Uprising of December 14, 1825, results and significance

On November 19, 1825, Emperor Alexander I died suddenly in Taganrog. sudden death gave rise to numerous legends and speculations. Many said that the king did not die, but simply left the throne in such an extravagant way. After some time, rumors appeared that the emperor lived under the name of the holy elder Fyodor Kuzmich and preached the Word of God. Some believed this, remembering that in last years Alexander I often spoke of his desire to retire and retire to a monastery.

Be that as it may, after the real or imaginary death of the emperor, a period of interregnum began, which resulted in a dynastic crisis. Alexander I had no children. According to the law on succession to the throne (1797), power was supposed to pass to the next of the sons of Paul I - Constantine. But he turned out to be a great original. Long before the death of his older brother, he renounced the crown (he was afraid to share his father’s fate), went to Poland and married a Polish aristocrat there. In 1823, Alexander I appointed his next oldest brother, Nicholas, as heir, but did not dare to publish this manifesto. Now Nikolai reminded of his rights, but the St. Petersburg governor, General M.A. Miloradovich advised him to obey the law and give up the throne to his older brother. On November 27, a unique event occurred. Nicholas, along with officials and troops, swore allegiance to Constantine, and he, in turn, swore allegiance to Nicholas. People in the capital started making nasty jokes about this.

The Decembrists believed that the dynastic crisis was given to them by fate itself. The authorities were at a loss, and the authority of the monarchy was falling every day. I.I. Pushchin wrote then: “The opportunity is convenient. If we do nothing, we will earn the name of scoundrels with all our might.” Let us remember that the coup was planned for the summer of 1826. We had to urgently change tactics and strategy.

The uprising was scheduled for December 14, 1825 - the day of the re-oath to Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich.

The coup plan was prepared by the colonel elected by the dictator - Prince S.P. Trubetskoy.

It was assumed that the rebels would simultaneously capture Winter Palace(arrest of the royal family), Peter and Paul Fortress(its guns control the city center) and Senate Square (in the Senate officials will gather to take the oath).

Oath of Senators and Members State Council it was necessary to prevent and then force them to announce the “Manifesto to the Russian People” compiled the day before by Trubetskoy. This program document was the quintessence of P.I.’s “Russian Truth”. Pestel and “Constitution” N.M. Muravyova. It proclaimed the abolition of serfdom, declared political freedoms, created a Provisional Government, and appointed the convening of the Great Council, which was obliged to decide the fate of Russia.

Trubetskoy really counted on the support of Southern society, but he did not know that the day before (December 13) P.I. was arrested in Tulchin. Pestel.

The uprising began on December 14 at 11 am. Things went very badly. Instead of the planned six regiments, only three were raised (Moscow, Grenadier and naval crew). The capture of the Peter and Paul Fortress failed. It turned out that the officials swore allegiance to Nicholas early in the morning. A.I. Yakubovich refused to arrest royal family. Seeing that his plan was not being implemented, Trubetskoy did not go to Senate Square at all, where the main events unfolded.

The rebel soldiers formed a square in the square and shouted the slogan “Long live the Constitution!” The officers told them that the Constitution was the wife of Konstantin Pavlovich, from whom Nicholas took the throne. A huge crowd of onlookers had gathered. The emperor at first did not want to shed blood and repeatedly sent envoys to the rebels. Governor M.A. Miloradovich was shot by P.G. Kakhovsky. The youngest of Paul's sons, Michael, and Metropolitans Eugene and Seraphim also did not succeed in negotiations. At 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the emperor ordered artillery to be delivered to the square, already cordoned off by troops loyal to him. The Decembrists were shot point-blank with grapeshot. The death toll varies, according to various sources, from 100 to 1,300 people.

On December 29, 1825, the Chernigov regiment under the command of S.I. rebelled in Ukraine. Muravyov-Apostol and M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumina. The government sent troops of General F.K. against the rebels. Geismar. On January 3, the rebels were defeated.

The investigation into the case “about the riot in St. Petersburg and Ukraine” was conducted by a specially organized Secret Investigative Committee. A total of 316 people were arrested. Nicholas I personally interrogated some suspects. They most often did not hide the truth and did not shut themselves up, believing in the rightness of their cause. As a result, 289 people were found guilty. 88 officers were sent to hard labor in Siberia, 178 soldiers were sentenced to punishment by spitsruten, and five (K.F. Ryleeva, P.I. Pestel, S.I. Muravyov-Apostol, M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and P.G. Kakhovsky) was sentenced to quartering by the Supreme Criminal Court. At the last moment, the quartering was replaced by hanging. On July 13, 1826, the sentence was carried out in the Peter and Paul Fortress.

Historians are still arguing about the reasons for the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, citing convincing arguments about the unsatisfactory preparation of the enterprise, lack of coordination of actions, indecisiveness and even betrayal of leaders, cohesion of the conservative camp, etc. But the main reason for the failure was formulated by A.I. Herzen, who stated that “there were not enough people in the square.”

The cavalry guard's life is short-lived,
And that's why he's so sweet.
The trumpet is blowing, the curtains are thrown back,
And somewhere you can hear the sound of sabers... (B. Okudzhava)

As you know, the Decembrists took advantage of the interregnum situation for their speech: Emperor Alexander I died without leaving an heir. The throne was to pass to younger brother Constantine, but he had long ago renounced the succession to the throne, but almost no one knew about it. In this situation, the next oldest brother, Nikolai, should have taken power, but he did not dare to do this, because. many had already sworn allegiance to Constantine, and in the eyes of the people Nicholas would have looked like an impostor, especially since he was not particularly popular. While Nicholas was negotiating with Konstantin, who did not confirm his abdication and did not accept power, the Decembrists decided to start a speech.

Uprising plan

Of course, members of secret societies had it. They had been preparing for the uprising for about 10 years, carefully thinking through all the options and gathering forces, but they did not have a specific date for their performance. They decided to use the ensuing situation of interregnum to realize their plan: “...now, after the death of the sovereign, there is the most convenient time bring into effect the previous intention." However, the heated discussions that began about the situation, which took place mainly in K. Ryleev’s apartment, did not immediately lead to coordinated actions - there were disputes and differences of opinion. Finally, a somewhat unanimous opinion emerged, supported by the majority. They also came to the decision that the uprising should be led by a dictator, who was appointed S. Trubetskoy.

The main goal of the uprising was the crushing of the autocratic serfdom, the introduction of representative government, i.e. adoption of the constitution. An important point of the plan was the convening of the Great Council (it was supposed to meet in the event of a coup). The cathedral was supposed to replace the outdated autocratic serf system of Russia with a new, representative system. This was the maximum program. But there was also a minimum program: before the convening of the Great Council, act in accordance with the manifesto drawn up, gain supporters and after that identify issues and problems for discussion at this council.

This manifesto was written down by S. Trubetskoy, in any case, it was found in his papers during the search, it appeared in his investigative file.

Manifesto

1. Destruction former board.
2. The institution is temporary until a permanent one is established.
3. Free embossing, and therefore the elimination of censorship.
4. Free worship of all faiths.
5. Destruction of property rights extending to people.
6. Equality of all classes before the law, and therefore the abolition of military courts and all kinds of judicial commissions, from which all judicial cases are transferred to the departments of the nearest civil courts.
7. Declaration of the right of every citizen to do whatever he wants, and therefore a nobleman, merchant, tradesman, peasant still have the right to enter into military and civil service and into the clergy, trade wholesale and retail, paying the established duties for trading. Acquire all kinds of property, such as: lands, houses in villages and cities; enter into all kinds of conditions among themselves, compete with each other before the court.
8. Addition of poll taxes and arrears on them.
9. Elimination of monopolies, such as: on salt, on the sale of hot wine, etc. and therefore the establishment of free distillation and salt extraction, with payment for. industry from the production of salt and vodka.

10.Destruction of recruitment and military settlements.

11. Reducing the length of military service for lower ranks, and determining it will follow the equation of military service between all classes.

12. Resignation of all lower ranks, without exception, who have served for 15 years.

13. The establishment of volost, district, provincial and regional boards, and the procedure for electing members of these boards, which should replace all officials hitherto appointed from the civil government.

14.Publicity of courts.

15.Introduction of juries into criminal and civil courts.

Establishes a board of 2 or 3 persons, to which all parts of the top management, that is, all ministries, are subordinated. Council, Committee of Ministers, army, navy. In a word, the entire supreme, executive power, but by no means legislative or judicial. - For this latter, there remains a ministry subordinate to the temporary government, but for the judgment of cases not resolved in the lower instances, the criminal department of the Senate remains and a civil department is established, which are finally decided , and whose members will remain until a permanent government is established.

The temporary board is entrusted with the enforcement of:

1. Equal rights of all classes.
2. Formation of local volost, district, provincial and regional boards.
3. Formation of the internal people's guard,
4. Formation of the trial with the jury.
5. The equation conscription between classes.
6. Destruction of the standing army.
7. The establishment of a procedure for electing electors to the House of People's Representatives, who must approve for the future the existing order of government and state legislation.

It was supposed to publish the Manifesto to the Russian people on the day of the uprising - December 14, 1825. The troops were to remain on Senate Square until negotiations were underway with the Senate, to convince the Senate (if the Senate disagreed, it was allowed to use military force) accept the Manifesto, distribute it. Then the troops had to withdraw from the city center to protect St. Petersburg from possible actions by government troops.

Thus, according to the plan, on the morning of December 14, the rebel regiments were to gather on Senate Square and force the Senate to issue a Manifesto. Guardsmen - capture the Winter Palace and arrest the royal family, and then occupy the Peter and Paul Fortress. The Constituent Assembly was supposed to establish the form of government in the country and determine the fate of the king and his family.

In case of failure, the troops had to leave St. Petersburg and reach the Novgorod military settlements, where they would meet support.

Senate Square December 14, 1825

But already early morning the well-thought-out plan began to crumble. K. Ryleev insists on the murder of the tsar, which was not included in the immediate plans, due to the interregnum. The murder of the tsar was entrusted to P. Kakhovsky, it was supposed to mark the beginning of the uprising. But Kakhovsky refuses to commit murder. In addition, Yakubovich, appointed to command the guards during the capture of the Winter Palace, also refused to carry out this task. In addition to everything, Mikhail Pushchin refused to bring a cavalry squadron to the square. We had to hastily rebuild the plan: Nikolai Bestuzhev was appointed instead of Yakubovich.

At 11 o'clock in the morning, the Moscow Life Guards Regiment was the first to arrive on Senate Square and was lined up in the shape of a square near the monument to Peter. People began to gather. At this time, St. Petersburg Governor General Miloradovich arrived on the square. He persuaded the soldiers to disperse, convinced them that the oath to Nicholas was legal. It was a tense moment of the uprising, events could have gone according to an unforeseen scenario, because the regiment was alone, the others had not yet arrived, and Miloradovich, the hero of 1812, was popular among the soldiers and knew how to talk to them. The only solution was to remove Miloradovich from the square. The Decembrists demanded that he leave the square, but Miloradovich continued to persuade the soldiers. Then Obolensky turned his horse with a bayonet, wounding the governor-general, and Kakhovsky fired and inflicted a mortal wound on him.

Ryleev and I. Pushchin at this time went to Trubetskoy; on the way they learned that the Senate had already sworn allegiance to the Tsar and dispersed, i.e. the troops had already gathered in front of the empty Senate. But Trubetskoy was not there, nor was he on Senate Square. The situation in the square required decisive action, but the dictator did not appear. The troops continued to wait. This delay played a role decisive role in the defeat of the uprising.

The people in the square clearly supported the rebels, but they did not take advantage of this support, obviously fearing the activity of the people, a “senseless and merciless” riot, according to Pushkin. Contemporaries of the events unanimously note in their memoirs that tens of thousands of people who sympathized with the rebels gathered in the square. Later, Nikolai told his brother several times: “The most amazing thing in this story is that you and I weren’t shot then.”

Meanwhile, government troops, on the orders of Emperor Nicholas, were drawn to Senate Square, mounted troops began to attack the Moscow regiment stationed in a square, but were repulsed. Then Nicholas called on Metropolitan Seraphim for help in order to explain to the soldiers the legality of the oath to him, and not to Constantine.

But the Metropolitan’s negotiations were fruitless, and troops supporting the uprising continued to gather in the square: the Life Guards of the Grenadiers, the naval crew. Thus, on Senate Square there were:

• Moscow regiment led by brothers A. and M. Bestuzhev.
• The first detachment of life grenadiers (Sutgof company).
• Guards naval crew under the command of Captain-Lieutenant Nikolai Bestuzhev (elder brother of Alexander and Mikhail) and Lieutenant Arbuzov.
• The rest, the most significant part, is the life grenadier under the command of Lieutenant Panov.

V. Masutov "Nicholas I in front of the formation of the Life Guards Sapper Battalion in the courtyard of the Winter Palace on December 14, 1825"

Due to the continued absence of the dictator S. Trubetskoy, already in the middle of the day the Decembrists elected a new dictator - Prince Obolensky, who was the chief of staff of the uprising. And at that time Trubetskoy was sitting in the office of the General Staff and periodically looked around the corner, watching what was happening on Senate Square. He simply chickened out at the last moment, and his comrades waited, thinking that his delay was due to some unforeseen circumstances.

But by this time government troops had already surrounded the rebels. At three o'clock in the afternoon it was already getting dark, soldiers from the imperial troops began to run over to the rebels. And then Nikolai gave the order to shoot with buckshot. But the first shot was delayed: the soldiers did not want to shoot at their own, and then the officer did it. The rebels had no artillery; they responded with rifle shots. After the second shot, the square trembled, the soldiers rushed onto the thin ice of the Neva - the ice split from the falling cannonballs, many drowned...

The uprising was suppressed.

Late in the evening, some of the Decembrists gathered at Ryleev’s apartment. They understood that arrests awaited them, so they agreed on how to behave during interrogations, said goodbye to each other, worried about how to inform Southern society that the case was lost... that Trubetskoy and Yakubovich had cheated...

In total, on December 14, 1825, government troops killed 1,271 people, of which 9 were women and 19 children, 903 were “mobs,” the rest were military.

...Finally, the fateful December 14th arrived - a remarkable number: it was minted on the medals with which deputies of the People's Assembly were dissolved to draw up laws in 1767 under Catherine II.

It was a gloomy December St. Petersburg morning, with 8° below zero. Before nine o'clock the entire governing Senate was already in the palace. Here and in all guard regiments the oath was taken. Messengers constantly galloped to the palace with reports of how things were going. Everything seemed quiet. Some mysterious faces appeared on Senate Square in noticeable anxiety. One, who knew about the order of the society and was passing through the square opposite the Senate, was met by the publisher of “Son of the Fatherland” and “Northern Bee”, Mr. Grech. To the question: “Well, will anything happen?” he added the phrase of the notorious Carbonari. The circumstance is not important, but it characterizes table demagogues; he and Bulgarin became zealous slanderers of the dead because they were not compromised.

Shortly after this meeting, at about 10 o'clock on Gorokhov Prospekt, there was suddenly a drumbeat and the oft-repeated “Hurray!” A column of the Moscow Regiment with a banner, led by Staff Captain Shchepin-Rostovsky and two Bestuzhevs, entered Admiralty Square and turned towards the Senate, where it formed a square. Soon it was quickly joined by the Guards crew, carried away by Arbuzov, and then by a battalion of life grenadiers, brought by adjutant Panov (Panov convinced the life grenadiers, after already taking the oath, to follow him, telling them that “ours” do not take the oath and occupied the palace. He really led them to the palace, but, seeing that the life rangers were already in the yard, he joined the Muscovites) and Lieutenant Sutgof. Many ordinary people came running and immediately dismantled the woodpile that stood at the dam surrounding the buildings. St. Isaac's Cathedral. Admiralty Boulevard was filled with spectators. It immediately became known that this entry into the square was marked by bloodshed. Prince Shchepin-Rostovsky, beloved in the Moscow regiment, although he did not clearly belong to society, but was dissatisfied and knew that an uprising was being prepared against Grand Duke Nicholas, managed to convince the soldiers that they were being deceived, that they were obliged to defend the oath taken to Constantine, and therefore must go to the Senate.

Generals Shenshin and Fredericks and Colonel Khvoshchinsky wanted to reassure them and stop them. He cut down the first and wounded one non-commissioned officer and one grenadier, who wanted to prevent the banner from being given away and thus entice the soldiers. Luckily, they survived.

Count Miloradovich, unharmed in so many battles, soon fell as the first victim. The insurgents barely had time to line up in a square when [he] appeared galloping from the palace in a pair of sleighs, standing, wearing only a uniform and a blue ribbon. You could hear from the boulevard how he, holding the coachman’s shoulder with his left hand and pointing with his right, ordered him: “Go around the church and turn right to the barracks.” Less than three minutes later, he returned on horseback in front of the square (He took the first horse, which stood saddled at the apartment of one of the Horse Guards officers) and began to convince the soldiers to obey and swear allegiance to the new emperor.

Suddenly a shot rang out, the count began to shake, his hat flew off, he fell to the bow, and in this position the horse carried him to the apartment of the officer to whom it belonged. Exhorting the soldiers with the arrogance of an old father-commander, the count said that he himself willingly wished for Constantine to be emperor. One could believe that the count spoke sincerely. He was excessively wasteful and always in debt, despite frequent monetary rewards from the sovereign, and Constantine's generosity was known to everyone. The count could have expected that with him he would live even more extravagantly, but what to do if he refused; assured them that he himself had seen the new renunciation, and persuaded them to believe him.

One of the members of the secret society, Prince Obolensky, seeing that such a speech could have an effect, leaving the square, convinced the count to drive away, otherwise he threatened with danger. Noticing that the count was not paying attention to him, he inflicted a light wound on his side with a bayonet. At this time, the count made a volt-face, and Kakhovsky fired a fatal bullet at him from a pistol, which had been poured the day before (the count’s saying was known to the entire army: “My God! the bullet was not poured on me!” - which he always repeated when they warned against dangers in battles or were surprised in salons that he was never wounded.). When he was taken off his horse at the barracks and carried into the officer’s apartment mentioned above, he had the last consolation of reading a handwritten note from his new sovereign expressing regret - and at 4 o’clock in the afternoon he no longer existed.

Here the importance of the uprising was fully expressed, by which the feet of the insurgents, so to speak, were chained to the place they occupied. Not having the strength to go forward, they saw that there was no salvation going back. The die was cast. The dictator did not appear to them. There was disagreement in the punishment. There was only one thing left to do: stand, defend and wait for the outcome from fate. They did it.

Meanwhile, according to the orders of the new emperor, columns of loyal troops instantly gathered at the palace. The Emperor, regardless of the empress’s assurances or the representations of zealous warnings, came out himself, holding the 7-year-old heir to the throne in his arms, and entrusted him to the protection of the Preobrazhensky soldiers. This scene produced the full effect: delight in the troops and pleasant, promising amazement in the capital. The Emperor then mounted a white horse and rode out in front of the first platoon, moving the columns from the Exertsirhaus to the boulevard. His majestic, although somewhat gloomy, calmness then attracted everyone's attention. At this time, the insurgents were momentarily flattered by the approach of the Finnish regiment, whose sympathy they still trusted. This regiment walked along the St. Isaac's Bridge. He was led to the others who had sworn allegiance, but the commander of the 1st platoon, Baron Rosen, came halfway across the bridge and ordered to stop! The entire regiment stopped, and nothing could move it until the end of the drama. Only the part that did not climb the bridge crossed the ice to the Promenade des Anglais and then joined the troops that had bypassed the insurgents from the Kryukov Canal.

Soon, after the sovereign left for Admiralty Square, a stately dragoon officer approached him with military respect, whose forehead was tied with a black scarf under his hat (This was Yakubovich, who came from the Caucasus, had the gift of speech and knew how to interest the St. Petersburg people with stories about his heroic exploits salons. He did not hide his displeasure and personal hatred towards the late sovereign among the liberals, and during the 17-day period, members of the secret society were convinced that if possible, “he would show himself.”), and after a few words he went to the salons. square, but soon returned empty-handed. He volunteered to persuade the rebels and received one insulting reproach. Immediately, by order of the sovereign, he was arrested and suffered the common fate of those convicted. After him, General Voinov drove up to the insurgents, at whom Wilhelm Kuchelbecker, poet, publisher of the magazine “Mnemosyne”, who was then in punishment, fired a pistol shot and thereby forced him to leave. Colonel Sturler came to the life grenadiers, and the same Kakhovsky wounded him with a pistol. Finally, Grand Duke Mikhail himself arrived - and also without success. They answered him that they finally wanted the reign of laws. And with this, the pistol raised at him by the same Kuchelbecker’s hand forced him to leave. The pistol was already loaded. After this failure, Seraphim, the Metropolitan, in full vestments, with a cross presented with banners, emerged from the St. Isaac's Church temporarily built in the Admiralty buildings. Approaching the square, he began his exhortation. Another Kuchelbecker, the brother of the one who forced Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich to leave, came out to him. A sailor and a Lutheran, he did not know the high titles of our Orthodox humility and therefore said simply, but with conviction: “Go away, father, it is not your business to interfere in this matter.” The Metropolitan turned his procession to the Admiralty. Speransky, looking at this from the palace, said to Chief Prosecutor Krasnokutsky, who was standing with him: “And this thing failed!” Krasnokutsky himself was a member of a secret society and later died in exile (above his ashes there is a marble monument with a modest inscription: “Sister to a suffering brother.” He is buried in the Tobolsk cemetery near the church). This circumstance, no matter how insignificant, nevertheless reveals Speransky’s disposition of mind at that time. It could not be otherwise: on the one hand, the memory of what has been suffered is innocent, on the other hand, there is distrust of the future.

When the whole process of taming by peaceful means was thus completed, the action of arms began. General Orlov, with complete fearlessness, twice launched an attack with his horse guards, but the peloton fire overturned the attacks. Without defeating the square, he, however, thereby conquered an entire fictitious county.

The Emperor, slowly moving his columns, was already closer to the middle of the Admiralty. On the north-eastern corner of Admiralteysky Boulevard, an ultima ratio [last argument] appeared - guns of the Guards artillery. Their commander, General [al] Sukhozanet, drove up to the square and shouted to put down the guns, otherwise he would shoot with buckshot. They aimed a gun at him, but a contemptuously commanding voice was heard from the square: “Don’t touch this..., he’s not worth a bullet” (These words were shown later during interrogations in the committee, with the members of which Sukhozanet already shared the honor of wearing general[er] -Adjutant aiguillette. This is not enough, he was later the chief director of the cadet corps and the president of the Military Academy. However, we must be fair: he lost his leg in the Polish campaign.). This, naturally, offended him to the extreme. Jumping back to the battery, he ordered a volley of blank charges to be fired: it had no effect! Then the grapeshots whistled; here everything trembled and scattered in different directions, except for the fallen. This could have been enough, but Sukhozanet fired a few more shots along the narrow Galerny Lane and across the Neva towards the Academy of Arts, where more of the crowd of curious people fled! So this accession to the throne was stained with blood. In the outskirts of Alexander's reign, impunity for the heinous crime committed and merciless punishment for the forced noble uprising - open and with complete selflessness - became eternal terms.

The troops were disbanded. St. Isaac's and Petrovskaya squares are furnished with cadets. Many lights were laid out, by the light of which the wounded and dead were removed all night and the spilled blood was washed from the square. But stains of this kind cannot be removed from the pages of inexorable history. Everything was done in secret, and the true number of those killed and wounded remained unknown. Rumor, as usual, arrogated the right to exaggeration. Bodies were thrown into ice holes; claimed that many were drowned half-dead. Many arrests were made that same evening. From the first taken: Ryleev, book. Obolensky and two Bestuzhevs. They are all imprisoned in the fortress. In the following days, most of those arrested were brought to the palace, some even with their hands tied, and personally presented to the emperor, which gave rise to Nikolai Bestuzhev (He first managed to hide and escape to Kronstadt, where he lived for some time at the Tolbukhin lighthouse among the sailors loyal to him ) later tell one of the adjutant generals on duty that they had made a move out of the palace.

NICHOLAS I - KONSTANTIN PAVLOVICH

<...>I am writing you a few lines just to tell you good news from here. After the terrible 14th we were fortunately back to normal; there remains only some anxiety among the people, which, I hope, will dissipate as calm is established, which will be obvious evidence of the absence of any danger. Our arrests are very successful, and we have all the main characters of this day in our hands, except one. I have appointed a special commission to investigate the matter<...>Subsequently, for the sake of the court, I propose to separate those who acted consciously and premeditatedly from those who acted as if in a fit of madness<...>

KONSTANTIN PAVLOVICH - NICHOLAS I

<...>Great God, what events! This bastard was unhappy that he had an angel as his sovereign, and conspired against him! What do they need? This is monstrous, terrible, covers everyone, even if they are completely innocent, who did not even think about what happened!..

General Dibich told me all the papers, and one of them, which I received the day before, is more terrible than all the others: this is the one in which Volkonsky called for a change of government. And this conspiracy has been going on for 10 years! How did it happen that he was not discovered immediately or for a long time?

ERRORS AND CRIMES OF OUR CENTURY

Historian N.M. Karamzin was a supporter of enlightened autocracy. In his opinion, this is a historically natural form of government for Russia. It is no coincidence that he characterized the reign of Ivan the Terrible with these words: “The life of a tyrant is a disaster for humanity, but his history is always useful for sovereigns and peoples: to instill disgust for evil is to instill love for virtue - and the glory of the time when a writer armed with the truth can, in autocratic rule, put such a ruler to shame, so that there will be no more like him in the future! The graves are emotionless; but the living fear eternal damnation in History, which, without correcting evildoers, sometimes prevents atrocities, which are always possible, for wild passions rage even in the centuries of civil education, leading the mind to remain silent or to justify its frenzy with a slavish voice.”

Such views could not be accepted by opponents of autocracy and slavery - members of the secret societies that existed at that time, later called the Decembrists. Moreover, Karamzin was closely acquainted with many of the leaders of the movement and lived in their houses for a long time. Karamzin himself bitterly noted: “Many of the members [of the secret society] honored me with their hatred or, at least, did not love me; and I, it seems, am not an enemy of either the fatherland or humanity.” And assessing the events of December 14, 1825, he said: “The errors and crimes of these young people are the errors and crimes of our century.”

DECEMBRIST IN EVERYDAY LIFE

Was there a special everyday behavior of the Decembrist that distinguished him not only from reactionaries and “extinguishers”, but also from the mass of liberal and educated nobles of his day? Studying the materials of the era allows us to answer this question positively. We ourselves feel this with the direct instinct of the cultural successors of the previous one. historical development. So, without even going into reading the comments, we feel Chatsky as a Decembrist. However, Chatsky is not shown to us at a meeting of the “most secret union” - we see him in his everyday surroundings, in a Moscow manor house. Several phrases in Chatsky’s monologues characterizing him as an enemy of slavery and ignorance are, of course, essential for our interpretation, but his manner of holding himself and speaking is no less important. It is precisely from Chatsky’s behavior in the Famusovs’ house, from his refusal of a certain type of everyday behavior:

The patrons yawn at the ceiling,
Show up to be quiet, shuffle around, have lunch,
Bring a chair, hand a handkerchief...

He is unmistakably defined by Famusov as a “dangerous person.” Numerous documents reflect different sides everyday behavior noble revolutionary and allow us to talk about the Decembrist not only as a bearer of one or another political program, but also as a certain cultural, historical and psychological type.

At the same time, we should not forget that each person in his behavior implements not just one program of action, but constantly makes a choice, updating any one strategy from an extensive set of possibilities. Each individual Decembrist in his real everyday behavior did not always behave like a Decembrist - he could act like a nobleman, an officer (already: a guardsman, a hussar, a staff theorist), an aristocrat, a man, a Russian, a European, a young man, etc., etc. . However, in this complex set of possibilities there was also some special behavior, a special type of speech, action and reaction, inherent specifically to a member of a secret society. The nature of this special behavior will be of immediate interest to us...

Of course, each of the Decembrists was a living person and, in a certain sense, behaved in a unique way: Ryleev in everyday life is not like Pestel, Orlov is not like N. Turgenev or Chaadaev. Such a consideration, however, cannot be a basis for doubting the legitimacy of our task. After all, the fact that people’s behavior is individual does not negate the legitimacy of studying such problems as “the psychology of a teenager” (or any other age), “the psychology of women” (or men) and - ultimately - “human psychology”. It is necessary to supplement the view of history as a field for the manifestation of various social, general historical patterns by considering history as the result of human activity. Without studying historical and psychological mechanisms human actions we will inevitably remain at the mercy of very schematic ideas. In addition, the fact that historical patterns realize themselves not directly, but through the psychological mechanisms of man, is in itself the most important mechanism history, since it saves it from the fatal predictability of processes, without which the whole historical process would be completely redundant.

PUSHKIN AND THE DECEMBRISTS

The years 1825 and 1826 were a milestone, a boundary that divided many biographies into periods before and after...

This applies, of course, not only to members of secret societies and participants in the uprising.

A certain era, people, style was fading into the past. The average age of those convicted by the Supreme Criminal Court in July 1826 was twenty-seven years: " average year birth" of the Decembrist - 1799. (Ryleev - 1795, Bestuzhev-Ryumin - 1801, Pushchin - 1798, Gorbachevsky - 1800...). Pushkin's age.

“A time of hope,” Chaadaev will remember about the pre-Decembrist years.

“Lyceum students, Yermolovites, poets,” - Kuchelbecker will define an entire generation. The noble generation, which reached the height of enlightenment from which it was possible to see and hate slavery. Several thousand young people, witnesses and participants in such world events, which would be enough, it seems, for several ancient, grandfather’s and great-grandfather’s centuries...

What, what did we witness...

People often wonder where great Russian literature suddenly, “immediately” came from? Almost all of its classics, as the writer Sergei Zalygin noted, could have had one mother; the firstborn - Pushkin was born in 1799, the youngest - Leo Tolstoy in 1828 (and between them Tyutchev - 1803, Gogol - 1809, Belinsky - 1811, Herzen and Goncharov - 1812, Lermontov - 1814, Turgenev - 1818, Dostoevsky, Nekrasov - 1821, Shchedrin - 1826)...

Before there were great writers and at the same time there had to be a great reader.

Youth who fought on the fields of Russia and Europe, lyceum students, southern freethinkers, publishers " North Star"and other companions of the main character of the book - the first revolutionaries, with their writings, letters, actions, words, testify in various ways to the special climate of the 1800-1820s, which they created together, in which a genius could and should have grown, so that with his breath this climate to refine even more.

Without the Decembrists there would have been no Pushkin. By saying this, we obviously mean a huge mutual influence.

Common ideals, common enemies, common Decembrist-Pushkin history, culture, literature, social thought: that is why it is so difficult to study them separately, and there is so little work (we hope for the future!), where that world will be considered as a whole, as diverse, living , ardent unity.

Born from the same historical soil, two such unique phenomena as Pushkin and the Decembrists could not, however, merge and dissolve in each other. Attraction and at the same time repulsion is, firstly, a sign of kinship: only closeness and commonality give rise to some important conflicts and contradictions, which cannot exist at a great distance. Secondly, this is a sign of maturity and independence.

Drawing on new materials and reflecting on well-known materials about Pushkin and Pushchin, Ryleev, Bestuzhev, Gorbachevsky, the author tried to show the union of those arguing, those who disagree in agreement, those who agree in disagreement...

Pushkin, with his brilliant talent and poetic intuition, “grinds” and masters the past and present of Russia, Europe, and humanity.

And I heard the sky tremble
And the heavenly flight of angels...

A poet-thinker not only of Russian, but also of world-historical rank - in some significant respects, Pushkin penetrated deeper, wider, and further than the Decembrists. We can say that he moved from an enthusiastic attitude towards revolutionary upheavals to an inspired insight into the meaning of history.

The power of protest - and social inertia; “the cry of honor” - and the dream of “peaceful peoples”; the doom of the heroic impulse - and other, “Pushkin”, paths of historical movement: all this arises, is present, lives in “Some Historical Remarks” and the works of the first Mikhailovsky Autumn, in interviews with Pushchin and in “Andrei Chenier”, in letters of 1825, "To the Prophet." There we find the most important human and historical revelations, Pushkin’s command addressed to himself:

And see and listen...

The courage and greatness of Pushkin lies not only in his rejection of autocracy and serfdom, not only in his loyalty to his dead and imprisoned friends, but also in the courage of his thought. It is customary to talk about Pushkin’s “limitedness” in relation to the Decembrists. Yes, by determination and confidence to go into open rebellion, sacrificing themselves, the Decembrists were ahead of all their compatriots. The first revolutionaries set a great task, sacrificed themselves and remained forever in the history of the Russian liberation movement. However, on his way, Pushkin saw, felt, understood more... He, before the Decembrists, seemed to experience what they were later to experience: albeit in the imagination, but that’s why he’s a poet, that’s why he’s a brilliant artist-thinker of Shakespeare’s , Homeric scale, who once had the right to say: “The history of the people belongs to the Poet.”

In November 1825, Emperor Alexander I unexpectedly died far from St. Petersburg, in Taganrog. He did not have a son, and the heir to the throne was his brother Konstantin. But married to a simple noblewoman, not a person royal blood, Constantine, according to the rules of succession to the throne, could not pass the throne to his descendants and therefore abdicated the throne. The heir of Alexander I was to be his next brother, Nicholas - rude and cruel, unloved in the army. Constantine's abdication was kept secret - only the narrowest circle of members of the royal family knew about it. The abdication, which was not made public during the life of the emperor, did not receive the force of law, so Constantine continued to be considered the heir to the throne; he reigned after the death of Alexander I, and on November 27 the population was sworn to Constantine. Meanwhile, even before Alexander’s death, the government learned from denunciations of traitors about the existence of secret societies. All these circumstances destroyed previous plans for the unification of the Northern and Southern societies and their joint action.

Formally, a new emperor has appeared in Russia - Constantine I. His portraits have already been displayed in stores, and several new coins with his image have even been minted. But Constantine did not accept the throne, and at the same time did not want to formally renounce it as emperor, to whom the oath had already been taken.

An ambiguous and extremely tense interregnum situation was created. Nicholas, fearing popular indignation and expecting a speech from the secret society, about which he was already informed by spies and informers, finally decided to declare himself emperor, without waiting for a formal act of abdication from his brother. A second oath was appointed, or, as they said in the troops, a “re-oath,” this time to Nicholas I. The re-oath in St. Petersburg was scheduled for December 14.

Even when creating their organization, the Decembrists decided to speak out at the time of the change of emperors on the throne. This moment has now arrived. At the same time, the Decembrists became aware that they had been betrayed - the denunciations of the traitors Sherwood and Mayboroda were already on the emperor’s table; a little more and a wave of arrests will begin. Members of the secret society decided to speak out.

Prior to this, a next plan actions. On December 14, the day of the re-oath, revolutionary troops under the command of members of a secret society will enter the square. Guard Colonel Prince Sergei Trubetskoy was chosen as the dictator of the uprising. Troops who refuse to swear allegiance must go to Senate Square, because the Senate is located here, and here senators will swear allegiance to the new emperor on the morning of December 14th. By force of arms, if they don’t want it for good, we must prevent senators from taking the oath, force them to declare the government overthrown and publish a revolutionary Manifesto to the Russian people. This is one of the most important documents of Decembrism, explaining the purpose of the uprising. The Senate, thus, by the will of the revolution, was included in the plan of action of the rebels.

The revolutionary Manifesto announced the “destruction of the former government” and the establishment of a Provisional Revolutionary Government. The abolition of serfdom and the equalization of all citizens before the law were announced; freedom of the press, religion, and occupations was declared, the introduction of public jury trials, and the introduction of universal military service. All government officials had to give way to elected officials.

It was decided that as soon as the rebel troops blocked the Senate, in which the senators were preparing to take the oath, a revolutionary delegation consisting of Ryleev and Pushchin would enter the Senate premises and present the Senate with a demand not to swear allegiance to the new Emperor Nicholas I, to declare the tsarist government deposed and to issue a revolutionary Manifesto to the Russian to the people. At the same time, the Guards naval crew, the Izmailovsky regiment and the cavalry pioneer squadron were supposed to move to the Winter Palace in the morning, seize it and arrest the royal family.

Then the Great Council was convened - the Constituent Assembly. It had to make a final decision on the forms of abolition of serfdom, on the form government structure Russia, to resolve the issue of land. If the Great Council decided by a majority vote that Russia would be a republic, a decision would also be made on the fate of the royal family. Some Decembrists were of the opinion that it was possible to expel her abroad, while others were inclined towards regicide. If the Great Council came to a decision that Russia would be a constitutional monarchy, then a constitutional monarch would be drawn from the reigning family.

The command of the troops during the capture of the Winter Palace was entrusted to the Decembrist Yakubovich, who, even in the Caucasus, proved himself to be a brave and desperate warrior.

It was also decided to seize the Peter and Paul Fortress, the main military stronghold of tsarism in St. Petersburg, and turn it into a revolutionary citadel of the Decembrist uprising.

In addition, Ryleev asked the Decembrist Kakhovsky early in the morning of December 14 to penetrate the Winter Palace and, as if committing an independent terrorist act, kill Nicholas. At first he agreed, but then, having considered the situation, he did not want to be a lone terrorist, allegedly acting outside the plans of society, and early in the morning he refused this assignment.

An hour after Kakhovsky’s refusal, Yakubovich came to Alexander Bestuzhev and refused to lead the sailors and Izmailovites to the Winter Palace. He was afraid that in the battle the sailors would kill Nicholas and his relatives and instead of arresting the royal family, it would result in regicide. Yakubovich did not want to take on this and chose to refuse. Thus, the adopted plan of action was sharply violated, and the situation became more complicated. The plan began to fall apart before dawn.

On December 14, officers - members of the secret society were still in the barracks after dark and campaigned among the soldiers. Alexander Bestuzhev spoke to the soldiers of the Moscow Regiment. The soldiers refused to swear allegiance to the new king and decided to go to Senate Square. The regimental commander of the Moscow regiment, Baron Fredericks, wanted to prevent the rebel soldiers from leaving the barracks - and fell with a severed head under the blow of the saber of officer Shchepin-Rostovsky. With the regimental banner flying, taking live ammunition and loading their guns, the soldiers of the Moscow Regiment (about 800 people) were the first to come to Senate Square. At the head of these first revolutionary troops in the history of Russia was the staff captain of the Life Guards Dragoon Regiment, Alexander Bestuzhev. Along with him at the head of the regiment were his brother, staff captain of the Life Guards of the Moscow Regiment, Mikhail Bestuzhev, and staff captain of the same regiment, Dmitry Shchepin-Rostovsky.

The regiment lined up in battle formation in the shape of a square (battle quadrangle) near the monument to Peter I. It was 11 o’clock in the morning. St. Petersburg Governor-General Miloradovich galloped up to the rebels and began to persuade the soldiers to disperse. The moment was very dangerous: the regiment was still alone, other regiments had not yet arrived, and the hero of 1812, Miloradovich, was widely popular and knew how to talk to the soldiers. The uprising that had just begun was in great danger. Miloradovich could greatly sway the soldiers and achieve success. It was necessary to interrupt his campaigning at all costs and remove him from the square. But, despite the demands of the Decembrists, Miloradovich did not leave and continued persuasion. Then the chief of staff of the rebels, the Decembrist Obolensky, turned his horse with a bayonet, wounding the count in the thigh, and a bullet, fired at the same moment by Kakhovsky, mortally wounded the general. The danger looming over the uprising was repelled.

The delegation chosen to address the Senate - Ryleev and Pushchin - went to see Trubetskoy early in the morning, who had previously visited Ryleev himself. It turned out that the Senate had already sworn in and the senators had left. It turned out that the rebel troops had gathered in front of the empty Senate. Thus, the first goal of the uprising was not achieved. It was a bad failure. Another planned link broke away from the plan. Now the Winter Palace and the Peter and Paul Fortress were to be captured.

But there was still no dictator. Trubetskoy betrayed the uprising. A situation was developing in the square that required decisive action, but Trubetskoy did not dare to take it. He sat, tormented, in the office of the General Staff, went out, looked around the corner to see how many troops had gathered in the square, and hid again. Ryleev looked for him everywhere, but could not find him. Members of the secret society, who elected Trubetskoy as dictator and trusted him, could not understand the reasons for his absence and thought that he was being delayed by some reasons important for the uprising. Trubetskoy’s fragile noble revolutionary spirit easily broke when the hour of decisive action came.

The failure of the elected dictator to appear on the square to meet the troops during the hours of the uprising is an unprecedented case in the history of the revolutionary movement. The dictator thereby betrayed the idea of ​​uprising, his comrades in the secret society, and the troops who followed them. This failure to appear played a significant role in the defeat of the uprising. The words of Herzen are well known: “The Decembrists on Senate Square did not have enough people.” These words must be understood not in the sense that there were no people in the square at all - there were people, but in the fact that the Decembrists were unable to rely on the people, to make them active force uprisings

Under these conditions, Nicholas resorted to sending Metropolitan Seraphim and Kyiv Metropolitan Eugene to negotiate with the rebels. The idea of ​​sending metropolitans to negotiate with the rebels occurred to Nicholas as a way to explain the legality of the oath to him, and not to Constantine, through clergy who were authoritative in matters of the oath. It seemed that who better to know about the correctness of the oath than the metropolitans? Nikolai’s decision to grasp at this straw was strengthened by alarming news: he was informed that life grenadiers and a guards naval crew were leaving the barracks to join the “rebels.”

Suddenly, the metropolitans rushed to the left, hid in a hole in the fence of St. Isaac's Cathedral, hired simple cab drivers (while on the right, closer to the Neva, a palace carriage was waiting for them) and returned to the Winter Palace by a detour. Two new regiments approached the rebels. On the right, along the ice of the Neva, a regiment of life grenadiers (about 1250 people) rose, fighting their way through the troops of the tsar's encirclement, arms in hand. On the other side, rows of sailors entered the square - almost the entire guards naval crew - over 1,100 people, a total of at least 2,350 people, i.e. forces arrived in total more than tripled compared to the initial mass of rebel Muscovites (about 800 people), and in general the number of rebels quadrupled. All the rebel troops had weapons and live ammunition. All were infantrymen. They had no artillery. But the moment was lost. The gathering of all the rebel troops took place more than two hours after the start of the uprising. An hour before the end of the uprising, the Decembrists elected a new “dictator” - Prince Obolensky, chief of staff of the uprising. He tried three times to convene a military council, but it was too late: Nicholas managed to take the initiative into his own hands. The encirclement of the rebels by government troops, more than four times the number of the rebels, had already been completed.

Nikolai ordered to shoot with grapeshot. The first volley of grapeshot was fired above the ranks of soldiers - precisely at the “mob” that dotted the roof of the Senate and neighboring houses. The rebels responded to the first volley of grapeshot with rifle fire, but then, under a hail of grapeshot, the ranks wavered and wavered - they began to flee, the wounded and dead fell. The Tsar's cannons fired at the crowd running along the Promenade des Anglais and Galernaya. Crowds of rebel soldiers rushed onto the Neva ice to move to Vasilyevsky Island. Mikhail Bestuzhev tried to again form soldiers into battle formation on the ice of the Neva and go on the offensive. The troops lined up. But the cannonballs hit the ice - the ice split, many drowned. Bestuzhev's attempt failed.

At this time, the Decembrists gathered at Ryleev’s apartment. This was their last meeting. They only agreed on how to behave during interrogations. The despair of the participants knew no bounds: the death of the uprising was obvious.

The history of the Supreme Criminal Court over the Decembrists has been studied very thoroughly. The subject of the study was the number of court hearings and the time they were held, the issues discussed and decisions on them, the role of M.M. Speransky and Nicholas I on different stages activities of the court (during the development of its procedure and during the process). The issue of the attention of the future head of the III Department, A.Kh., was also briefly touched upon. Benkendorf to the struggle of opinions at court sessions (two of the judges - senators V.I. Bolgarsky and I.V. Gladkov - were his agents and more or less regularly reported to him about what was happening).

In historiography, there is a strong opinion that the composition of the court was specially selected and the verdicts were predetermined in advance. In many ways this was true. However, from the published reports of judge-agents, as well as from the reports of some memoirists, it is known that already at the very beginning of the court’s activities, at least two groups were formed within its composition: “patriots” who advocated for maximum severe punishments, and “philanthropists” who defended relatively mild measures. Discussions between them became extremely heated. When determining penalties and passing sentences, the struggle was on all issues put to vote. In addition, the organizers of the court themselves did not have a clear idea of ​​either the necessary penalties for the defendants or the optimal procedure for passing sentences.

The court's initial plan for sentencing turned out to be worthless: the assignment of punishments by category had to be supplemented by an individual sentence for each defendant, and even the vote of M.M. himself. Speransky, former organizer The work of the court in most cases differed from what was planned. The fact that the emperor discussed the proposed punishments with Speransky, the chairman of the court P.V. Lopukhin and court prosecutor D.I. Lobanov-Rostovsky cannot yet be considered pressure on the court. Given the existing legal confusion and the chosen court procedure, it was necessary to first develop a more or less logical grid of punishments. The fact that Nikolai did not prescribe ready-made decisions to his associates is also evidenced by the significant differences on almost all points between the votes of Speransky and Lopukhin, as well as the fact that the punishments for some categories, even after confirmation, remained more severe than initially expected.

Thus, there is no need to talk about direct and tangible pressure on the court, at least at some stages of its work (however, the methods of influencing the court organizers on the course of the process have not yet been sufficiently studied). This left the judges a certain freedom of action and contributed to discussions and the formation of various groupings. Their presence is an established fact.

The Supreme Criminal Court was created by a manifesto of June 1, 1826 and worked from June 3 to July 12, 1826. A total of 68 people took part in passing sentences. The court included members of the State Council who were in St. Petersburg at that time (17 people), senators (35), members of the Holy Synod (3) - these categories were called “estates” - as well as persons specially appointed by the emperor (there were 13 of them ).

At the time of the activities of the Supreme Criminal Court, the systematization of the current legislation of Russia had not yet been completed. Formally continued to operate Cathedral Code 1649, according to which almost all defendants were subject to death penalty and the question was only about the method of execution. The current Peter's laws (Military Regulations, Naval Regulations, etc.) were distinguished by the same severity. In addition, Peter's legislation introduced such a specific punishment as political death - the complete deprivation of a person legal status(“the defamed” could not only be killed). In the second half of the 18th century. a measure was introduced that was intermediate in relation to political death - deprivation of the rights of the estate, which also provided for the termination of property and family relations, but without “defamation”. The main difference between political death and deprivation of rights, which also implies the loss of class status, remained the elements of ignominious punishment (hanging, placing the head on the block). Both of these measures (political death and deprivation of state rights) initially implied a link to hard labor, and by the beginning of the 19th century. and a link to eternal settlement in Siberia.

As for the legal training of court members, it still remained low. Most dignitaries became familiar with legal norms during their service. Transition to modern type legal thinking was just beginning. All this created great difficulties in determining punishment for a large number of defendants, the degrees of guilt of which varied significantly and whose actions often did not fit any of the known precedents.

Many Decembrists were in prisons and dungeons in shackles, and some were subjected to more sophisticated tortures. Decembrist V.P. wrote about the severity of solitary confinement. Zubkov: “The inventors of the gallows and beheading are the benefactors of humanity; whoever invented solitary confinement is a vile scoundrel; This punishment is not corporal, but spiritual. Anyone who has not been in solitary confinement cannot imagine what it is like.”

There were no better cells than in the casemates. Secret house Alekseevsky ravelin, where many Decembrists were kept.

“They stripped me to the skin,” said M. Bestuzhev, “they put me in the official uniform of hermits... They laid me on a bed and covered me with a blanket, because my shackled hands and feet refused to serve me. The thick iron bar of the handcuffs squeezed my hands until they went numb. Deathly silence crushed my soul..."

In the Secret House, the supervision of prisoners was very strict, but all this did not break the courage of the Decembrists. They found the opportunity to communicate with each other by tapping, using the prison alphabet compiled by Bestuzhev. Subsequently, this alphabet - "Bestuzhevka" - became part of the arsenal of all Russian revolutionaries who were imprisoned.

The sentencing in the case of the Decembrists took place in several stages. Initially, the Discharge Commission, separated from the court, determined the number of categories into which the defendants were distributed, according to the severity of their guilt, and made a preliminary distribution of the defendants into categories in accordance with the elements of the crime. After this, the court accepted the proposed number of categories and, based on materials received from the Supreme Commission of Investigation and verified by the Audit Commission, passed sentences first for each category as a whole, and then, in order to clarify individual punishments, for each defendant separately. Finally, the verdict was submitted to Nicholas I for approval.

After the trial, the following were executed by hanging: Sergei Muravyov-Apostol, Pavel Pestel, Kondraty Ryleev, Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Pavel Kakhovsky. The rest were exiled to Siberia, and the soldiers were also sentenced to corporal punishment.

After the Decembrists were sent to Siberia, many of their wives followed their husbands. The feat was accomplished by women (at the same time, the Russian nature of the phenomenon is emphasized in every possible way) by abandoning everything they had, leaving their children, they followed their spouses, voluntarily deciding to share with them all the hardships of the harsh hard labor. Although out of 12 Decembrists only five were Russian, of the rest two (Annenkova and Ivasheva) were purebred French, one (Trubetskaya) was French by father and upbringing, two were Polish by blood and cultural orientation (Entaltseva and Yushnevskaya), two were Ukrainian at least half (Volkonskaya and Davydova). All of them, however, belonged to the class considered the bearer of Russian state culture- the nobility (with the exception of hired workers Polina Gebl (Annenkova) and Camilla Le-Dantu (Ivasheva)) and in this capacity were indeed the first Russian women, whose act became a socially significant phenomenon and influenced the formation of the self-awareness of Russian women (not without reason one of the founders The granddaughter of the Decembrist Ivashev became the Russian women's movement). I would like to talk about some of the Decembrists in more detail.

She was the first to receive permission to follow her husband E.I. Trubetskoy, who left St. Petersburg on July 24, 1826, the next day after her husband was sent. She was the daughter of Count I.S. Laval and lived with her husband in her father’s rich mansion on the Promenade des Anglais. S.P. Trubetskoy settled in his father-in-law's house in 1822, returning with his wife from Paris. From that time on, the house of Laval became closely associated with the Decembrists. Members of the Secret Society gathered at Trubetskoy, whose rooms were on the ground floor.

After the departure of E.I. Trubetskoy in Siberia, her parents' house became the center where information about the exiles could be obtained.

E.I. Trubetskoy, who dearly loved her husband, shared his fate. From St. Petersburg to Krasnoyarsk she was accompanied by her father's secretary, but soon he fell ill and she continued her journey alone.

After the Transbaikal hard labor in 1839, the Trubetskoys were sent to settle in the village of Oyok, Irkutsk province. In Siberia, Ekaterina Ivanovna’s dream came true: she became a mother, but out of seven children, three died in infancy. In 1845, Prince. E.I. Trubetskoy and her children are allowed to live in Irkutsk, where they buy a house in Znamensky Suburb. In addition to their own, they had five adopted children, including the daughters of the Decembrist M.K. Kuchelbecker - Anna and Justina. For her pupils, the princess became a second mother. The Decembrist's wife was actively involved in charity work. She helped not only her comrades in exile - the Decembrists, but also many poor people of Irkutsk and surrounding villages. The Trubetskoy house is always “filled with the blind, the lame and all sorts of cripples.” A deeply religious person, Ekaterina Ivanovna helped Orthodox churches in Irkutsk and its environs. The leading youth of Irkutsk often gathered in her house. In 1854, Prince. E.I. Trubetskaya died. Ekaterina Ivanovna found her last refuge in the fence of the Znamensky Monastery, where three of her children were already buried.

Following Trubetskoy, M.N. left St. Petersburg. Volkonskaya, wife of a member of the Southern Society S.G. Volkonsky. Maria Nikolaevna arrived in 1826 at the Blagodatsky mine, where she lived in a peasant hut with Prince. E.I. Trubetskoy. “This woman should be immortal in Russian history,” the Siberians believed. She “plays the role of a paramedic, brings healthy food to the sick,” writes out the Koran for a Muslim convict, collects a herbarium of Siberian flora for Dr. Dowler in St. Petersburg, and compiles an entomological collection and a mineralogical cabinet of Siberia. Since 1837, the Volkonskys have lived in a settlement in the village of Urik, Irkutsk province. In 1845, Prince. M.N. Volkonskaya and her children were allowed to move to Irkutsk, where Sergei Grigorievich also moved in 1845. They also transport their house from Urik to Irkutsk. Maria Nikolaevna "managed to make her home the main center of Irkutsk public life", she was the soul of musical, theatrical and literary evenings, balls and masquerades for Irkutsk youth were often held in her salon. And this " open life in the Volkonskys' house directly led to the rapprochement of society and the emergence in it of more relaxed and cultural mores and tastes." The princess takes care of the development of the musical tastes of the students of the Irkutsk Girls' Institute, she herself selects notes for the choir, and helps organize charity balls. After the amnesty of 1856, the Volkonskys lived on the Voronki estate Chernigov province, which belonged to their daughter Elena Sergeevna. That's where they are buried.

The fate of the wives of the Decembrists is described in detail in the film “Star of Captivating Happiness” and in Nekrasov’s poem “Russian Women”.

In memory of the Decembrists, Herzen named the magazine he published in London “Polar Star”, on the cover of which the profiles of those executed were depicted.

The ideas of the Decembrists were picked up and strengthened by revolutionaries - commoners, starting with Chernyshevsky and ending with the Narodnaya Volya. “The proletariat, the only completely revolutionary class, rose at their head and for the first time raised millions of peasants to open revolutionary struggle,” wrote V.I. Lenin, often in his speeches and writings, mentioned the Decembrists as the first revolutionaries. After October Socialist revolution In memory of the Decembrists, many memorable places associated with them were named after them: Ryleev, Yakubovich, Pestel streets, Kakhovsky Lane.

Don't tell dreams. Freudians may come to power.

Stanislav Jerzy Lec

In the history of every country there are several dates known to everyone. In Russian history, these dates include December 14, 1825. On this day, the conspirators-members Northern Society several were brought to Senate Square guards units who followed them, convinced that they were going to defend Emperor Constantine, to whom they had already sworn allegiance.

The speech was not prepared. The date of the uprising was dictated by the news of the unexpected death of Emperor Alexander and information that the conspiracy had been discovered, all names were known to the government. The “dictator” of the uprising, elected by the Northern Society, Guards Colonel Prince Sergei Trubetskoy, did not appear on the square. For about five hours, the soldiers stood in a square on Senate Square, waiting for some decision on the part of the conspiratorial officers commanding them, who also did not know what to do. It was cold, the temperature dropped to minus 8. It was getting dark when Nikolai sent for artillery. A feature of the guards conspiracies of the 18th century. There was a lack of resistance on the part of the overthrown sovereigns: neither Anna Leopoldovna, nor Peter III, nor Paul I defended themselves; taken by surprise, they lost power and, as a rule, their lives.

Nicholas I decided not to give up. Convinced of his right to the throne, he showed determination and energy in the difficult conditions of confusion caused by the double oath. Without ceasing to attempt negotiations with the rebels, he gathered forces. A different behavior of the emperor could have given victory to the “Decembrists”, despite their immobility.

After several volleys of grapeshot into a motionless square of rebels, the soldiers fled, losing killed and wounded. The rebellion was suppressed. On December 29, 1825, the Chernigov regiment rebelled in the south. The command was assumed by a member of the Southern Society, Sergei Muravyov-Apostol. On January 3, 1826, the Chernigovites were defeated. Arrests began throughout the country. Nicholas I, who closely monitored the investigation, believed that about 6 thousand people were involved in the conspiracy3. From large number those arrested were chosen as “leaders” - 121 people. They were tried, five were sentenced to death by hanging, the rest were sentenced to various terms of hard labor in Siberia. The leaders of the Southern Union were hanged - Pavel Pestel, Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Sergei Muravyov-Apostol, the head of the Northern Union Kondraty Ryleev and Pyotr Kakhovsky, who mortally wounded Count Miloradovich on the square.

The execution of the leaders of the uprising shocked Russian society, significantly contributing to the birth of the legend. Elizabeth abolished the death penalty in Russia. At the same time, the Code of Tsar Alexei, published in 1649 and providing for the death penalty for 63 types of crimes, continued to operate in the country - not canceled by anyone and not replaced by anything. The Charter of Peter I was not repealed either: death for 112 types of crimes. In the 75 years preceding December 14, 1825, only Mirovich and the Pugachevites were executed. But thousands of people were beaten to death with whips, spitzrutens, and executed without trial. In July 1831, military settlers in Staraya Russa rebelled. 2,500 people were driven through the line, 150 died from spitzrutens. This did not cause any unrest in society.

The execution of the Decembrists shocked society, because it was the execution of “our own”: brilliant guards officers, representatives of the most noble noble families, heroes of the Napoleonic wars. The conspirators were young (the average age of those convicted was 27.4 years) and educated: some of those arrested testified in French.

The martyrdom of five leaders of the movement, cruel punishments other participants - hard labor, settlement, fortress, sending to the Caucasus ordinary soldiers under Chechen bullets - they turned the Decembrists into saints of the Russian revolutionary movement, into the forerunners of the liberation movement, into the first conscious fighters against the autocracy.

After the massacre of the rebels, their names were banned in Russia; neither the movement itself nor its participants could be spoken or written: censorship closely monitored compliance with the ban. The first who began to openly talk about the Decembrists, the “phalanx of heroes” who rebelled for freedom, was Alexander Herzen, who lived abroad. The cover of The Polar Star, which he began publishing in London in his Free Russian Printing House, was decorated with profiles of executed Decembrists. An important role in spreading the legend of the Decembrists was played by Polish emigrants who fled Poland after the defeat of the uprising of 1831 and found Russian sympathizers abroad - Alexander Herzen, Mikhail Bakunin, who called themselves followers of the ideas of the Decembrists. Thus, for Polish democratic emigrants, the Decembrists became an example of Russian democrats, brothers in the struggle “for our and your freedom.” Polish democrats will not stop looking for like-minded people and allies in Russia.

When creating the genealogy of his revolution, Lenin included the Decembrists in it. The scheme turned out to be simple and clear: “The Decembrists woke up Herzen,” Herzen woke up the Narodnaya Volya, and then Lenin had to wake up.

The uprising ended in failure. It is unknown what the conspirators would have done if they had seized power. Posterity was left with only their dreams, set out in sketches of programs, in conversations recorded by memoirists, in detailed testimony of the investigative commission.

The first society of future Decembrists was created in 1816, bore the long name “Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland,” but was known as the “Union of Salvation.” Its most prominent members are guards officers Nikita Muravyov and Pavel Pestel. Disagreements between the organizers led to the collapse of the Union of Salvation, on the ruins of which the Union of Welfare was formed in January 1818. “The initial intention of society,” as Pavel Pestel said about the goals of the Union of Salvation, “was the liberation of the peasants.” Then, however, the problem is fundamental social reform gives way to a political problem. “The real goal of the first society,” as Pestel answered the investigators, “was the introduction of a monarchical constitutional government”4. Within the framework of the Welfare Union, the goal is narrowed - the Charter makes no mention of the liberation of the peasants, but expresses “hope for the goodwill of the government.” The moderation of the views of the Union of Welfare attracts young officers to it, but raises objections from a number of participants, led by Pestel, who from the beginning of 1820 raised the question of turning Russia into a republic. In 1821, the Welfare Union at a congress in Moscow decided to cease to exist. In place of the abolished union, two societies arise - the Southern, led by Pavel Pestel, and the Northern, led by Nikita Muravyov and Nikolai Turgenev.

All Decembrists agreed on the need for reforms in Russia. Everyone agreed that “the ladder is being swept from above”, that the necessary reforms (or even revolution, according to some) could only be carried out from above - through a military conspiracy. Shortly before the uprising, Pestel decisively asserted: “The masses are nothing, they will be what the individuals who are everything want.”

With complete similarity of views regarding the answer to the question: how to do it? There were heated debates regarding the answer to the question: what to do? The debate about the changes Russia needed can be boiled down to three main views. The ideologist of the Northern Society was Nikita Muravyov (1796-1843), who wrote a draft constitution approved by the majority of the “northerners”. Nikita Muravyov's project provided for the transformation of Russia into a constitutional monarchy. An extremely high electoral qualification (real estate worth 30 thousand rubles or capital worth 60 thousand rubles) sharply limited the number of electors to the upper house of parliament - the Supreme Duma. The Constitution declared that “serfdom and slavery are abolished.” The land remained with the landowners, the peasants received a small (2 dessiatines) allotment.

The second group of views was represented by Nikolai Turgenev (1789-1871). Soon after the formation of the Northern Society, he emigrated and did not take part in the uprising, but was sentenced in absentia to eternal hard labor - after the death penalty, this was the most severe punishment.

Very influential in Decembrist circles, Nikolai Turgenev, unlike Nikita Muravyov, considered the first priority to be the liberation of the peasants. One should, he said, begin with the establishment of civil freedom before dreaming of political freedom. “It is not permissible to dream of political freedom there,” wrote Nikolai Turgenev, “where millions of unfortunate people do not even know simple human freedom.”

Putting the liberation of the peasants at the forefront, Nikolai Turgenev sharply objected to Nikita Muravyov’s projects, which expanded the rights of the nobility. Since the absolutism of the monarch was seen by him as a factor restraining the desires of the nobility and landowners, and since slavery could fall, as Pushkin put it, “at the tsar’s mania,” he considered republican dreams premature.

The program of Pavel Pestel (1793-1826) can be considered a unique synthesis of the views of Nikita Muravyov and Nikolai Turgenev. The son of the Siberian governor-general, who even among governors-general was considered a bribe-taker, who made a brilliant military career (in 1821 - colonel), stood out among his contemporaries for his intelligence, knowledge and strong character, Pavel Pestel was the most prominent figure in all secret societies, starting with the Union salvation. His program, set out in the unfinished Russkaya Pravda, the code of laws of the future Russian republic, was the most developed and most radical document of the Decembrist movement.

Pavel Pestel proposed a new path for the development of Russia. Mikhail Bakunin was the first to notice this. After the death of Nicholas I and the accession to the throne of Alexander II, who began a reform program, Mikhail Bakunin, who lived in exile, wrote the brochure “The People's Cause: Romanov, Pugachev or Pestel.” Old revolutionary, who believed in the possibility of a “revolution from above”, in the transformation of the country “according to the tsar’s mania”, called on Alexander II to convene a Zemsky National Council and at it resolve all zemstvo affairs, and receive the blessing of the people for the necessary reforms. There are three possible paths for the people (and for fighters for the people - revolutionaries): Romanov, Pugachev, or, if a new Pestel appears, then him. “Let’s tell the truth,” Mikhail Bakunin wrote in 1862, “we would most willingly follow Romanov if Romanov could and wanted to turn from the St. Petersburg emperor into the Zemsky Tsar.” The whole question, however, is “does he want to be Russian?” Zemsky Tsar Romanov, or the Holstein-Gothorpe Emperor of St. Petersburg?” In the first case, he alone, for “the Russian people still recognize him,” can carry out and complete the great peaceful revolution without shedding a single drop of Russian or Slavic blood" But if the Tsar betrays Russia, Russia will be plunged into bloody disasters. Mikhail Bakunin asks: what form will the movement take then, and who will lead it? “The impostor-tsar, Pugachev or the new Pestel-dictator? If Pugachev, then God forbid that the political genius of Pestel is found in him, because without him he will drown Russia and, perhaps, the entire future of Russia in blood. If it’s Pestel, then let him be a people’s man, like Pugachev, otherwise the people will not tolerate him.”5

The revolutionary radicalism of Pestel's plans attracted Bakunin. The “political genius” of the leader of the Southern Society was manifested, according to the author of “People’s Cause,” both in the talent of a conspirator and in the program for “saving Russia.” Decembrist Ivan Gorbachevsky will write in his memoirs: Pestel was an excellent conspirator. And he will add: “Pestel was a student of Count Palen, no more and no less.”6 In 1818, the young guards officer Pavel Pestel met with General Peter Palen, the leader of the palace coup on March 11, 1801, which ended with the assassination of Paul I and the enthronement of Alexander I. 72-year-old Palen, retired and living on his estate near Mi -tavoy, often talked with Pestel and once gave him advice: “Young man! If you want to do something through a secret society, then this is stupidity. Because if there are twelve of you, then the twelfth will invariably be a traitor! I have experience and I know the world and people."7

The “political genius” of Pavel Pestel did not manifest itself, of course, in organizing a secret society, although the Southern society was better organized than the Northern one. Perhaps if Colonel Pestel had been in St. Petersburg on December 14, 1825, the conspirators would have been able to seize power. Without Count Palen, the conspiracy against Paul I would hardly have succeeded. Pavel Pestel left his name in the history of Russia as the author of “Russian Truth” - a project for the radical reorganization of the country. Nikolai Turgenev compared Pestel's program with the “brilliant utopias” of Fourier and Owen. The authors of “The History of Russian Utopia” are influenced by Pestel Mably, Morelli, Babeuf8.

Pestel solves two questions that occupied Russian society throughout the 18th century clearly and clearly: rejecting all forms of restriction of the monarchy, he proposes to make Russia a republic; “slavery must be decisively abolished, and the nobility must certainly forever renounce the vile privilege of possessing other people.” At the same time, all classes are destroyed: “... the very title of nobility must be destroyed; its members enter general composition Russian citizenship." Pestel's program, when read at the end of the 20th century, attracts attention not only as a historical document - evidence of the state of mind in early XIX century, but also the relevance of some decisions debated by Russian society 170 years after the death of the leader of the Southern Society.

Insisting on the liberation of the peasants, Pavel Pestel considered it necessary to preserve communal land ownership, which was supposed to exist next to private property to the ground. Pestel’s reluctance to give all the land to private owners is associated with his sharp condemnation of the “aristocracy of wealth,” in other words, capitalist tendencies. The “aristocracy of wealth” seems to him to be much more harmful to the people than the feudal aristocracy.

Like all other utopians, the author of Russkaya Pravda does not believe that the people, whose happiness he is so concerned about, will be able to understand their own benefit. Therefore, Pavel Pestel devotes Special attention the creation of the Ministry of Police (“decency order”), the organization of a system of espionage (“secret search”), censorship, proposes to establish a corps of gendarmes (“internal guard”) of one thousand people per province, believing that “fifty thousand gendarmes will be enough for the entire state "

Issues of the administrative structure of the state occupy a lot of space in the project. Basic administrative unit it was supposed to be a volost. The country's population was divided between volosts, which became self-governing. The volost society provided land plots for the use of all citizens assigned to the volost.

The idea of ​​universal equality underlay Pestel's solution to the problem of managing an empire. He categorically rejected federalist ideas, which Alexander I could not get rid of until the end of his life. Pavel Pestel saw Russia as centralized, united and indivisible. "Russkaya Pravda" proposed to annex all of Moldova, the Caucasus, Central Asia, to the empire, Far East and part of Mongolia. Rebellious Caucasian highlanders who resisted Russian troops, Pestel considered it necessary to resettle in central Russia. Orthodoxy was declared the state religion, the Russian language - the only language empires.

Russkaya Pravda offered Jews a choice: assimilation or leaving Russia for the Middle East, where they could found their own state.

The above postulates of Pestel demonstrate the attitude of the head of Southern society to the imperial problem: the Russian republic seemed to him to be united centralized state with a single people made up of all the peoples of the empire. In fact, Alexander I turned Russia into a federal state, granting broad rights to Poland and Finland. Pavel Pestel categorically rejects the principle of federalism. He consistently pursues this idea, offering his final solution to the “Polish question.”

Southern society, seriously preparing for a coup, began negotiations with Polish revolutionaries. For Pestel, who participated in one of the secret meetings, it was important to get the support of the Poles, who were expected to organize an uprising and the murder of Grand Duke Constantine in Warsaw simultaneously with Russia. Representatives of Polish revolutionary societies demanded recognition of Poland's right to independence. In 1825, a small radical group of conspirators merged with the Southern Society - the Society of United Slavs, whose members included both Russians and Poles. Their program dreamed of creating a federation of Slavic republics: its territory was washed by four seas - the Black, White, Adriatic, and Arctic Ocean.

The ideas that would soon acquire the name “Slavophilism” did not captivate Pavel Pestel. He agreed to the independence of Poland, but limited this agreement with many conditions.

First of all, the right of the Poles to unconditionally secede from Russia was rejected: the revolutionary provisional government, after the establishment of the republic, recognized the independence of Poland and transferred to it those provinces (provinces) that agreed to join the Polish state. Until this time, Polish territory continues to remain Russian property. When defining the boundaries of the future Polish state Russia has the decisive vote. Poland and Russia sign a cooperation agreement, the main condition of which is the inclusion Polish troops to the Russian army in case of war. Government system administrative structure and the basic principles of the social system correspond to the principles of “Russian Truth”. Pestel wanted to prevent the influence of the Polish "aristocracy" on society and feared the Poles' attachment to the monarchy.

Northern society rejected Pestel’s proposals for “ Polish question" Nikita Muravyov believed that it was impossible to return the lands conquered by Russia, one should not enter into negotiations with the peoples inhabiting the state, and even more so it was impossible to agree to concessions in relation to a foreign state, which in the future might show hostility towards Russia.

The “northerners” refused to accept all other points of Pestel’s program. The pretext was the colonel’s ambition, which frightened many “Decembrists”. There were reasons for this. Pestel's imperious character is noted by everyone who knew him. In addition, he foresaw the long dictatorship necessary for the construction of the Russian republic. In response to a remark by one of the Decembrists regarding a dictatorship that would last several months, Pestel sharply objected: “Do you think it is possible to change this entire state machine, give it a different basis, accustom people to new orders within a few months? This will take at least ten years!”9. The possibility of having the author of Russkaya Pravda as dictator for at least ten years frightened members of the Northern Society. But most of all - and in this main reason refusal to accept “Russian Truth” by the “northerners”. - the extremism of Pestel’s program frightened me. The extreme nature of his views was revealed during interrogations of the leader of the Southern Society.

The Decembrists openly told investigators, including the emperor, about their views. On both sides of the investigative table sat “their own” - nobles, officers, often good friends, sometimes relatives. But it’s one thing to talk about your views, another thing to name your accomplices. The conspirators answered the question about the other participants in different ways. Pavel Pestel named everyone. Evgeny Yakushkin, the son of a Decembrist, who knew well his father’s comrades who had returned from exile and helped write their memoirs, expressed his opinion about Pestel: “None of the members of the secret society had such definite and firm convictions and faith in the future. He was unscrupulous about funds... When the Northern society began to act indecisively, he announced that if their case was discovered, he would not let anyone escape, that the more victims there were, the greater the benefit, and he kept his word. In the investigative commission, he pointed directly at everyone who participated in the society, and if only five people were hanged, and not 500, then Pestel was not at all to blame for this: for his part, he did everything he could for this”10.

Russian historian social thought wrote in 1911: “In Pestel’s project we have the first rudiments of socialism, which from the second half of the 19th century century became the dominant worldview among the Russian intelligentsia." Three quarters of a century passed after Pestel’s execution; six years remained before the revolution, which realized some of his ideas.

The Decembrists were tried by the Supreme Criminal Court, in which Speransky participated. He compiled a carefully developed classification of the types and types of political crimes, and he himself categorized everyone involved in the case of the uprising. This determined the degree of punishment. Historians reproach the famous lawyer for the fact that the reasons why the conspirators were assigned to one category or another are often illogical. But Nicholas I was pleased and wrote to his brother Konstantin in Warsaw that he had given “an example trial, built on almost representative principles, thanks to which it was proven in front of the whole world how simple, clear, sacred our cause is.” Konstantin, spoiled by life in Warsaw, believed that the trial in St. Petersburg was illegal, because it was secret, and the accused had no defense.

The basis for the sentence were three crimes committed by the convicts: attempted regicide, rebellion, and military mutiny. The five main criminals were sentenced to quartering, which in Russia in the 19th century. not applied. The emperor decided to replace quartering with hanging.

There is evidence that three hanged men fell from the gallows because the rope broke. Sergei Muravyov allegedly said: “My God, they don’t even know how to hang properly in Russia.”

There were no spare ropes, and it was early, so we had to wait until the shops opened. 25 participants in the uprising were sentenced to eternal hard labor, another 62 to various terms of hard labor, 29 were exiled or demoted.

Ordinary participants in the uprising - soldiers and officers - were also subjected to repression. Two types of punishment were applied to them. The first one is spitzrutens. The condemned man, tied to a gun pointed at him with a bayonet, slowly walked through a line of soldiers armed with long, flexible rods. Each soldier took a step forward and delivered a blow to his bare chest or back. Peter I introduced spitzrutens into Russia in 1701, borrowing from the cultured Germans. The number of blows ranged from 10 to 12 thousand (12 thousand blows, as a rule, killed the convicted person). 6 soldiers were sentenced to this punishment; in total, 188 people were punished with spitzrutens. The second punishment for the soldiers and officers of the rebel regiments was transfer to the Caucasus, where there was a war with the highlanders. 27,400 people were sent to the Caucasus11.

The English historian carefully notes that although the Decembrists were punished severely and were treated cruelly, the sentence cannot be considered disproportionate to the crime. They were tried for the most serious crimes found in any criminal code. They did not deny their guilt. In 1820, the English historian gives an example, Arthur Thistlewood organized a conspiracy aimed at killing all the ministers. The conspirators did not have time to do anything, they only planned. But the court sentenced five of the leaders to hanging and exiled the remaining participants to Australia. English public opinion was outraged not by the actions of the authorities, but by the criminal intentions of the conspirators12.

Russian society did not forgive Nicholas I for his reprisals against the Decembrists: their heroic aura grew as some ideas from their ideological baggage began to gain wide popularity in Russia.

Repression Soviet era demonstrated the relative nature of the threshold of cruelty, the horror of mass terror. Alexander Solzhenitsyn in “The Gulag Archipelago” compares tsarist penal servitude with “extermination labor” Soviet camps: “At the Akatuy hard labor camp, work lessons were easy and doable for everyone...”13. Varlam Shalamov in “Kolyma Stories” says that the norm for a Soviet prisoner was 15 times more than normal convict-Decembrist. The Akatui penal servitude, where convicts mined silver, lead, and zinc, was a terrible place. But everything is learned by comparison. An extremely severe punishment for its time seems almost easy for contemporaries of the construction of socialism.

The impression made by the trial of the Decembrists was all the stronger because they knew the rebels by sight, or at least knew their names. The circle from which they came was very narrow. The Decembrist uprising, Mikhail Bakunin would say 30 years later, was “mainly a movement of the educated and privileged part of Russia”14. Vasily Klyuchevsky will say even more clearly: “The event of December 14 was of great significance in the history of the Russian nobility: it was the last military-noble movement.” The historian states: “December 14 ended political role nobility"15.

Subsequent events confirmed the accuracy of Klyuchevsky’s observation, who saw the reason for the weakness of the movement in the lack of real programs and the internal split of the conspirators. “Their fathers were Russians, whom their upbringing made French; The children were also French by upbringing, but they were the kind who passionately wanted to become Russian.”16

Speech On December 14, 1825, Nicholas agreed to accept the throne, and on December 14 the oath of troops and society was appointed. Members of the Northern Society spread a rumor in some barracks, where the name of Konstantin was popular, that Konstantin did not at all want to give up