment at the top. “After the student riots,” B. N. Chicherin stated authoritatively, “the last thing one could think about was limiting the rights of the authorities [in the new Charter. - M.N., T.P.]. He considered “a shameless distortion of the truth” all the speculation in the press and the falsification of facts in journalism, which amounted to “making the Charter of 1863 appear to be the fruit of the prevailing. extreme liberalism." He is echoed by V. Spasovich, who claimed that already in 1862 he had drawn a “deep furrow” between “the revelry of the wildest hopes” and the rejection of “all liberalism.” S. Ashevsky states with undisguised sadness that “the new Charter. secured the case gr. Putyatina. All the heavy sacrifices made by students in the struggle for academic freedom were in vain."

Finally, let us note that the student unrest caused an even more noticeable split in the “academic class.” If previously the contradictions between the Moscow and St. Petersburg schools of scientists were expressed only in the professional environment and affected exclusively the field of activity of professors23, then in the second half of the 19th century. More obvious differences appeared in the socio-political views of scientists. Close in their critical attitude to the mediocrity of the ministers of education24, the status of the Ministry of Public Education itself25, the awareness of the inevitability of the existence of opposition between the government and society26, they began to differ noticeably in their perception of the landmark era for Russia of the late 50s - early 60s27, which for some it was identified with “chaos”, for others it was considered fertile ground for the implementation of the Great Reforms. The attitude towards the student movement forced professors, even of a liberal orientation - close to the majority of university teachers of those years, to divide themselves into two camps: moderate liberals and radicals, who were inside both the Moscow and St. Petersburg scientific communities.

St. Petersburg University by the end of the 50s. has transformed from a stronghold of government science into one of Russia's leading centers of education and

liberalism. Among the professors, a strong position was taken by a group belonging to the left wing of Russian liberals. Its leader was K.D. Kavelin. N.I. Kostomarov, A.N. Pypin, B.I. Utin, who played the most prominent role in this group, were in friendly and family ties with N.G. Chernyshevsky and were subject to his influence. A. N. Pypin, the youngest of the professors, was an employee of Sovremennik, had close ties with democratic circles and enjoyed great confidence among students. Revolutionary propaganda was in tune with the views of P. A. Rovinsky, A. V. Petrov, and I. S. Kopernitsky, who emerged from the commoners. Teachers of the older generation - among them was, for example, A.V. Nikitenko, who came from serfs - adhered to a moderate liberal position and condemned the policies of the “Reds”.

Moscow differed from St. Petersburg in its greater conservatism. Moderate liberal views in Moscow were shared by the overwhelming majority of professors, regardless of their origin, age, income: I. K. Babst, S. I. Barshev, S. V. Eshevsky, M. N. Katkov, P. M. Leontyev, S. M. Solovyov, B. N. Chicherin. In the democratic press, the entire Moscow professorship was called “conservatives.”

Through the prism of their ideological and political beliefs, Moscow and St. Petersburg professors were now ready to discuss the fate of higher education in Russia and make forecasts regarding the new university statute. If the professors of St. Petersburg resolutely defended the idea of ​​self-government, “radical changes in their entire internal system,” then their Moscow colleagues received these new initiatives with “indignation.” B. N. Chicherin, for example, was not averse to continuing work under the current Nikolaev Charter and supported the development of a new one only because it was supposed to put an end to the voluntaristic “constraints” of the early 60s. . In a polemic with N.I. Kostomarov, who advocated the abolition of the corporate structure of universities, he proposed not to “rebuild them in a new way,” but to “restore them to their due importance,” because, in his opinion, “universities need not so much transformation as support, and above all we need caution, respect and love.”

Having taken a hostile position towards each other in assessing the student movement and

the permissibility of arbitrariness of the authorities in relation to the instigators of the riots28, scientists of the two capital universities, at the same time, began to draw closer together in their rejection of opposing political views and especially the course promoted by the “Reds” towards the radicalization of the goals and means of the fight against tsarism29. This forced even K.D. Kavelin after 1862 to join the moderate liberals, that is, to greatly “correct” in the eyes of his former “co-religionists”, and among students to be known as a “conservative”.

As for the procedure of scientific discourse, it should be noted that the search for scientific truth now began to occur in an even more harsh and irreconcilable manner, since the mutual rejection of professors of two leading Russian scientific centers received an additional burden in the form of political convictions, so scientific debates were also aggravated by inconsistencies socially -political guidelines of the opposition-

Thus, the student movement that began since Alexander II came to power caused many changes in public sentiment, the educational environment, and the intellectual atmosphere of Russia, and in this sense, we can say that it brought universities to the point of “deep internal restructuring.”

Bibliography

1. Argillander, N. A. Vissarion Grigorievich Belinsky (From my student life with him) // Moscow University in the memoirs of contemporaries / comp. Yu. N. Emelyanov. - M., 1989. - P. 97-101.

2. Boborykin, P. D. For half a century (My memories) / ed. B. P. Kozmina. - M., 1929.

3. Buslaev, F. I. My memories / Ed.

V. G. Von-Bool. - M., 1897.

4. Dolgorukov, P.V. Petersburg essays. - Pamphlets of an emigrant. - 1860-1867. - M., 1992.

5. Kavelin, K. D. Our misunderstandings // Kavelin K. D. Selected / compiled, author of the intro. Art., comment. R. A. Arslanov. - M., 2010. - P. 403-417.

6. Klyuchevsky, V. O. Moscow University in letters and notes // Moscow University in the memoirs of contemporaries / comp. Yu. N. Emelyanov. -M., 1989. - P. 420-435.

7. Nikitenko, A.V. Diary: in 3 volumes - M., 1955. -T. 1. 1826-1857.

8. Nikitenko, A.V. Diary: in 3 volumes - M., 1955. -T. 2. 1858-1865.

9. Pisarev, D. I. Our university science // Pisarev D. I. Works: in 4 volumes - T. 2. - M., 1955. -

10. Rozhdestvensky, S.V. Historical review of the activities of the Ministry of Public Education. 1802-1902. - St. Petersburg, 1902.

11. Skabichevsky, A. M. Literary memories. - M., 1928.

12. Solovyov, S. M. My notes for my children, and if possible, for others // Solovyov S. M. Selected works. Notes / Ed. preparation A. A. Levandovsky, N. I. Tsimbaev. - M., 1983. - P. 229-350.

13. Spasovich, V. Fiftieth anniversary of St. Petersburg University // Spasovich V. For many years: Articles, excerpts, history, criticism, polemics, judicial speeches, etc. 1859-1871. - St. Petersburg, 1872. - P. 1-44.

14. Spasovich, V. Reply to Mr. Yurkevich // Ibid. -WITH. 45-56.

15. Feoktistov, E. M. Memoirs. Behind the scenes of politics and literature. 1848-1896 / ed. Yu. G. Oksman. - L., 1929.

16. Khudyakov, I. A. Notes of a Karakozovo resident. Moscow University (1859-1860) // Moscow University. - pp. 436-446.

17. Chicherin, B. N. Memoirs. Moscow University / Intro. Art. and approx. S. V. Bakhrushina. -M., 1929.

18. Arslanov, R. A. Konstantin Dmitrievich Kavelin // Kavelin K. D. Selected / Compiled, author of the introduction. Art., comment. R. A. Arslanov. - M., 2010. - P. 5-56.

19. Ashevsky, S. Russian students in the era of the sixties (1855-1863) // Modern World: Monthly literary, scientific and political magazine. - St. Petersburg, 1907. - August. - P. 19-36.

20. Ashevsky, S. Russian students in the era of the sixties (1855-1863) // Modern world. - St. Petersburg, 1907. - September. - P. 48-85.

21. Ashevsky, S. Russian students in the era of the sixties (1855-1863) // Modern world. - St. Petersburg, 1907. - October. - P. 48-74.

22. Borozdin, I. N. Universities of Russia in the era of the 60s. // History of Russia in the 19th century. The era of reform. -M., 2001. - Chapter VIII. - P. 376-401.

23. Gospodarik, Yu. P. “He has a noble heart”: Count Abraham Sergeevich Norov // Essays on the history of Russian education: To the 200th anniversary of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation: in 3 volumes - T. 1. - M., 2002. - pp. 259-278.

24. Grigoriev, V.V. Imperial St. Petersburg University during the first fifty years of its existence. - St. Petersburg, 1870.

25. Dzhanshiev, G. A. The Age of Great Reforms: in 2 volumes - T. 1. - M., 2008. - Ch. III. University autonomy. - P. 343-393.

26. Zhirkov, G.V. The century of official censorship // Essays on Russian culture of the 19th century: in 6 volumes - T. 2. Power and culture. - M., 2000. - P. 167-264.

27. Zakharova, L. G. Alexander II // Russian autocrats. 1801-1917. - M., 1993. - P. 160-215.

28. History of Russia XIX - early XX centuries. / ed. V. A. Fedorova. - 3rd ed. - M., 2002.

29. Kapnist, P. University issues // Bulletin of Europe: journal of history, politics, literature. - St. Petersburg, 1903. - T. VI. - pp. 167-218.

30. Lemke, M. K. The youth of “Father Mitrofan” // Bygone: A magazine dedicated to the history of the liberation movement. - St. Petersburg, 1907. - January. - P. 188-233.

31. Mironenko, S. V. Nicholas I // Russian autocrats. - pp. 91-156.

32. Petrov, F. A., Gutnov, D. A. Russian universities // Essays on Russian culture of the 19th century: in 6 volumes - T. 3. Cultural potential of society. - M., 2001. - P. 124-199.

33. Pirogov, N. I. University question. -SPb., 1863.

34. Rosenthal, V. N. Russian liberal of the 50s of the XIX century. (social and political views of K. D. Kavelin in the 50s - early 60s) // Revolutionary situation in Russia in 1859-1861. / ed. M. V. Nechkina. - M., 1974. - P. 224-256.

35. Cherneta, V. G. Minister of the eve of the Great Reforms: Evgraf Petrovich Kovalevsky // Essays on the history of Russian education. - T. 1. - P. 279-318.

36. Cherneta, V. G. In the epicenter of land storms: Count Evfimy Vasilyevich Putyatin // Essays on the history of Russian education. - T. 1. - P. 319-334.

37. Eymontova, R. G. Revolutionary situation and preparation of university reform in Russia // Revolutionary situation in Russia in 1859-1861. / ed. M. V. Nechkina. - M., 1974. - P. 60-80.

38. Eymontova, R. G. Russian universities on the verge of two eras. From serf Russia to capitalist Russia. - M., 1985.

39. Eymontova, R. G. Russian universities on the path of reform: the sixties of the 19th century. - M., 1993.

Bibliograficheskij spisok

1. Argillander N. A. Vissarion Grigor "yevich Belinskiy (Iz moyey studencheskoy s nim zhizni) // Moskovskiy universitet v vospominaniyakh sovremen-nikov / sost. YU. N. Yemel"yanov. - M., 1989. - S. 97101.

2. Boborykin P. D. Za polveka (Moi vospominaniya) / pod red. B. P. Koz "mina. - M., 1929.

3. Buslayev F. I. Moi vospominaniya / Izd. V. G. Fon-Bolya. - M., 1897.

4. Dolgorukov P. V. Peterburgskiye ocherki. - Pam-flety emigranta. - 1860-1867. - M., 1992.

5. Kavelin K. D. Nashi nedorazumeniya // Kavelin K. D. Izbrannoye / sost., avtor vstup. st., comment. R. A. Arslanov. - M., 2010. - S. 403-417.

6. Klyuchevskiy V. O. Moskovskiy universitet v pis "makh i zapiskakh // Moskovskiy universitet v vospominaniyakh sovremennikov / sost. YU. N. Yemel"yanov. - M., 1989. - S. 420-435.

7. Nikitenko A. V. Dnevnik: v 3 t. - M., 1955. - T. 1. - 1826-1857.

8. Nikitenko A. V. Dnevnik: v 3 t. - M., 1955. - T. 2. 1858-1865.

9. Pisarev D. I. Nasha universitetskaya nauka // Pisarev D. I. Sochineniya: v 4 t. - T. 2. - M., 1955. - S. 127227.

10. Rozhdestvenskiy S. V. Istoricheskiy obzor deyatel "nosti Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya. 1802-1902. - SPb., 1902.

11. Skabichevskiy A. M. Literaturnyye vospominaniya. - M., 1928.

12. Solov"yev S. M. Moi zapiski dlya detey moikh, a yesli mozhno, i dlya drugikh // Solov"yev S. M. Iz-brannyye trudy. Zapiski/Izd. podg. A. A. Levandovskiy, N. I. Tsimbayev. - M., 1983. - S. 229-350.

13. Spasovich V. Pyatidesyatiletiye Peterburgskogo universiteta // Spasovich V. Za mnogo let: Stat "i, otryvki, istoriya, kritika, polemika, sudebnyye rechi i proch. 1859-1871. - SPb., 1872. - S. 1-44 .

14. Spasovich V. Answer g. Yurkevichu // Tam zhe. -S. 45-56.

15. Feoktistov Ye. M. Vospominaniya. Za kulisami politiki i literature. 1848-1896 / pod red. YU. G. Oksmana. - L., 1929.

16. Khudyakov I. A. Zapiski karakozovtsa. Moskovskiy universitet (1859-1860 god) // Moskovskiy universitet. - S. 436-446.

17. Chicherin B. N. Vospominaniya. Moscow universitet / Vstup. st. iprim. S. V. Bakhrushina. - M., 1929.

18. Arslanov R. A. Konstantin Dmitriyevich Kavelin // Kavelin K. D. Izbrannoye / Sost., avtor vstup. st., comment. R. A. Arslanov. - M., 2010. - S. 5-56.

19. Ashevskiy S. Russkoye studenchestvo v epokhu shestidesyatykh godov (1855-1863) // Sovremennyy mir: Yezhemesyachnyy literaturnyy, nauchnyy i politicheskiy zhurnal. - SPb., 1907. - August. - S. 19-36.

20. Ashevskiy S. Russkoye studenchestvo v epokhu shestidesyatykh godov (1855-1863) // Sovremennyy mir. - SPb., 1907. - Sentyabr." - S. 48-85.

21. Ashevskiy S. Russkoye studenchestvo v epokhu shestidesyatykh godov (1855-1863) // Sovremennyy mir. - SPb., 1907. - Oktyabr." - S. 48-74.

22. Borozdin I. N. Universitety Rossii v epokhu 60-kh gg. // Istoriya Rossii v XIX century. Epoch reform. -M., 2001. - Chapter VIII. - S. 376-401.

23. Gospodarik YU. P. “U nego blagorodnoye serd-tse”: Graf Avraam Sergeyevich Norov // Ocherki istorii rossiyskogo obrazovaniya: K 200-letiyu Ministerstva obrazovaniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii: v 3 t. - T. 1. - M., 2002. - S. 259-278.

24. Grigor "yev V. V. Imperatorskiy S.-Peterburgskiy universitet v techeniye pervykh pyatidesyati let yego su-shchestvovaniya. - SPb., 1870.

25. Dzhanshiyev G. A. Epokha Velikikh reform: v 2 t. - T. 1. - M., 2008. - Gl. III. Universitetskaya av-tonomiya. - S. 343-393.

26. Zhirkov G. V. Vek ofitsial"noy tsenzury // Ocherki russkoy kul"tury XIX century: v 6 t. - T. 2. Vlast" i kul"tura. - M., 2000. - S. 167-264.

27. Zakharova L. G. Aleksandr II // Rossiyskiye samoderzhtsy. 1801-1917. - M., 1993. - S. 160-215.

28. Nopua KOBBP XIX - paIa1a XX V. / pod r± V. A. Fedorova. - 3rd izd. - M., 2002.

29. Kapnist R. ip^ega1e18k!ue voprosy // Vestnik Yevropy: zhurna1 istorii, po1itiki, 1iteratury. - 8РЪ., 1903. - T. VI. - 8. 167-218.

30. Lemke M. K. Mo1odost "ottsa Mitrofana" // Wu-1oye: Zhurna1, posvyashchennyy istorii osvobodite1 "nogo dvizheniya. - 8Рь., 1907. - Yanvar." - 8. 188-233.

31. MTOSHP^ 8. V. M^eu I // Rossiyskiye samoderzhtsy. - P. 91-156.

32. 32. Petrov F. A., Gutnov B. A. Rossiyskiye yt-versitety // O^GY russkoy ku1"tury XIX century: v 6 t. - T. 3. K^Shtuu potentsia1 obshchestva. - M., 2001. - 8. 124-199.

33. Pirogov N. I. Universitetskiy vopros. - 8Рь., 1863.

34. Rozenta1" V. N. Rossiyskiy 1ibera1 50-kh godov XIX v. (obshchestvenno-po1iticheskiye vzg1yady K. B. Kave1ina v 50-kh - nacha1e 60-kh godov) // Revo1yutsionnaya situatsiya v Rossii v 1859-1861 gg. / pod red . M. V. Nechkinoy. - M., 1974. - 8. 224-256.

35. Cherneta V. G. kanuna Ve1ikikh reform: Yevgraf Petrovich Kova1evskiy // Ocherki istorii rossiy-skogo obrazovaniya. - T. 1. - 8. 279-318.

36. Cherneta V. G. V epitsentre sukhoputnykh shtormov: Graf Yevfimiy Vasi1 "yevich Putyatin // Ocherki istorii rossiyskogo obrazovaniya. - T. 1. - 8. 319-334.

37. Eymontova R. G. Revo1yutsionnaya situatsiya i podgotovka universitetskoy reformy v Rossii // Revo1yut-sionnaya situatsiya v Rossii v 1859-1861 gg. /pod red. M. V. Nechkinoy. - M., 1974. - 8. 60-80.

38. Eymontova R. G. Russkiye universitety na grani dvukh epokh. From Rossii krepostnoy k Rossii kapita1is-ticheskoy. - M., 1985.

39. Eymontova R. G. Russkiye universitety na put-yakh reformy: shestidesyatyye gody XIX century. - M., 1993.

1 A.V. Nikitenko mentions public lectures, including those organized specifically for the benefit of needy students, in the records of 1858.

2 He believes that the mutual aid funds were a “stillborn institution” that caused “moral damage” to fellowship relations, since “insufficient students” became dependent on board members to allocate funds to them. In addition, he condemns student gatherings, which resembled “gatherings of a crowd inclined to act under the impression of the moment and easily falling under the influence of more dexterous leaders who knew how to win over the majority of the gathering participants to their side,” which was not always an exponent of the views and interests of the real the majority of university students, but the decisions they made acquired the force of law for absolutely everyone [p. 201]. In his opinion, student cash desks and libraries contributed little to the sincere comradely rapprochement of students, which is why they did not last long, disintegrating due to “complete mismanagement. constant change of stewards” and from ill-conceived guidelines for elected officials [p. 200, 201].

3 Term by D.I. Pisarev.

4 Term by D.I. Pisarev.

5 A. V. Nikitenko reports that N. I. Kostomarov, who for a long time enjoyed great authority among students, was forced to resign when he received “more than twenty abusive letters from students,” who also threatened to “beat” him if he stays at the university.

6 During the time we are studying, Russia created its own scientific schools and many outstanding scientists were awarded world fame: botanist A. N. Beketov, histologist and neurophysiologist A. I. Babukhin, chemists A. M. Butlerov and D. I. Mendeleev, biologist I. I. Mechnikov, physiologist I. M. Sechenov, physicist A. G. Stoletov, naturalist K. A. Timiryazev, medical scientists N. I. Pirogov and N. V. Sklifosovsky, philologist A. A. Potebnya, etc. . Therefore, admitting the idea that among the teachers there could be scientists who were unremarkable in the scientific field, who were uninitiatively “pulling the burden” in anticipation of retirement, we have no right to cast a shadow on all representatives of the teaching corps who conscientiously served science and the field education, “blaming” them for their inability to captivate students in academic and educational activities.

7 A. V. Nikitenko reports a catastrophic drop in the level of education among students who gave their preference to the social problems that worried them rather than to their studies. While attending an exam in Russian history in April 1861, he was struck by the ignorance of the respondents, which would have been unforgivable even for high school students. “Their ignorance, lethargy, lack of logic in their speeches, and unclear presentation exceeded my worst expectations.” A.V. Nikitenko inadvertently casts a shadow on N.I. Kostomarov, who taught a course on the history of Russia, making it clear that in his classes students usually “think about various government reforms.” The “very bad” answers of the examinees struck him because N. I. Kostomarov was the “most popular” teacher at the Faculty of History and Philology, which in itself presupposed the appropriate level of knowledge of his students. However, the students, as it turned out, did not feel due responsibility to their beloved professor, whom they “rewarded with shouts of approval and applause” during lectures, and clearly damaged his reputation in the eyes of his colleagues.

8 A.V. Nikitenko recalls that the law was carried out. In February 1858, graduates of St. Petersburg University were prohibited from gathering to celebrate the memorable date of its founding.

9 A.V. Nikitenko, commenting on this government order, wrote: “There is a project to dress students in ordinary common clothes, so that they are subordinate to the general police on an equal basis with everyone else. Of course, this will make the university easier. But, on the other hand, this will completely transfer these poor young men into the power of our rude police.”

10 V. O. Klyuchevsky - a graduate of the Penza Theological Seminary, entering Moscow University in August 1861, passed a written exam - an essay, exams in “Russian literature and the law of God”, history and geography, mathematics and physics, Latin and Greek languages , German and French languages. The tests went on day after day, from August 7 to 16. The applicant was required

immediately, together with submitting an application for study, pay twenty-five rubles for the first semester.

11 A. V. Nikitenko, who was not surprised by the resignation of the minister, believed that in the university issue E. P. Kovalevsky “acted at least negligently. Universities have been falling for three years now economically, academically and morally... Kovalevsky was definitely afraid to take on. the matter [of their improvement. - M.N., T.P.], as if out of fear of criticism that he was opposed to the liberal movement, if he had to resort to some kind of restrictive measure in relation to students.” . The professor at St. Petersburg University also accuses E.P. Kovalevsky of the fact that the decline of universities was his fault: “For three years, blatant bad things have been committed before Kovalevsky’s eyes - and he still could not imagine that something was needed here.” do something."

I. N. Borozdin characterized the 12 members of the commission as “leaders of the reactionary clique.” The commissions included, for example, Prince P. G. Oldenburg, Governor General of St. Petersburg P. N. Ignatiev, former trustee of the Moscow educational district, “ultra-reactionary” S. G. Stroganov, Minister of Justice, “famous for his obscurantism ", V. N. Panin, chief of gendarmes V. D. Dolgorukov.

13 B. N. Chicherin claims that the new Rules also contained “good orders”: on the destruction of the punishment cell and the resumption of the activities of the professorial court to examine student misconduct.

14 If previously, for example, at Moscow University 150-200 people were exempted from tuition fees annually, then according to the new regulations this benefit could only be applied to twelve students at St. Petersburg University and eighteen at Moscow University.

15 It is known, for example, that M. Yu. Lermontov was retained for the second year for poor performance in moral and dogmatic theology, Greek and Latin.

A. A. Fet was also not a diligent student. He received a D in his second-year final examination in political economy and was therefore retained for a second year. In his third year he also studied twice due to poor academic performance. Greek language. Both famous poets were students at Moscow University during the reign of Nicholas I.

16 Cases of expulsion from the university in the Nicholas era were rare, but they did occur. So, in the early 30s. was expelled from Moscow University

V. G. Belinsky. He was accused of numerous absenteeism, as well as “futility and inability” to listen to lectures. Perhaps these student misdeeds were aggravated by the reprehensible content of his drama “Dmitry Kalinin,” which was not censored.

17 B. N. Chicherin claims that underground newspapers were published in St. Petersburg, which turned the university into a “center of political propaganda.” The proclamation of M. L. Mikhailov “To the Young Generation,” which contained “vulgar revolutionary curses,” “called for the extermination of not only the royal family, but also all landowners and senior officials,” is evidenced not only by A. V. Nikitenko and B. N. Chicherin, but also student V. O. Klyuchevsky. It was printed in London and brought to Moscow from St. Petersburg.

18 “Wild speeches against the authorities” - this is how A. V. Nikitenko characterizes their oratory, who did not believe in the possibility of bringing about grandiose changes in Russia by radical means alone, condemned a society “dissolving in destructive tendencies,” and despised A. I. Herzen , who was “delighted with student stories” and urged students “not to think about science, but to develop propaganda for the uprising.”

19 I. A. Khudyakov reacted to this as follows: “This despotic habit of punishing and pardoning without trial or investigation was to the heart of the university authorities. Indignation [of students. - M.N., T.P.] increased."

20 “Soft and even weak,” in the assessment of B. N. Chicherin, P. A. Tuchkov, cared about “somehow settling everything quietly and not allowing a scandal to flare up.”

21 On this occasion, A.V. Nikitenko noted: “This fact is very interesting. What will our Reds say, calling the people to revolt in the name of progress and all sorts of social perfections?” .

22 P. D. Boborykin wrote that “The University of Dorpat... is within Russia. gave everything essential that the German nation had developed in the West.” Only here - even in the “gloomy seven years” - they continued to read the history of philosophy and all branches of the science of philosophy; “seminaries” were organized not only at the medical, but also at the literature and law faculties; Narrow specialization of sciences was welcomed and introduced in all departments. Here “mental and educational freedoms” were always preserved, “the student knew no restrictions” and, if he did not get caught for carousing and dueling stories, he could completely ignore “any inspection” of his behavior. He was not forced to go to mass, wear a cocked hat, did not copy at lectures, and the pedels - spies of student life - controlled only the “street” life of the young man.

“In a word,” notes P. D. Boborykin, “for pan-European mental growth. Dorpat, as a university of the German-Baltic Sea type, could give a lot. But for the Russian young man from the moment our fatherland perked up and took a different course in 1856, the air within the walls of his “alma mater” remained completely alien. If. forget that there, to the east, there is a vast homeland and that in its centers and even in the provinces the work of social growth began, that literature and the press revived, that many new ideas, hopes, protests pushed the forward movement of Russia in anticipation of the Great Reforms. then you would not have heard a single sound from the pulpit speaking about the connection of “Livonian Athens” with the common fatherland. Isolation, exclusive attraction to what is happening in the German West and in the Baltic region - this is the note that was heard always and everywhere.”

V. A. Manasein also reports in his letters about the disdain of Dorpat students for current problems of a political nature.

23 Let us refer to the conclusions of R. G. Eymontova. She believes that “a type of dry, highly specialized scholarship took root in Nicholas’s time. first of all. at St. Petersburg University." The local professors opposed themselves to those in Moscow and treated with disdain not only T.N. Granovsky and P.N. Kudryavtsev, but also S.M. Solovyov and F.I. Buslaev.

24 For comparison, let’s take A.V. Nikitenko (St. Petersburg) and B.N. Chicherin (Moscow), who agree in their assessment of E.V. Putyatin.

A.V. Nikitenko: “Count Putyatin does not understand many issues and tasks related to managing the Ministry. His ideas are in many ways very strange, not to say wild. The graph is generally limited. It’s difficult to put a useful thought into his head.” B. N. Chicherin: “...he is impossible: he does not understand either moral relations or the social state. He’s just stupid and stubborn on top of that.”

25 A. V. Nikitenko: “Here is a description of the various ministries of the Ministry of Public Education after Uvarov: Shikhmatov’s ministry is gloomy; Norova - relaxing; Kovalevsky - falling asleep; Putyatina - stupefying; Golovnina is corrupting." B. N. Chicherin: “In order to give universities a reasonable direction, it is necessary, first of all, for them to be managed by people who know both universities and the state of society. Meanwhile, for the last thirteen years [since 1848 - M.N., T.P.] we have not had a single minister and not a single trustee (in Moscow) who understood anything about this.”

26 The views of professors from different scientific centers are similar on this issue.

A.V. Nikitenko: “The government is losing its authority every day. In the thinking part of society - some, on the basis of ultra-liberal ideas, hate him; others, ready to join him in every possible way, are irritated by many measures that expose either the inability or weakness of the government.” .

B. N. Chicherin: “In our country the government has such a predominant importance, it rises above society to such an extent that freedom of opinion is considered a merit, and oppositional thought can always count on popularity.”

27 Back in 1919, the historian B. E. Nolde noted that “between the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II there lies a line of enormous historical difference. At the beginning of the reign of Alexander II, all the main issues that constitute the content of Russian life of our time arose, and the main solutions to these issues in the political, social and cultural life of Russia were outlined. Here, as it were, is a prelude to the future drama of Russian life. We begin to recognize the new Russia only in Russia on the brink of 1855, and only by crossing this line are we in the new Russia of our ancestors.”

28 At St. Petersburg University, the overwhelming majority of the university council (29 people) condemned the harsh government measures aimed at crushing the student movement. “On the side of the university authorities,” who became the mouthpiece of ministerial orders “to tighten the screws,” there were only three professors, and among them was A. V. Nikitenko. His position in relation to the student unrest is manifested in the following lines: “In good conscience, I could not defend the actions of the students.” ; “Everyone has definitely eaten too much dope. Everyone looks at students as martyrs. Their insolence and disobedience to the law and authorities are considered heroic...”

29 On this matter, the position of all moderate liberals was well expressed by B. N. Chicherin: “To sincere liberals at sight. The communist movement remains to support absolutism, which is still better than anarchy."

30 As an example, let us cite the polemic between A.N. Pypin and F.I. Buslaev, which became especially acute when N.G. Chernyshevsky came out on the side of the former with caustic criticism of his opponent.

The case of a “three-week shooting” on the criminal law textbook of V. Spasovich, who, as a “communist,” was awarded very harsh criticism by the Moscow professors, led by the “conservatives” P. D. Yurkevich and S. I. Barshev, received wide publicity.

“They won’t hang us because of this bastard of students!”

It all started on February 8, 1899 (hereinafter all dates are in the old style), when St. Petersburg University solemnly celebrated its 80th anniversary. On the eve of the anniversary, the university posted a message from the rector, ordering students to “execute the laws, thereby protecting the honor and dignity of the university,” and warning, “Those responsible may be subject to arrest, deprivation of benefits, dismissal and expulsion from the university, and expulsion from the capital.”

The arrogant and arrogant tone of the rector outraged many, and two days before the anniversary, a crowd tore down and destroyed the ill-fated announcement. The meeting in honor of the 80th anniversary of the university ended in a scandal - the audience booed Sergeevich, forcing him to interrupt his speech and leave the podium. After the ceremonial part was over, students began to leave the building in small groups to cheerfully celebrate the holiday in the city.

However, an unpleasant surprise awaited them on the street - the exit towards the Palace Bridge and pedestrian crossings across the ice of the Neva were blocked by the police. Apparently, the authorities sought to prevent a repeat of the incidents of previous years, when students marched past the royal residence towards Nevsky Prospekt, singing and shouting. But the police cordon was organized in an extremely illiterate and stupid way: no one could explain to the puzzled students which way they should go.

Confusion arose, an impressive crowd of disorganized youth gradually accumulated in front of the university building, until they finally moved along the embankment towards Rumyantsevsky Square and Nikolaevsky Bridge. Seeing this, the police authorities ordered, just in case, to escort the students with two horsemen, sergeant Skolmeister and policeman Mishin. This outraged the already embittered young people, who decided that the police were going to block the Nikolaevsky Bridge as well. In addition, the students were offended that “they were being escorted like prisoners.”

Further events from the words of an eyewitness were described by the famous publicist of that time, Vladimir Chertkov:

“There were shouts: why? what do you need? back! Down with! Lumps of snow flew, several people grabbed brooms that were located at the guard's horse-car crossing and waved them. The horses of the two riders were frightened by the screams, turned around and, amid loud laughter from those around them, rushed off again to the Academy of Sciences, where the squadron was stationed. Several minutes passed. The crowd was already moving on; many were already crossing the bridge to the other side... - when suddenly those in the rear saw that the squadron of mounted policemen had set off and began to trot closer. Everyone stopped again. There were shouts and exclamations... and when the squadron approached, snowballs flew at it again, and one of them, as it later turned out, crushed the leader’s face.

“March, march! - the officer unexpectedly commanded (apparently, it was Sergeant Skolmeister - note from Lenta.ru): “They won’t hang us because of this bastard of students!” The squadron launched into the quarry and crashed into the crowd, knocking over and trampling students and private citizens who filled the street. Whips flashed in the air... One old man, a respectable gentleman, was crushed by a horse, and, already lying on the ground, received a blow from a whip; ... one young woman, clinging to the bars of the square, received a blow with a whip from a guardsman who galloped nearby; ... in the park there was a student lying in the snow, whose coat was nothing but rags, it was so striped and torn.”

“The case grew from a school prank to the level of a social phenomenon”

The students, outraged by the violence committed, went on strike, and the rector Sergeevich did not find anything better than to call the police to the university, thereby also turning a significant part of the teachers against himself. Several dozen of the most active protesters were arrested, others were expelled and expelled from the capital. The brutal massacre of student youth caused anger and indignation in society.

As the same Chertkov wrote, “the uplift of spirit that began at school first spread to relatives, friends and acquaintances of the offended young men; then, in widening circles, it spread further and further; until finally the whole society became agitated under the influx of a feeling of indignation long unknown to him. Even in the most hidebound bureaucratic and aristocratic circles a murmur of indignation was heard.”

Finance Minister and future Prime Minister Sergei Witte persuaded Tsar Nicholas II to order an investigation into the events of February 8, which was headed by former Minister of War Pyotr Vannovsky. “Talking about a real, very regrettable case,” Witte noted. “I cannot help but note that... the real riots... are apparently devoid of any political overtones... As a result of everything that happened, the case grew from a school prank to the level of a social phenomenon.”

Vannovsky’s commission, despite some public prejudice, worked unexpectedly conscientiously and objectively, and in its report criticized the activities of the police. She found that the police authorities were initially determined to harshly disperse the students. For example, the lower ranks of the mounted police guard were given whips before the start of the action, which were usually used only during night patrols. However, the authorities did not dare to publish this report.

Events in Moscow

After the closure of St. Petersburg University, students from Moscow University went on strike on February 15, 1899, as a sign of solidarity with its students. As in the capital, the authorities responded to this with mass arrests, expulsions and expulsions. A representative of St. Petersburg University, Sergei Saltykov, who arrived in Moscow, met with Leo Tolstoy. The famous writer, despite working on the novel “Resurrection,” was keenly interested in student protests.

According to Saltykov’s memoirs, Tolstoy was sympathetic to the youth revolt, “he was especially interested in the form into which the movement took shape, and the student strike seemed to him one of the forms of non-resistance to evil through violence.” On February 22, the writer’s wife Sofya Andreevna Tolstaya, in a letter to the critic Stasov, bitterly complained: “We are all here in great excitement, like all of Russia, about the closure of all educational institutions. They irritated the youth without any fault on their part; what a pity and how careless.”

At the end of March, large-scale repressions against students in Moscow seemed to have done their job - the strike died out. However, on April 6, a tragedy occurred in the solitary confinement cell of Butyrka prison: 22-year-old final year university student Herman Lieven doused himself with kerosene and committed self-immolation. The reasons for this act remained unclear: his friends claimed that he could not stand the bullying of the prison guards, and the authorities explained the prisoner’s suicide as an exacerbation of mental illness. After the funeral service, students marched with political slogans from the Cathedral of Christ the Savior up the boulevards, but near the Pushkin monument they were dispersed by the police.

Lieven's funeral Nizhny Novgorod, where he was from, also grew into a student demonstration of thousands. Maxim Gorky, who was absent from the city that day, later wrote to Chekhov: “The public here is outraged by the death of the student Lieven, who burned himself in prison. I knew him, I know his mother, an old woman. This Lieven was buried here with pomp and show, a huge crowd followed the coffin and sang all the way.”

“Terror not only in prisons, but also in barracks”

The student unrest of 1899 was harshly suppressed by the authorities. The apotheosis of government arbitrariness was the approval by Nicholas II on July 29, 1899 of “Temporary rules on serving military service by students of higher educational institutions who are removed from these institutions for causing unrest in droves.” Violating almost all the norms of the current legislation, this document ordered that any rebellious students be recruited as soldiers, “even if they had benefits due to their marital status, or education, or had not reached conscription age.”

It is not known for certain how many destinies were then crippled by this lawless act. As Chertkov aptly put it, “the government, instead of making amends for its crimes before the students... is creating a new terror, terror not only of prisons, but also of barracks.” Lenin later wrote that “The Provisional Rules of 1899 tear off the pharisaical mask and expose the Asian essence of even those of our institutions that most closely resemble European ones.”

But, having suppressed the unrest of student youth, the government of Nicholas II won a Pyrrhic victory. Demands to protect universities from police brutality gradually gave way to political slogans. The popularity of radical ideas has sharply increased among young people. American historian Richard Pipes considers those events to be the prologue of the first Russian revolution and the bloody revolutionary terror that swept Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Among the students expelled in 1899 were the future terrorists Ivan Kalyaev, who in 1905 killed Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich in the Moscow Kremlin, and the Socialist Revolutionary militant Boris Savinkov.

Vladimir Chertkov, who has already been mentioned more than once, prophetically remarked in those days: “Along with... the growth of reaction, dissatisfaction with the regime also grew, the seeds from which the current movement grew ripened, and we saw what dimensions it assumed. This is not a momentary outburst of an offended sense of dignity, this is a conscious protest, deep in its idea, great in its size and significance... All these young men are preparing to enter life, and, already standing at its door, they peer and listen to what awaits them beyond the threshold of high school... Now they all want the truth, everyone wants to believe that in the future they will begin to realize ideal principles, that they will always be on the side of justice and goodness... This is already general property youth, and a country in which youth would lose this feeling would undoubtedly decompose and perish.”

Student. N. Yaroshenko

Interesting article about performances Russian students in 1899-1902 and about Russian students of the 19th century in general. On the one hand, the amazing activity of Russian students, their ability to self-organize and defend their honor and dignity. On the other hand, the fundamental problems of the students of that time are in many ways similar to those of today.
But why was it that the students of that time were not afraid to impose their rules of the game on the leadership, boldly exercised their rights in person, but today they only obsequiously look at the faces of their superiors? However, the same can be said about modern workers in comparison with the workers of the early 20th century (against this general background, the attempts of all sorts of “worker cleaners” who strive to prove that only factory workers are revolutionary) look very funny.
Another interesting point, which one comrade rightly pointed out: “It is interesting to note that the St. Petersburg meeting of students on February 5, 1902 rejected the idea of ​​legal student organizations, putting forward a demand for the right of general meetings and meetings at which all student issues would be resolved. Thus, organizations are opposed to general meetings and are considered by students as a means of reducing student activity and control on the part of the administration. A member of the Vannovsky commission, professor at Moscow University, Prince Evgeniy Trubetskoy, speaks about this, insisting on the legalization of fraternities in order to paralyze their criminal direction and take them under supervision."

Full text of the article:

The 110th anniversary of the events to which the article is dedicated will take place in February. I would like it to be celebrated by the progressive public. The student revolution began on February 8, 1899, according to the new style it is February 20. But it seems to the author that by publishing the material in advance, he will provide the opportunity for its discussion and use by those who are interested in the topics of the domestic youth movement. This is especially true during the Year of Youth in Russia. Therefore, we decided to bring the material to your attention on Tatiana’s Day, a Russian student holiday.
The article was written for the philosophical journal CredoNew and will be published in full in one of the upcoming issues.

We are not fighters. We are only the shadow of fighters
Fallen from the sun behind the mountains,
We are only messengers of the creators coming into the world,
Rich in thought and knowledge and gifts;
We are just swallows who left the south,
To usher in nature's renewal,
We only carry the news that the illness is over
And that the doctors promise the patient recovery.

From student literature of 1901-1902.

110 years ago, in February 1899, the first all-Russian student strike began, which shook the entire country. This event has not received sufficient coverage in domestic historiography. IN Soviet era this, apparently, was due to the fact that the participants in the events were students, and not the proletariat, and no leading role of the Social Democrats (later Bolsheviks) in these events can be traced. During the years of perestroika and in the new Russia, appealing to student unrest could be regarded as “rocking the boat” and provoking youth protests. Apparently, this is why the 100th anniversary of the events passed almost unnoticed. As a result, a paradoxical situation has arisen in which the Russian public is better informed about the youth riots of 1968 in France and the United States than about its own history. Meanwhile, turning to the experience of the student revolution of 1899 is very relevant in the context of the search for self-identity and one’s path in modern Russia. Such an appeal is especially timely now that the Year of Youth has been declared in Russia.
What happened in St. Petersburg in February 1899?
The historical outline of the events of those years is as follows.
On February 8, St. Petersburg University celebrates its founding day. On this day, after the ceremonial meeting, students, as usual, disperse to taverns and have noisy parties.
On February 4, 1899, a few days before the holiday, the following announcement appeared under glass at the official stand of St. Petersburg University:
“On February 8, on the day of the celebration of the anniversary of the Imperial S.P.B. University, students often violate order and tranquility on the streets of St. Petersburg and in public meetings. Riots begin immediately after the end of the university act with a procession of students in a large crowd singing songs and shouts of “Hurray!” along the Palace Bridge and even along Nevsky Prospect. In the evening, noisy intrusions into restaurants, entertainment venues, the circus, and the Maly Theater occur until late at night, which gives rise to regrettable events. clashes and causes displeasure among the public. The society of the capital has long paid attention to these riots; it is outraged by them and condemns the university and the entire student body for them, while only a small part of it participates in them. The law provides for this kind of riots and for disturbing public peace and quiet. subjects the perpetrators to arrest for up to 7 days or a fine of up to 25 rubles. If a whole crowd of people participates in these violations and does not disperse at the request of the police, then those who persist are subject to arrest for up to 1 month or a fine of up to 100 rubles. And if it becomes necessary to stop the disorder by force, the perpetrators are subject to arrest for up to 3 months or a fine of up to 300 rubles. On February 8, the police are obliged to protect peace and quiet in exactly the same way as on any other day of the year. If a disturbance occurs, the police are obliged to stop it at all costs. The law also prescribes the use of force to stop riots. The consequences of such a collision with the police can be very sad. Those found guilty may be subject to: arrest, loss of benefits, dismissal and expulsion from the university, and expulsion from the capital. I consider it necessary to warn Mr. Mr. about this. students. Students must comply with the laws, thereby protecting the honor and dignity of the university. Rector of the University V. Sergeevich."
This announcement was perceived by students as an insult and caused outrage. “Perhaps,” wrote Minister of Finance Count S.Yu. Witte a few days later regarding these events in a special note for the meeting of ministers, “students in such a case expected from the university authorities an appeal to a sense of honor, and not the threat of punishment for riotousness and obscenity.” behavior of their comrades. Perhaps the best part of the student body considered itself offended by the fact that for the street riots carried out annually by a group of students, a shadow was cast in the eyes of society over all university students.” The students discussed the shameful announcement among themselves for two days. On Saturday, February 6, during a student meeting that had gathered for a completely different reason, the announcement was disrupted, the window was smashed to pieces, and it was decided to meet the rector’s appearance at the university event on February 8 with obstruction.
The meeting on February 8 began in full order: a report on the activities of the university over the past year was read, and Professor Oldenburg, as is tradition, made a report on a scientific topic. When did the rector prof. V. Sergeevich ascended to the pulpit, there was noise, whistling and hissing. The rector waited for 15 minutes and was unable to begin his speech, after which he was forced to leave the podium. After his departure, the national anthem and the student song were sung with enthusiasm without any incident, after which the students began to go home in small groups. But they were unable to leave quietly: the path for those of them who headed towards the Palace Bridge was blocked by a detachment of mounted police that had left the courtyard of the Academy of Sciences building. It was also not possible to cross the Neva on ice, since for some reason the usual bridges from the university to Senate Square at this time of year were partially dismantled. All that remained was to go towards the Nikolaevsky Bridge, where the students, who had already gathered quite a lot, moved in a cheerful crowd. Halfway to the bridge, already approaching Rumyantsevsky Square, this crowd was caught up by the lieutenant commanding the mounted police detachment with one of the policemen. It occurred to the students that he wanted to call another police detachment that would block this path too, and they did not let the police pass, began throwing snowballs at them, someone grabbed the brooms leaning against the guardhouse at the siding and scared the horses. The officer and his companion turned back and returned to the main detachment, and soon the entire police detachment overtook the student crowd as they approached the Academy of Arts. The students again began to throw snowballs at the police, then the lieutenant commanded “March, march!”, and added words that were later mentioned in the student bulletin: “They won’t hang us because of this bastard of students!” The police charged into the unarmed crowd, trampling people with horses and beating them with whips. As witnesses note, bystanders were also injured: one old man’s head was cut open with a blow from a whip, a woman was knocked down with a horse and continued to be beaten as she was already lying on the pavement. Students jumped over the fence of the square and tried to escape the beating there. Many were seriously injured, many had their clothes torn by whips.
The next day, February 9, a grand gathering was held at the university, which was attended by about 2,000 people, i.e. more than half of all students. The rector spoke at the meeting, inviting everyone to disperse. This time his speech was not interrupted, since the previous events had already faded into the background, and the students believed that police brutality had insulted the honor of the entire university, so both the professors and the administration should stand up for it. They listened to V. Sergeevich’s speech in silence, but no one dispersed. The rector was asked to leave and began to discuss the question of what actions should be taken after the horrific beating of students by the police, should they protest and in what form? The discussion of this issue did not end that day and was continued the next. It was proposed to appeal the actions of the police in court, but this proposal was rejected on the grounds that the court would undoubtedly impose penalties only on the officer in command of the detachment and on ordinary police officers, while the decision to use the police was undoubtedly made higher. In addition, consideration of a case against police officers at that time was possible only with the consent of their superiors, and they most likely would not give such permission. Another proposal was to file a collective petition, but this route was illegal, since the university statutes prohibited the filing of collective petitions, and although petitions had been submitted in the past, they always remained unsuccessful. Therefore, the meeting decided to suspend classes. This measure was considered the most drastic, and those gathered decided to refrain from any demonstrations and violence. Here is the resolution of the student meeting: “We are outraged by the violence of which we were victims on February 8, violence that degrades human dignity, violence that was criminal even when applied to the darkest and most voiceless layer of the population. In general, we consider such violence inhumane for everyone and protest against him. As a means to carry out our protest, we declare St. Petersburg University closed and make every effort to officially close it. We stop attending lectures and, while present at the university, prevent anyone from attending them every day; gatherings and other measures, except for violence, we stop the normal course of university life. We continue this method of obstruction until our demands are met: 1) publication for public information of all instructions that guide the police and administration regarding students, and 2) guarantees of our physical integrity. identity and the possibility of appealing all police actions in general judicial institutions; We demand all this for students of all higher educational institutions, male and female. From February 10, we are closing the university and informing professors and students about this, who have not heard our decision." The resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority, with no more than 30 people voting against.
It must be said that the majority of professors were on the side of the students and shared their opinion that the university had been insulted. The students explained their position to the teachers who came to give lectures, so only a few of the professors showed persistence and wanted to conduct classes at all costs, apparently for fear of being fired for absenteeism. This persistence sometimes took comical forms. For example, the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology, Professor Nikitin, carefully appeared in the classroom at the appointed hours and spent time reading newspapers. Professor Markov saw in the student strike a desire to reduce the amount of educational material submitted for the exam, and publicly declared that there would be no relaxation. The professor of church law, priest Gorchakov, placed a chair in the doorway of his empty classroom and stood on it, turning to the students crowded in the corridor (later, when the police were brought into the university, the same professor Gorchakov would tell Mayor Kleigelson that his very presence within the walls university constitutes a personal insult for him, Gorchakov). There were apostates among the students, and other students had to make noise to interfere with the lectures.
At the meeting on February 11, Rector V. Sergeevich again addressed the students, and his speech began with the words: “I may have to speak to you in this composition for the last time, so I ask you to listen to me calmly.” It can be assumed that in this way he was already hinting at a possible different turn of events, which took place later. In addition, the rector made it clear that he was appointed to lead the university by the sovereign himself, and thus, by arranging obstruction, the students opposed His Imperial Majesty. He ended with the words: “Gentlemen, think about everything I said! The police broke the law, but you don’t break it, it will cost you dearly, and what is all this about, because of the stupidity of some police officer? Think about it, The police cannot be polite! disciplinary action to me, but no one came. Now I must turn to the trustee and transfer my power to him+ What measures the trustee will take, I do not know+ A revolution in a closed room is an absurdity. You read the rules when entering the university, you gave your word to fulfill them and must fulfill them. Now you must calmly discuss your situation: it is critical."
The rector's speech, as expected, had no result, and the strike continued. In response, the assistant trustee of the educational district, Mr. Lavrentyev, who was replacing the ill trustee Kapustin, called the police to the university on the same day. The police were confused and did not understand what to do: not letting students into the university meant facilitating its closure and implementing the decision of the student meeting, and letting them in meant giving the opportunity to new meetings and the continuation of obstruction. As a result, the police cordoned off the university and stopped allowing students into it from 12 o’clock, and re-signed the obstructionists who had gathered in the morning. The next day, the police took away the student cards of the obstructionists who were in the building, and first locked the students who had gathered in front of the entrance and wanted to support their comrades in the Manege for several hours, and then copied them and took some of them to the police station. Thus, on February 13, 1,500 people were registered.
The appearance of the police within the university walls caused outrage even among professors, although some of them tried to conduct lectures in the presence of police officers, but there was no one to lecture: the classrooms were empty. Due to the fact that the professors clearly sympathized with the students, the Minister of Public Education Bogolepov canceled the meeting of the university council scheduled for February 12, since the minister feared open opposition statements from the professors.
The strike on the same day was supported by 17 universities in the city, incl. military and spiritual. Students of the Academy of Arts, the Institute of Transport, students of the Higher Women's (Bestuzhev) courses and private women's courses of prof. Lesgaft, through the delegates, expressed sympathy and solidarity with the university students. Student meetings with the decision to suspend classes until the demands of the university students were accepted were held at the Military Medical Academy, Mining, Forestry and Electrical Engineering Institutes, Women's Medical Institute and other universities in the capital. The next day, the Institute of Technology and the Institute of Civil Engineers, as well as students of the women's paramedic Christmas courses, joined the strike. The most decisive was, perhaps, the protest of students of the Historical and Philological Institute, where 60 out of 90 students, as a sign of solidarity with university students, submitted their resignations.
A few months after the events described, verses appeared in the student leaflet to the tune of the famous St. Petersburg student song “Through the Tumba-Tumbu-Raz” with the following words:
Over the wide river
The silent couple
A pair of sphinxes stands, grinning.
Pharaohs all around
They beat everyone with a whip,
Pyramids, scoundrel, is different!
And the parchment is alive
Under a skillful hand
It's all covered in hieroglyphs.
And for those who later
Dissatisfied with the whip
Ten plagues are sent at a time
And one crocodile
Then he said everything
That the country is governed by law!
In general, the author of the couplets feels not in Russia, but in Ancient Egypt. Here it is necessary to give some explanations: the Egyptian sphinxes were installed on the Neva embankment in front of the Academy of Arts exactly at the place where the massacre took place; Pyramidov was at that time the head of the police security department; Well, by “crocodile” we mean, of course, the rector of the university, Sergeevich.
In order to understand why something as seemingly insignificant as a clash with the police sparked such a powerful student movement across the country, it is necessary to go back to the mid-19th century. Until this time, the Russian university was predominantly a noble one, and the university was often attended by those who did not get into military service, which was much more prestigious, and therefore chose a career as an official. The need of representatives of other classes for education and the economic need for a large number of educated people led to the fact that since the 60s of the last century the university has become almost all-class. New students from the children of commoners, often poor and poorly dressed, sought education because it opened up new life prospects for them. The nobility, for its part, sought to preserve the caste nature of university education, rightly seeing in this a system of reproduction of the ruling elite. Almost all actions of the noble government of Russia in relation to universities are in one way or another connected precisely with this problem: to allow or not to allow other classes to study, and if so, to what extent. In practice, the solution was usually to avoid it if possible. It is precisely this that is connected with measures to increase tuition fees, and bans on admitting Jews and people who have not completed a gymnasium course to the university, and bans on the creation of student organizations and fraternities. Poor students, for their part, were forced to unite for mutual support and defend their rights. Naturally, these contradictions resulted in clashes between students and university administrations.
The first student demonstrations, which ended in clashes with the administration, were noted already in the late 50s of the 19th century (Kazan in 1856, Moscow and Kyiv in 1856, St. Petersburg in 1858). The first protests were not of a mass nature, but they put forward demands for free access to universities for representatives of various classes, freedom of academic organizations, there were also protests against individual teachers, as well as in defense of the Polish uprising. The activities of student associations were practically prohibited by the university charter of 1861, which did not allow student meetings, did not allow students to have their own mutual aid fund, libraries and reading rooms, which were usually organized by student societies, were prohibited, and the number of students exempt from tuition fees was reduced to a minimum. This caused a wave of student protests in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan and other university centers. As a result of clashes with troops, several students were imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress and in Kronstadt, St. Petersburg University was temporarily closed.
In 1863, Alexander II signed a new charter that expanded the rights of universities, in particular introducing the election of rectors and deans, and also admitting women as auditors. But students did not receive recognition of their rights: the professorial disciplinary court was preserved, and student associations and libraries were still prohibited. A few years later, in 1867, students were also prohibited from organizing concerts, readings and public meetings within the university. Conservative circles of the tsarist government, which initiated this charter, considered students only as visitors to the university, and the university itself as a room for public lectures and conversations. The new charter caused a discussion in society, aroused the desire of student organizations to unite and provoked the emergence of illegal student organizations. Due to police repression in 1874, a new wave of student unrest swept across the country, the reason for which was the death in the hospital of a Kharkov University student beaten by the police. However, police repression did not stop, but only intensified. Feeling the support of other sections of the population, students picketed and filed petitions demanding the freedom to form their own self-governing corporations, student unrest swept through all university centers in 1881-1882. The students were supported by the leaders of Narodnaya Volya, who wanted to use student protests for revolutionary agitation. The government saw the heterogeneous and poor student masses as a breeding ground for freethinking and sought to limit access to universities for the poor, so in 1884 an even stricter charter and special “Rules for Students” were adopted. The institution of inspectors was introduced who had the right to submit notes on the arrest of students and their detention in a punishment cell, detention for up to four weeks or expulsion without the right of reinstatement. The Circular of the Minister of Public Education dated June 18, 1887, popularly known as the “Circular on Cook's Children,” prohibited certain categories of children from entering even gymnasiums. At universities, tuition fees increased to 70 rubles (previously it ranged from 15 to 50 rubles). In June 1889, “Temporary Rules” were introduced, which allowed students to become soldiers for participating in riots. All this caused the rise of the student movement, its consolidation, and the massive creation of fraternities that provide economic support to low-income students and organize fundraisers. Fellowships unite into unions of fraternities, uniting needy students from across the university. Despite the fact that fraternities, like other student organizations, were not allowed by the university charter, by 1894 the Moscow Union of fraternities united 43 fraternities, established cash offices and mutual aid bureaus, libraries, self-development circles, bureaus for “delivery of classes,” as well as assistance to students, victims "for a common cause." In addition to the fraternities, which united mainly low-income students, course organizations were created that were in charge of submitting applications for exemption from fees, as well as organizing opportunities for additional work. The movement began with peaceful meetings and petitions to reduce tuition fees and eliminate inspections. In 1894, a petition was drawn up and submitted to the sovereign through the Union Council, containing five main demands: 1) university self-government; 2) freedom of teaching; 3) free access to higher education for all who have completed secondary education, without distinction of gender, nationality or religion; 4) reduction of tuition fees; 5) freedom of student organizations. As R. Vydrin points out, despite the loyal spirit, the petition caused hostility on the part of the administration and the arrests of the signatories. The Union Council tried to stop the unrest and asked professors and administrators to remove the police and investigate the beatings, while continuing to stay out of academic politics as much as possible and trying to prevent further clashes. However, continued repression led the Council to eventually abandon such tactics and take extreme measures. It was against this background that the first all-Russian student strike broke out.
Let's return to the events of 1899. On February 17, the situation was discussed at a ministerial meeting. The Minister of Finance, Count S.Yu. Witte, prepared a special note, which we have already quoted. Witte clearly sympathized with the students. He wrote: “It is impossible not to notice that the majority of young people in higher educational institutions are in that transitional youthful age, which is so characterized by hobbies, in which a person is so afraid of losing his not always correctly understood dignity and is painfully scrupulous about his and his own honor. comrades." “There is reason to believe,” Witte further writes, “that the methods by which they wanted to prevent the crowd of excited youth who had gathered for the act from passing through the city were not entirely tactful. Directing the entire crowd along one path (to the Nikolaevsky Bridge) in itself should have to prevent students from passing by the palace, there was no need to close the passage along the Palace Bridge, because it was completely enough to close the passage along the embankment to the palace and along the square to Morskaya, leaving free passage along Admiralteysky Proezd to Nevsky Prospekt." The note was also signed by ministers Khilkov, Ermolov, Muravyov and Protasov-Bakhmetyev. A trial was arranged, during which investigators tried in every possible way to force the participants in the events to admit that the strike was organized from outside, but these allegations were indignantly rejected by all students.
A few days later, the strike covered almost all higher educational institutions in Russia, about 25 thousand students took part in it, i.e. about 2/3 of the country's students. The authorities responded with repression: strike participants were expelled from universities, and 2,160 people were expelled. Those expelled were drafted into soldiers, i.e. The “sacred duty” of defending the Fatherland was used as a punitive measure. This lawlessness was resolved in the “Temporary Rules” adopted on the basis of the highest order of July 29 by a meeting of six ministers, but repressive measures did not stop the movement, but only spurred the transition from academic demands to political ones, the movement took to the streets. Neither in September nor in 1900 did the students return to the classroom. The professors' appeal to students in 1901, in which the authors try to present widespread speeches as the results of the machinations of “an insignificant group of malicious individuals,” ends in failure. All this forces the government and, above all, the new Minister of Education, General Vannovsky, having failed to crush the student movement, to change tactics. A specially created commission of professors from Moscow University, based on a study of student complaints, prepared proposals for changing university life. The student movement subsides for a while, awaiting a response from the Vannovsky commission. The result was minor relaxations: the election of elders, the permission of faculty meetings, but in general the demands of students were not met, university-wide meetings and student organizations were prohibited, and tuition fees remained virtually unchanged. Therefore, in 1902, student unrest broke out again. Student congresses take place, political slogans come to the fore, student freedoms are considered in the context of the lack of rights of society as a whole. It is interesting to note that the St. Petersburg meeting of students on February 5, 1902 rejected the idea of ​​legal student organizations, putting forward a demand for the right to general meetings and meetings at which all student issues would be resolved. Thus, organizations are opposed to general meetings and are seen by students as a means of reducing student activity and control by the administration. A member of the Vannovsky commission, a professor at Moscow University, Prince Evgeniy Trubetskoy, speaks about this, insisting on the legalization of fraternities in order to paralyze their criminal direction and take them under supervision.
Student unrest 1899-1902 led to self-organization and politicization of Russian students. Within a month after the events of February 8, 1899, groups of “obstructionists”, “anti-obstructionists”, “Real obstructionists”, “independents”, “like-minded”, “freethinkers”, “bourgeois radicals”, “groups of 147" and others. The student meeting becomes a real authority at the university. Measures are also being developed to insure the organizational structure in case of repression and arrests. For example, candidates who take the place of arrested or expelled members of the Committee are also elected to the Organizing Committee, which is elected to coordinate all actions at a university-wide meeting. The committee publishes bulletins and coordinates the movement, ensuring that professors and those renegade students who did not want to join the strike and wanted to continue classes or take exams cannot infiltrate the university's mission, and also organizes speeches in support of arrested or expelled comrades. The committee establishes relationships with similar organizational structures of other educational institutions and ensures coordination and information exchange.
The politicization of the student movement led to the creation of several directions within its framework: Social Democratic, Socialist Revolutionary and Osvobozhdeniye, as well as conservative and Black Hundred organizations (Dennitsa, etc.). Social Democrats highly valued the student uprisings, seeing in them the prologue of a future revolution and seeing in the students the instigators of future uprisings of workers and peasants. Socialist revolutionaries introduced elements of terror into the student movement, which traces its history back to the Narodnaya Volya. The Osvobozhdenie members proposed a broad political platform for unification under the slogan “Down with autocracy!” and attracted liberal Zemstvo members and the bourgeois intelligentsia into their ranks, however, with the beginning of the First Russian Revolution, the Osvobozhdenie movement collapsed.
Remembering the events of the student strike of 1899-1902. It is not difficult to see parallels between Tsarist Russia and modern Russia. The reluctance of the ruling elite to make education accessible to the public and the desire to use it for self-reproduction; police brutality and beatings; complete disrespect for the honor and dignity of the individual - all this, perhaps, only intensified. Those in power are still convinced that people can only be moved to collective action by organizers sent from outside, and not by trampled dignity or despair driven by lack of rights, that all mass actions are necessarily paid for, and are not based on the beliefs and values ​​of people, because without any convictions In addition to the thirst for power and profit, they do not allow the possibility of such in others. The ruling circles, who despise their own people, hide from them behind the fences of luxurious mansions, out of fear for their power, are ready to send to prison or to the next world everyone who is really capable of more effectively leading the state in the interests of the whole society, who use national wealth for their personal purposes as their property - inevitably lead the country to collapse. But this is a topic for another article.