Gorky. Gorky University Publishing House. 1975. 167 pp. The print run is 500. Price 80 kopecks.

The study of the internal policy of the autocracy in the second half of the 19th century is very important for a correct understanding of the social and economic changes that occurred in Russia after the abolition of serfdom. Understanding the nature and nature of various forms of socio - political struggle of that time is impossible without taking into account internal political phenomena, without understanding the subjective factor, behavior and psychology of people who were at the head of the state administration apparatus. Unfortunately, problems related to internal policy by conducting-

page 171

In the nineteenth century, the problems of the ruling classes of Russia have not yet been fully investigated .1
The book by the head of the Department of the History of the USSR of the pre-October period of the Belarusian University, Doctor of Historical Sciences I. V. Orzhekhovsky, devoted to the consideration of certain issues of this problem, fills this gap.

The work is written on the basis of a wide range of sources, many of which are being introduced into scientific use for the first time. Along with official and documentary materials (legislative, all - issued reports and notes, reports of ministers and chief administrators, internal and interdepartmental correspondence) extracted from archival collections, the author uses memoirs, diaries and unofficial correspondence of members of the imperial family and representatives of the highest bureaucracy, and also draws on literature, unfortunately, very few due to the lack of development problems.

The reforms of the early 1960s created the conditions for the transformation of the feudal monarchy into a bourgeois one. However, the preservation of semi-feudal remnants in the country predetermined not only the inconsistency of the autocracy's internal policy, but also created an opportunity for a transition to reaction. With the deterioration of the economic situation of the local nobility, its desire to abandon the policy of reforms became more and more clearly revealed. At the same time, reactionary tendencies within the government circles themselves became more pronounced. The deterioration of the domestic political course became more pronounced as the socio-political and national liberation movement weakened. Under these conditions, the autocracy sought to curtail the concessions that the "wave of social excitement and revolutionary onslaught"had once wrung from it .2
In government policy, the years 1866-1878 were a time of domination of the protective course, which was established in Russia after the Karakoz shot and only in the early 80-ies of the XIX century. temporarily replaced by some "relaxation" - individual concessions or semi-concessions on the part of the government. The ruthless struggle against the revolutionary movement, the brutal persecution of all manifestations of "free thought", the persecution of advanced democratic journalism, the strengthening of the power of governors, the restriction of the activities of zemstvos, the radical reorganization of the gendarme department and the full development of police investigation, and at the same time the introduction of judicial reform, the preparation, adoption and implementation of the City Regulations of 1870, the growth of public the revolutionary movement-all this determined the dual nature of government policy in 1866-1878.

I. V. Orzhekhovsky examines the influence of the assassination attempt on April 4, 1866 on the theoretical justification and practical approval of the protective course; the highest state institutions of the Russian Empire; the composition of the highest official bureaucracy by the end of the 70s of the XIX century. The paper focuses on the strengthening of administrative and police activities, examines government policy in relation to the zemstvo, the court, and public education. The author quite rightly emphasizes that the very fact of the assassination attempt on Alexander II was only a convenient pretext for establishing and theoretically justifying a protective course in the field of domestic politics. Symptoms of the reaction in government policy can be traced much earlier than 1866. D. Karakozov's shot served as a signal for activating the most conservative forces in government circles. Supporters of an open reactionary and protective course came to power (P. A. Shuvalov, D. A. Tolstoy, somewhat later K. I. Palen and A. E. Timashev). However, they were unable to reverse or fundamentally change the reforms just announced. The government was forced not only to implement the already adopted ones (zemstvo and judicial ones), but also to prepare new ones, bourgeois in nature. Unable to resist the reforms that followed the abolition of serfdom, the conservative part of the government used all its strength to limit the effect of the reforms already adopted, and exerted direct pressure on the development of the upcoming reforms (urban and military).

Considering the structure, activities and composition of higher State institutions (Committee of Ministers, Council of Ministers, State Council, Senate),

1 On this problem in the framework of 1878-1895, see: P. A. Zayonchkovsky. The crisis of Autocracy at the turn of 1870-1880, Moscow, 1964. Russian autocracy at the end of the XIX century. Moscow, 1970.

2 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 5, p. 33.

page 172

I. V. Orzhekhovsky finds out the social composition of their members, as well as comrades of ministers, chief managers and directors of departments. To do this, he analyzes (in accordance with the methodology developed by the author of these lines) the form lists of more than 300 senior officials that he has identified. However, it would be more expedient to bring together all the data on the social composition of representatives of the higher bureaucracy in a single table, rather than characterize them by individual state institutions, as is done in the book.

I. V. Orzhekhovsky gives the most detailed description of the activities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the strengthening of administrative and police power in 1866-1878. Highlighting the main functions of this ministry, he focuses on issues related to the growth of the administrative power of governors, attempts to reorganize the local police department, as well as measures taken by the Ministry to limit the competence and activities of zemstvo institutions. Having studied the specific material, the author quite correctly concludes that the government policy in relation to zemstvo and judicial institutions in the late 60s and 70s of the XIX century had one common ground: without resorting to a radical revision of the recently adopted reforms, "correct" and change their essence (of course, in a convenient way). for the Government of the Russian Federation) by private legislative measures in the form of various "additions", "clarifications", "amendments" , etc. This principle of "private measures" was the basis of all government policy in relation to the court, the zemstvo and the press.

The Government regarded the zemstvo with distrust and prejudice, seeing it as one of the sources of opposition and the spread of "constitutional sentiments," but it did not dare to radically change the basic law on zemstvo institutions. The protective nature of government policy was manifested in a constant effort to narrow the scope of the Regulations of 1864 on zemstvo institutions.

The policy towards judicial institutions also had its own peculiarities. The" correction " of judicial statutes was carried out in parallel with their introduction. New judicial institutions were introduced very slowly and not fully. By the end of the 70s of the XIX century, although the court statutes were preserved externally, their content was significantly changed, aimed at strengthening the influence of administrative authorities both on the judicial system and on judicial proceedings.

As for public education, it was precisely this area of government activity that was particularly consistent with the mood that engulfed the government of Alexander II after the Karakozov shot. All the efforts of Count D. P. Tolstoy (who for 14 years simultaneously managed the Ministry of Public Education and the Synod) were aimed at preventing and suppressing the slightest manifestation of liberalism and democratic ideas. In 1866-1878, the Ministry of Public Education focused its main attention on the organization of educational institutions under its jurisdiction, on the unification of all primary schools of other departments under its jurisdiction, and, finally, most importantly, on the greatest possible weakening of the influence of zemstvos on public education and the strengthening of "religious and moral" principles in the latter. However, the Ministry of Public Education was not able to really organize the work; the actual situation of public education in a State of 80 million people was unknown to anyone, including the Ministry itself. The book shows the real conditions in which education was conducted in most primary schools: unsuitable premises, the almost complete absence of any textbooks, the poor existence of teachers and the professional unpreparedness of most of them. Bureaucratic, police-administrative supervision and control over the activities of primary schools were expanded in every possible way, and the share and role of the nobility and clergy in solving issues related to public education increased.

Having studied some aspects of the autocracy's internal policy in 1866-1878, the author rightly asserts that the 60s-70s of the XIX century are a difficult time in the history of Russia - the period when the transition from liberal, bourgeois in nature transformations of the early 60s to open reaction of the 80s was carried out - "the era of counter-reforms". This transition did not take place immediately: it occurred as accumulation and conso-

page 173

The forces of reaction are becoming more active and active as the liberal forces weaken and evolve to the right.

One of the features of the work is the vivid characteristics of the imperial family and representatives of the highest officials. This greatly contributes to the freshness of perception of the presented material and allows us to more fully judge not only the main, but also the secondary motives that determined certain actions of the high-ranking bureaucracy.

While appreciating the book as a whole, I would like to express regret that the author did not fully disclose a number of important aspects of the problem under study: the role and activities of the Third Department and the gendarme department, the relationship between the administration and the press, and issues related to the preparation and implementation of the City Regulations of 1870. It would be desirable to analyze in more depth the composition of both the higher bureaucracy and the provincial administrations and to consider this issue against a broader historical background, starting with the end of the Crimean War. This would fill in another gap by illuminating the history of the autocracy's internal policy, not only during the period of the formation of reactionary and protective principles (1866-1878), but also during the equally important preceding decade (1856-1865). During these years, under the influence of the current situation, tsarism was forced to prepare and implement a number of significant reforms,which were aimed at and first of all, the abolition of serfdom. In studies devoted to the period 1856-1865, the preparation of certain reforms (peasant, zemstvo, judicial, etc.), as a rule, is characterized without analyzing the internal policy of the government as a whole.

page 174

Permanent link to this publication: