The Supreme Manifesto of October 17, 1905 is a legislative act of the supreme power Russian Empire. According to one version, it was developed by Sergei Yulievich Witte on behalf of Emperor Nicholas II. According to other sources, the text of the Manifesto was prepared by A.D. Obolensky and N.I. Vuich, and Witte carried out the overall leadership. Information has been preserved that on the day the manifesto was signed, two drafts lay on the table in front of the tsar: the first was to introduce a military dictatorship (his uncle Nikolai Nikolayevich was planned to be a dictator), and the second - a constitutional monarchy. The tsar himself leaned towards the first option, but the decisive refusal of the Grand Duke forced him to sign the Manifesto. Adopted under the pressure of the general October political strike and, above all, the strike of the railroad workers, the Manifesto granted democratic freedoms to society and promised the convocation of a legislative State Duma. The main significance of the Manifesto was that it distributed the earlier sole right of the emperor between the monarch and the legislative State Duma. As a result of the adoption of the Manifesto by the emperor, changes were made to the Basic State Laws of the Russian Empire, which actually became the first Russian Constitution.

Under the conditions of the First Russian revolution it is with this act that the transition from an autocratic form of government in Russia to a constitutional monarchy is traditionally associated, as well as the liberalization of the political regime and the entire way of life in the country. On October 17, the Manifesto granted civil liberties to Russian citizens, and the future State Duma was endowed with legislative rights instead of the deliberative ones promised earlier on August 6. This Manifesto was based on a new draft of the State Duma, which was aimed at "the speedy end of the turmoil so dangerous for the state." In addition to taking measures to "eliminate direct manifestations of disorder", the government was entrusted with the fulfillment of three tasks: to give the population an unshakable foundation of civil freedom on the basis of real inviolability of the person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association; to attract to participation in the Duma those classes of the population who are completely deprived of voting rights (we were talking about workers); establish that no law could take effect without the approval of the State Duma. At the same time, the emperor retained the right to dissolve the Duma and block its decisions with his right of veto.

The document ended with an appeal "to all the faithful sons of Russia" together with the sovereign "to exert all efforts to restore silence and peace in their native land." But the period from October 18 to 29, 1905 was marked by another outbreak of violence: during these days, about 4 thousand people were killed, and about 10 thousand were injured. Such violence became possible due to the confusion of the central and, especially, local authorities, after the publication of the Manifesto. The fact is that the Manifesto was prepared in complete secrecy, and after its publication no explanations were made. There is evidence that even the Minister of the Interior found out about him at the same time as everyone else. What can we say about the governors and chiefs of police in the provinces, even if the city officials did not know how to act in the conditions of the "constitution".

The manifesto was published simultaneously with the note by S.Yu. Witte in the name of the emperor, which emphasized that the principles of the new order for Russia should "be embodied only insofar as the population acquires a habit and civil habit for them." In practice, despite the abolition of corporal punishment, the Cossacks and peasants in the community continued to flog the guilty. As before, "lower ranks (soldiers) and dogs" were strictly forbidden to enter the parks for the "clean" public. Merchants continued to imprison debtors from the merchant guilds in a debt commercial prison.

Decree "On strengthening the principles of religious tolerance" of April 17, 1905 and the provisions of the 7th chapter of the Code of Fundamental State Laws (of April 23, 1906), by which the Orthodox were allowed to freely convert to other faiths, and to all subjects of the Russian Federation who did not belong to the dominant church states and foreigners to enjoy "everywhere the free practice of their faith and worship according to its rites" only led to the penetration of ideas of proselytism and missionaries into Russia, the creation of various kinds of sects and the intensification of the split in the higher Orthodox clergy.

In addition to the State Duma, the Manifesto of October 17, 1905 also changed the functions of other higher public institutions empire. By a decree of October 19, 1905, the Council of Ministers became a permanent body responsible to the tsar. That is, he did not become a cabinet in the European sense, since he was not responsible to the Duma. Ministers were also appointed by the emperor. The State Council, by decree of February 20, 1906, was turned into the upper house of parliament as a counterbalance to the Duma. Now half of the members of the State Council were appointed by the tsar (including the chairman and vice-chairman), and the other half were elected from zemstvos, noble assemblies and universities.

However, the hopes for the "appeasement" of Russia did not come true, since the Manifesto was regarded in the left circles as a concession to the autocracy, and in the right - as royal mercy. This, in turn, determined the very contradictory and half-hearted nature of the transformations associated with the implementation of the civil liberties proclaimed by the Manifesto. A direct consequence of the release of the October Manifesto was the emergence of legal political parties, trade unions and other public organizations, as well as the legal opposition press.

The Decree of March 4, 1906 "On the Provisional Rules on Societies and Unions" regulated the activities of political parties, whose activities were legalized by the Manifesto on October 17. It was the first legal act in the history of Russia that officially allows and establishes certain rules for the activities of various political entities, including opposition ones. Societies and unions could be formed without "requesting the permission of the government authorities" on the basis of compliance with the rules established by decree. First of all, societies were prohibited that pursued goals that were contrary to public morality or prohibited by criminal law, threatening public peace and security, as well as managed by institutions or persons located abroad, if the societies pursued political goals.

At the beginning of the century, about 100 parties were created, which can be divided into: conservative-monarchist, conservative-liberal (Octobrists), liberal (Kadets), neo-populist, social democratic and nationalist. The Constitutional Democratic Party (self-name - "Party of People's Freedom") organizationally took shape at its first congress in Moscow on October 12-18, 1905. In the spring and summer of 1906, there were about 50 thousand people in the party (of which 8 thousand in Moscow and St. Petersburg each). The Union of October 17 party was formed after the publication of the tsar's manifesto on October 17, 1905. The total number of the party in 1905-1907 was about 50-60 thousand members. At the same time, the number of the Moscow organization reached about 9-10 thousand, and the St. Petersburg - about 14 thousand people. Among the law-abiding parties of the center, which later merged with the Octobrists, are the Trade and Industrial Union (which arose in St. Petersburg in October-November 1905 and collapsed at the end of 1906), the Moderate Progressive Party (formed in October-November 1905 in Moscow); the St. Petersburg Progressive Economic Party (founded in October-November 1905) and the Right Order Party (founded in St. Petersburg in mid-October 1905). As for the Black Hundred organizations, they arose even before the publication of the Manifesto. Thus, the Russian Assembly was formed in the autumn of 1900, the Union of Russian People (in October 1905 it was transformed into the Union of the Russian People) and the Russian Monarchist Party - in March 1905. The total number of these organizations by the summer of 1906 was more than 250 thousand members. The leftist parties, whose formation began as early as in late XIX century. The formation of trade unions also proceeded without prior notice, without waiting for the appearance of the Manifesto.

In the semi-annual activity of the cabinet of S.Yu. Witte, a great place was given to the transformations associated with the implementation of the civil liberties proclaimed by the Manifesto - the laws on societies and unions, on meetings and the press. But on the other hand, already in mid-February 1906, Witte switched to the position of a supporter of unlimited tsarist power and began to prove that the Manifesto of October 17 not only did not mean a constitution, but could also be canceled “hourly”.

A clear example of the limited nature of reforms in the sphere of citizens' rights is the censorship legislation, which, as a result of all the amendments and innovations, by 1904 was essentially reduced to the Charter of 1828. Another thing is that in the wake of the revolution, publishers actually stopped turning to censorship for permission. Under these conditions, the government was satisfied with the hastily prepared next Provisional Rules on time-based publications dated November 24, 1905. They abolished preliminary censorship and the system of administrative penalties. The latter, however, continued to be applied on the basis of the Law of 1881 on an exceptional position, which was extended to a significant part of the territory of Russia. The right of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to prohibit the discussion in the press of any issue of national importance was canceled, but certain issues of newspapers and magazines could be seized by order of an official with the simultaneous initiation of prosecution.

On April 23, 1906, four days before the start of the Duma, Nicholas II approved the “Basic Laws” (Constitution) of the Russian Empire, prepared by a special commission headed by S.Yu. Witte. The count himself defined the established regime as "legal autocracy". The Constitution broadly declared the fundamental freedoms and rights: judicial protection of private property of subjects (compulsory confiscation of the latter was allowed only in court and with preliminary equivalent compensation); the right to legal protection in case of arrest and transfer of the case to a jury trial; the right to freely choose a place of residence and freely travel abroad. True, there was no mass exodus of "non-noble estates" (80% of the population) abroad, with the exception of small groups of revolutionaries. From the Fundamental Laws, the definition of the tsar's power as unlimited was eliminated (he exercised legislative power together with the Duma and the State Council), but the title "autocratic" was retained. The prerogatives of the tsar were declared: the revision of fundamental laws, the highest state administration, the leadership of foreign policy, the supreme command of the armed forces, the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace, the declaration of an exceptional and martial law, the right to mint coins, the appointment and dismissal of ministers, the pardon of convicts and a general amnesty. But the imperial family was not subject to civil and criminal law.

GOD'S GRACE,
WE, NICHOLAS II,
EMPEROR AND AUTOCRATOR OF ALL-RUSSIAN,
Tsar of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland
AND OTHER, AND OTHER, AND OTHER.

We declare everything to Our faithful subjects:

Troubles and unrest in the capitals and in many areas of our empire fill our hearts with great and heavy sorrow. The good of the Russian sovereign is inseparable from the good of the people, and the sadness of the people is his sadness. From the unrest that has now arisen, there may be a deep disorganization of the people and a threat to the integrity and unity of our state.

The great vow of royal service commands us to strive with all the forces of reason and our power to end as soon as possible the turmoil so dangerous for the state. Having commanded the subordinate authorities to take measures to eliminate direct manifestations of disorder, outrages and violence, to protect peaceful people striving for the calm fulfillment of their duty, we, for the most successful implementation of the general measures intended by us for the pacification of state life, recognized it necessary to unite the activities of the highest government.

We make it the duty of the government to carry out our inexorable will:

1. Grant the population the unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of real inviolability of the person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and associations.

2. Without stopping the scheduled elections to the State Duma, now to enlist in participation in the Duma, to the extent possible, corresponding to the shortness of the period remaining until the convocation of the Duma, those classes of the population who are now completely deprived of suffrage, leaving the further development of the beginning of the general suffrage again established legal order.

3. Establish, as an unshakable rule, that no law can take effect without the approval of the State Duma and that the elected representatives of the people be provided with the opportunity to really participate in supervising the regularity of the actions of the authorities decreed by us.

We call on all the faithful sons of Russia to remember their duty to the Motherland, to help put an end to this unheard-of turmoil and, together with us, exert all their strength to restore silence and peace in their native land.

Given at Peterhof, on the 17th day of October, in the year 1905 from the Nativity of Christ, the eleventh of our reign.

On the original, His Imperial Majesty's own hand is signed:

"NICHOLAS".

Witenberg B. Political experience of Russian parliamentarism (1906-1917): Historical outline// New magazine. 1996. No. 1. S. 166-192

Leiberov I.P., Margolis Yu.D., Yurkovskiy N.K. Traditions of Democracy and Liberalism in Russia // Questions of History. 1996. No. 2. S. 3-14

Medushevsky A.N. Constitutional Monarchy in Russia // Questions of History. 1994. No. 8. S. 30-46

Orlova N.V. Political parties of Russia: pages of history. M., 1994

Political history of Russia in parties and persons. M., 1993

On what basis did the Manifesto bestow upon the population "the unshakable foundations of civil liberty"?

What exclusive right did the State Duma receive in the field of passing laws?

Why did the emperor decide to publish the Manifesto?

What legal acts were adopted on the basis of the Manifesto?

Manifestation October 17, 1905. I.E. Repin. 1907-1911 St. Petersburg, State Russian Museum

1905 On October 30 (October 17, O.S.), Nicholas II's manifesto "On the Improvement of the State Order" was published, which declared the granting of political freedoms to Russian citizens, personal immunity, and the expansion of the electoral qualification in elections to the State Duma. The manifesto of October 17, 1905 was prepared by S. Yu. Witte, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire, who considered constitutional concessions the only way to defuse the revolutionary atmosphere in Russia. “The first Russian revolution (1905-1907) began on January 9, 1905. This day went down in the history of Russia as Bloody Sunday". On this day in St. Petersburg, the tsarist troops shot down a peaceful procession of workers to the Winter Palace to petition the tsar about the needs of the workers. The shooting of a peaceful demonstration in St. Petersburg caused an outburst of indignation throughout the country. Mass strikes, demonstrations and protest rallies are taking place in the cities. The revolutionary movement grew. It covers new areas and new segments of the population. hesitated and military establishment tsarism. This was evidenced by the uprising on the battleship Potemkin (June 14, 1905). Soviets of Workers' Deputies are beginning to be formed everywhere. The first Soviet of Workers' Deputies was created in May 1905 in Ivanov-Voznesensk.

The highest upsurge of the revolution falls on October and December 1905. In October, the All-Russian political strike took place, which swept 120 cities. More than 2 million people took part in it. Under these conditions, the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II was forced to make concessions. On October 17, 1905, he signed the Manifesto, which proclaimed political freedoms in the country and the convocation of a legislative body in the person of the State Duma. Formally, such a step meant the transformation of the autocracy into a constitutional monarchy. The manifesto created legal conditions for the formation of political parties. In 1906, there were already more than 50 parties in the country.

Quoted from: Kudinova N.T. History of Russia IX-XX centuries. Khabarovsk: HSTU Publishing House, 2003

S.Yu. Witte.

“On October 17, a manifesto “on the improvement of the state order” followed. This manifesto, which, whatever its fate, will constitute an era in the history of Russia, proclaimed the following:

"Troubles and unrest in the capitals and in many places of our empire fill Our heart with great and heavy sorrow. The good of the Russian Sovereign is inseparable from the good of the people and the people's sadness. The great vow of the Tsar's service commands Us with all the forces of Our mind and power to strive for the speedy end of the turmoil so dangerous for the state. debt, We, for the most successful implementation of the general measures intended by Us to pacify the life of the state, recognized it necessary to unite the activities of the highest government.

We entrust the government with the fulfillment of Our inexorable will:

1) To grant the population the unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of real inviolability of the person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and associations.

2) Without stopping the planned elections to the State Duma, now to enlist in participation in the Duma, to the extent possible, corresponding to the shortness of the period remaining until the convocation of the Duma, those classes of the population who are now completely deprived of voting rights, thereby providing further development of the beginning of general suffrage again established legislative order (i.e., according to the law of August 6, 1905, the Duma and the State Council).

3) Establish as an unshakable rule that no law can take effect without the approval of the State Duma, and that the elected representatives of the people are provided with the opportunity to really participate in monitoring the regularity of the actions of the authorities appointed by Us.

We call on all the faithful sons of Russia to remember their duty to their homeland, to help put an end to the unheard-of turmoil and, together with Us, exert all their strength to restore silence and peace in their native land.

Quoted by: Witte S.Yu. Memories, memoirs. In 3 volumes. Moscow: Skif Alex, 1994

History in faces

A.P. Izvolsky, memoirs:
... the publication of the manifesto was accompanied in the provinces by a series of riots and anti-Jewish pogroms. These events took Count Witte by surprise and prompted immediate countermeasures at court. The reactionary party seized the opportunity to raise its head and try to renew its influence on the emperor. A fierce struggle ensued between this party and Count Witte. After the publication of the Manifesto on October 17, Count Witte ... found himself the object of severe attacks from the extreme right and left and met with complete indifference from moderate liberals. When I left Count Witte ... I was struck by the pessimistic nature of his next remark: "The manifesto of October 17 averted an immediate catastrophe, but it was not a radical cure for the situation that has been created, which still remains threatening. All I can hope for is is to preserve the situation without major upheavals until the opening of the Duma, but even in the realization of this hope I cannot be completely sure. A new revolutionary explosion is always possible." Such pessimism ... was explained solely by the deep disappointment that Witte experienced in connection with the immediate results of the publication of the manifesto, and, moreover, by the lack of sympathy on the part of the liberal party, which he could not foresee; he had high hopes for this game. (...)

Quoted from: Izvolsky A.P. Memories. M.: International relationships, 1989. S. 19, 21.

The world at this time

A lion in the desert devours an antelope. A. Russo. 1905 Riehen, Beyeler Foundation Museum

The Autumn Salon created a real sensation: the previously unknown Fauvism suddenly showed signs of a well-established trend. Prior to this, the masters were not united by either theoretical platforms or joint exhibition activities. There was no group as such. However, the general desire for a new pictorial language - emotional, bright - for some time made them very similar. They had many common roots - a passion for the painting of Gauguin and Van Gogh, the work of divisionists and their theory of pure color, oriental and primitive art.

The Fauves did not reckon with any laws established in European painting: perspectives, chiaroscuro, gradual thickening or softening of color, the primacy of drawing in the structure of the picture. "The starting point of Fauvism," wrote Matisse, "is a decisive return to beautiful blues, beautiful reds, beautiful yellows - the primary elements that excite our senses to the very depths."

Woman in a hat. A. Matisse. 1905 San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

Impressionism, around which so many copies were breaking yesterday, next to the canvases of the Fauvists looked like quite traditional, realistic art. “Imagine the world the way we want” - under these words of Derain, many artists who have mastered the discoveries of impressionism, but were not satisfied with them and strove for self-expression, could subscribe. Each of them, having a bright personality, created his own world. Therefore, after a brief joint sound, their choir broke up into separate voices - Fauvism as a trend lasted only a few years.

André Derain (1880-1954) remained faithful to his youthful predilection for the old masters, whom he carefully studied at the Louvre. Derain's works are characterized by deeply thought-out composition and coloring, attention to form. In the Autumn Salon of 1905, the artist exhibited views of Collioure (a place on the Mediterranean coast where he spent the summer with Matisse) and a self-portrait. Derain successfully worked in the field of book graphics, illustrated the works of French poets Guillaume Apollinaire and Andre Breton. He is also known as an artist who made theatrical scenery for the ballets "Russian Seasons".

Maurice de Vlaminck (1876-1958) did not receive a systematic art education and proudly admitted that he "did not cross the threshold of the Louvre." His landscapes are dynamic in form and vibrant in color. Working in the "classic" Fauvist manner, he really almost did not mix colors, he painted either with geometrically correct, wide separate strokes, or with Van Gogh's steep curls.

Georges Rouault (1871 - 1958) was one of the students of Gustave Moreau and even, according to the will of the master, became the main custodian of his collection, transferred to Paris. The work of stained glass, with which Rouault began his career in art, influenced his pictorial manner: he usually limited color forms to a wide black outline. Against the background of the general festive mood of the painting of the Fauvists, the canvases of Rouault amaze with tragedy. The artist's characters are clowns, street girls, grotesquely ugly residents of the city suburbs. Paintings on gospel themes, usually glorifying the greatness of the spirit, in Rouault are imbued with a poignant feeling of weakness and defenselessness of a person.

Kees van Dongen (real name Theodore Marie Corneille, 1877-1968) - french artist Dutch origin. On his canvases, lively relief strokes are combined with radiant, even areas, as if illuminated from within. Van Dongen's paintings shocked the audience: he usually depicted representatives of the social bottom and did it defiantly, poster, catchy. However, getting used to his manner, behind the apparent rudeness and vulgarity, one can detect the refinement and peculiar harmony inherent in the new era.

The poetic simplicity of the landscapes of Albert Marquet (1875-1947) set him apart from the Fauvist surroundings. Even when he painted with pure colors and used contrasting colors, their combinations were subtle, refined. Unlike other Fauvists, this artist did not so much follow his imagination as he carefully peered into reality (his favorite nature was docks and harbors). Modest landscapes fascinate with calmness and lyricism so that those who see them under the impression of real views - the sea, the sky, ships and boats with colored flags - immediately have the thought: "Like Marche!".

112 years ago, Nicholas II proclaimed freedom of speech and assembly and established the State Duma. The first days after the reform were remembered for the escalation of revolutionary violence, executions, dispersal of protesters and pogroms by the monarchists.

In October 1905, the All-Russian October political strike began, which became the apogee of the First Russian Revolution. Moscow railroad workers went on strike, then the strike spread to the whole country, including St. Petersburg. Almost all large industrial enterprises were on strike in the capital. The railway network of the European part of Russia was paralyzed.

The royal family was blocked in Peterhof, the ministers arrived on steamboats to report to the emperor. Post, telegraph, telephone did not work, there was no electricity and gas. Nevsky Prospekt was de-energized and illuminated only by a searchlight from the Admiralty.

Rally near St. Petersburg University after the tsar's manifesto. You can see how a red flag is attached to the cross

On October 13 (26), 1905, the Social Democrats and the workers of the capital formed the St. Petersburg Council of Workers' Deputies, which led the strike movement and by October 17 (30) and, due to its influence, became an alternative "government" in the capital paralyzed by the strike.

It was headed by non-partisan Social Democrat lawyer Georgy Khrustalev-Nosar. The "non-factional Social Democrat" Leon Trotsky enjoyed great influence in the Soviet.

"Do not spare cartridges"

On October 14 (27), the famous order of the comrade (deputy) Minister of the Interior and St. Petersburg Governor-General Dmitry Trepov appeared: "Do not spare cartridges." Soviet historiography made him a symbol of the cruelty of the authorities towards the protesters. However full version quotes specified that firearms were going to be used only with the resistance of the crowd: “If ... somewhere there were attempts to arrange riots, then those would be stopped at the very beginning and, therefore, they would not receive serious development. I have given orders to the troops and police to suppress any such attempt immediately and in the most decisive manner; if there is resistance from the side of the crowd - do not give blank volleys and do not spare cartridges.

Petersburg Governor-General Trepov remained in history thanks to a single phrase

Mstislav Dobuzhinsky, "October Idyllia"

The protesters in their intentions and actions were no less cruel to law enforcement officers. The tactics of behavior with individual policemen and soldiers during the strike and on the eve of the planned uprising was as follows: “On the outskirts, attack policemen, beat them and take weapons. Having received a sufficient number of weapons, quietly kill sentry arsenals and plunder weapons. This is the data of secret informants - the revolutionary underground was riddled with them.

“Even without weapons, detachments can play a very important role: 1) leading the crowd; 2) attacking, at an opportunity, a policeman who accidentally strayed off a Cossack ... etc. and taking away his weapon "

Vladimir Lenin in the article "The Tasks of the Revolutionary Army Detachments", October 1905

In the same article, Lenin proposed pouring acid on the police, and in one of his October letters he wrote that the protesting units should “begin military training in immediate operations, immediately. Some will immediately undertake the murder of a spy, the explosion of a police station ... Let each detachment learn by itself at least by beating policemen: dozens of victims will more than pay off by giving hundreds of experienced fighters who tomorrow will lead hundreds of thousands. A few days before the demonstrations on October 18, 1905, a signal was sent to the already radicalized masses to beat the police, gendarmes and soldiers.

naive dreams

October 17, 1905 at 6 pm Nicholas II signed the "Highest Manifesto on the improvement of the state order." This document established the State Duma and proclaimed a number of freedoms, in particular, freedom of assembly. Many representatives of the bureaucracy greeted this news with undisguised relief. The head of the Moscow Security Department, Alexander Gerasimov, recalled the idealistic delight that the news of the granted freedoms caused among high-ranking security officials, Governor Dmitry Trepov and Vice Director of the Police Department Pyotr Rachkovsky:

Sorry to keep you waiting. Sergei Yulievich just called. Thank God, the manifesto is signed. Given freedom. Introduced popular representation. A new life begins.

Rachkovsky was right next to me and met this news enthusiastically, echoing Trepov:

Thank God, thank God… Tomorrow they will celebrate Christ in the streets of St. Petersburg,” said Rachkovsky. And, half-jokingly, half-seriously addressing me, he continued: “Your business is bad. You won't have any work now.

I answered him:

No one will be as happy about this as I am. I will gladly retire. From here I went to the mayor Dedulin. There they met me with the text of the manifesto in their hands and spoke in the same words as Trepov:

Well, thank God. Now a new life will begin.

Memoirs of Alexander Gerasimov

Rachkovsky's naive dreams were not destined to come true.

Rallies, executions and pogroms on October 18, 1905: map

Freedom holiday

At night, the manifesto was posted on the streets of St. Petersburg. Liberal oppositionist, lawyer Vladimir Kuzmin-Karavaev witnessed this: “On the half-lit Nevsky Prospekt ... here and there there were groups of people who were reading a manuscript or a printed text in tight rings. Small groups of demonstrators passed by. "Hurrah" sounded. Together with the students and workers, soldiers and policemen listened attentively to the reading. Newsboy boys shouting "Constitution!" began selling the evening supplement to the Government Bulletin. Night onlookers in a fit of enthusiasm applauded even the Cossack patrols.

The first rumors and news about the manifesto appeared at night, and in the morning the first rallies of awakened citizens were already gathering, then they turned into real revolutionary “freedom holidays”. Demonstrators took over the city center - this has never happened before in tsarist Russia and the next time it will be repeated only in the February Revolution.

The rallies were held near the building of the University, the Kazan Cathedral and the Technological Institute, where the police had arrested students the day before after shelling a cavalry patrol. No one understood whether the demonstrations were legal after the release of the manifesto. The old rules and orders were no longer in effect, and the new ones had not yet been issued. But both the city authorities and the lower ranks on that day, with rare exceptions, did not interfere with the rally elements.

“The policemen - some sullenly hid in the gateways, others - a few - with a smile made under the visor, and others - with undisguised anger and threat looked at the procession and the red flags. So the youth shouted: Hey, pharaoh, under the visor! The red banner is coming! And, looking around as if hunted, they reluctantly saluted.

Revolutionary Boris Perez

Execution on Zagorodny and dispersal at the Technological Institute

One of the demonstrations at about 3 p.m. moved from Nevsky Prospekt along Zagorodny to the Technological Institute in order to free the students who had been arrested the day before. When the crowd approached the corner of Gorokhovaya Street and Zagorodny Prospekt, one of the companies of the Semyonovsky Life Guards Regiment came out of Begovoy Lane. She blocked the avenue, preventing the demonstrators from connecting with the second revolutionary crowd at the Technological Institute and trying to free the arrested students.

The demonstrators began to turn towards Gorokhovaya Street. A young man climbed onto a lamppost and began a speech about the need to overthrow the sovereign, remove troops from the streets to the barracks, resign the governor-general and organize the people's militia. The soldiers of the Semyonovsky regiment fired a volley, he killed the speaker and wounded four, including a seven-year-old boy. The officers exceeded their powers, even according to Trepov's order "Do not spare cartridges." The demonstrators did not resist, being in front of the soldiers, the demonstration was ready to turn to Gorokhovaya Street.

So the revolutionaries portrayed the atrocities of the authorities near the Technological Institute

Even before the execution of the demonstration on Zagorodny Prospekt, a motley crowd had gathered in front of the building of the Technological Institute. There were also companies of the Semyonovsky regiment and a squadron of horse guards. The police certificate (report of the police chief of the 4th district of Halle) reported that the Semenovites were given "instructions to take decisive measures on their part only in case of aggressive actions of the crowd." The captain of the Semyonovsky regiment Levstrem commanded the guards, the cavalry squadron of Cornet Frolov was subordinate to him.

As indicated in the same police certificate, the crowd threw stones at the horse guards. Cornet Frolov asked Levstrem for permission to attack the crowd with the whole squadron. Correspondents of the "Universal Little Newspaper" described in detail what happened and pointed out that Levstrom formally forbade the attack and only allowed the squadron to move forward into the crowd. But Frolov ordered to expose the checkers and quickly and harshly dispersed the crowd. In this attack, the university's assistant professor and one of the symbols of the metropolitan opposition, historian Yevgeny Tarle, was wounded.

An hour after the shooting of the crowd on Zagorodny Prospekt, a student, the son of a general, Alexander Smirnov, attacked the head of the gendarmerie department of Tsarskoye Selo railway Major General Shmakov The general with several officers walked along Zagorodny Prospekt. Smirnov considered this particular gendarmerie general to be guilty of shooting the demonstrators. The attack was unsuccessful: the student only slightly injured Shmakov's face with a blunt Finnish knife, was seriously wounded by the sabers of gendarmerie officers and taken to the Obukhov hospital.

At 4 pm, on the corner of 8th Rozhdestvenskaya (now 8th Sovetskaya) and Kirillovskaya streets, a crowd with red flags with the inscription "Freedom" surrounded policeman Ivan Kozlovsky. He was about to be beaten for "allegedly beating some drunken old man" (from the police incident report). The policeman drew his saber and retreated into the courtyard of his barracks on Kirillovskaya Street. Stones were thrown at the gate, Kozlovsky fired several times through the gate bars and wounded two. The crowd dispersed.

Jewish pogroms

On the night of October 19, monarchist-minded rioters became more active in the capital. A crowd of about 1,000 people under a white flag - the color of the monarchy - at Apraksin Market attacked and beat several Jews walking and driving from Nevsky Prospekt. Opposite house number 25 on Sadovaya street, they beat honorary citizen, pharmacist Lev Ginitsinsky, at house number 29 - pharmacy assistant Vladislav Benyaminovich. The police arrived in time to snatch the victims from the hands of the crowd. The local bailiff and police officers Kozlovsky and Popov were hit with a stick by the thugs.

The future Duma deputy Vasily Shulgin in his memoirs with a touch of anti-Semitism described the victorious frenzy of the supporters of the revolution at the City Duma in Kyiv:

“During the height of the speeches about the “overthrow”, the royal crown, fixed on the Duma balcony, suddenly fell off or was torn off and, in front of a crowd of ten thousand, crashed on the dirty pavement. The metal clanged plaintively against the stones... And the crowd gasped. The words ran through it in an ominous whisper: “The Jews have thrown off the royal crown ... The crowd, among which the Jews stood out the most, burst into the meeting room and, in revolutionary fury, tore up all the royal portraits that hung in the hall. Some emperors had their eyes gouged out, others were subjected to all sorts of other humiliations. Some red-haired Jewish student, having pierced the portrait of the reigning emperor with his head, wore the pierced canvas, shouting frantically: “Now I am the king!”

Vasily Shulgin "Years"

The mutually aggressive skirmishes in the areas of the discriminatory Jewish Pale of Settlement in October 1905 were reported by various observers. The German consul in Kharkov, Schiller, reported to his leadership about the prominent role of the Jews: “The first mass meetings in Yekaterinoslav, as I was told by quite trustworthy persons who were eyewitnesses, were organized and led by Jews. At the same time, a group of Jews on the main street torn and trampled into the mud the portrait of the emperor.

Of course, the main actors in the demonstrations were not only Jews, but they had their own reasons to celebrate the fall of the autocracy.

At the end of the Manifesto on October 17, 1905, there is an appeal: Nicholas II called on "all the faithful sons of Russia to remember their duty to their Motherland, to help end this unheard-of turmoil and, together with us, exert all their strength to restore silence and peace in their native land." It was a call to loyal subjects to organize themselves and help overcome the consequences of the revolution in the new legal conditions. The call was understood in a peculiar way: pogroms began throughout Russia, beatings of Jews, students and exiled oppositionists.

How the revolutionaries saw the manifesto. Below is the signature: "Major General Trepov put his hand to this sheet"

After October 17, about 650 pogroms took place in the Russian Empire in 36 provinces, 100 cities and towns. settlements. Almost half are in the Jewish Pale.

From October 20 to 22, a particularly brutal pogrom took place in Tomsk. The city, like St. Petersburg, was simultaneously under the rule of radicals and the tsarist administration. On October 19, the revolutionaries of Tomsk created the Committee public safety and the revolutionary militia - a squad of workers and students - and tried to seize power from the governor and the police. The administration was demoralized: the manifesto came as a surprise to it. The autocracy has fallen, the revolution has won, what laws are still in force, and which have been repealed? The police were afraid to show themselves on the street, officials were slow to make decisions. On October 19, even before the receipt of the amnesty decree of October 21, the release of political prisoners began.

On the morning of October 20, right-wing citizens, many of whom were suffering financial losses due to the general strike, staged a demonstration in support of the emperor. Along the way, four "internal enemies" were killed - this is how the right-wing press called "Kids, socialists and students." On Novosobornaya Square, the monarchists clashed with the revolutionary police, who opened fire on the demonstrators. In response, the Cossacks arrested some of the policemen and locked them in the building of the railway department. Monarchists set fire to the building and killed those who tried to escape. The police and soldiers were inactive, the city leadership did not react to what was happening. The next day, the beating of Tomsk Jews began. For two days, under the singing of the anthem, the monarchists robbed Jewish shops, the security forces did not interfere. Only on October 23, the authorities began to stop robberies and murders. For another week, students were afraid to appear on the street in their easily recognizable form. In total, about 70 people died these days.

Text: Konstantin Makarov, Olga Dmitrievskaya
Layout and map: Nikolay Ovchinnikov

One of the most tragic pages of the First Russian Revolution was the pogroms of October 1905, the organization of which was attributed by public opinion to the government and the Black Hundred, which meant all supporters of the autocracy [ 1 ].

The detonator for this social explosion was, oddly enough, the October 17 manifesto, which granted the population civil liberties. He was completely unexpected both for the liberal opposition that met him with jubilation, and for the local authorities, which he plunged into a state of complete confusion. But if the liberals considered the revolution over, then the radical parties took the manifesto as a signal for the final assault on tsarism. Immediately after the publication of the tsarist manifesto, the streets of the cities of the Russian Empire were filled with revolutionary demonstrations of opponents of the autocracy. At the same time, a significant part of the urban population, whose welfare had deteriorated sharply as a result of the revolutionary events of 1905 (strikes, unrest, etc.), took to the streets demanding the restoration of "law and order." The dissatisfaction of representatives of these social strata, which accumulated during the autumn, reached its peak on October 18. On this day, two powerful streams of conservative and revolutionary manifestations met on the streets of the cities of the Russian Empire, forming a terrible pogrom whirlpool that claimed thousands of human lives.

In Kyiv on October 18, 1905, on the day of the proclamation of the tsar's manifesto, a demonstration with red flags moved to the building of the City Duma, the doors of which were opened at their request. V.V. Shulgin tells about further events: “The royal crown, fixed on the Duma balcony, collapsed, a whisper passed through the crowd: “The Jews threw off the royal crown.” Jews in the Duma building tore up royal portraits, gouged out their eyes. A red-haired Jewish student, having pierced the portrait of the reigning emperor with his head, he wore a canvas and frantically shouted: "Now I am the king" "[ 2 ]. Although the investigation of Senator E. Turau established that "both Russians and Jews took part in the destruction of [royal] portraits and monograms" [ 3 ], the indignation caused by the insult to loyal feelings turned out to be directed, first of all, against the Jews, since their role in the revolutionary events was most noticeable. According to V.V. Shulgin, on October 18, 1905 in Kyiv, "it seemed that everyone who could walk was on the streets. In any case, all Jews. But, it seemed even more of them than there were, thanks to their defiant behavior" [ 4 ]. E. Turau also claimed that the Jewish youth "in all clashes with the troops, police and the Christian population ... behaved defiantly insolently, often offending their religious feelings and mocking objects of common veneration" [ 5 ], which provoked the start of counter-revolutionary manifestations on that day [ 6 ] and gave them an anti-Jewish character.

A similar situation was in Odessa. But here clashes between government forces and the radical opposition have not stopped since July 14, since the arrival of the rebellious battleship Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky on the Odessa raid. On October 18, Odessa streets were filled with crowds of people. According to information collected by Senator Kuzminsky, the Jewish youth "with a visible consciousness of their superiority and even arrogance began to point out to the Russians that freedom was not given voluntarily, but was wrested from the government by the Jews." According to the testimony of an assistant to the Odessa police chief Kislyakovsky, the Jews said to the Russians: "We gave you God, we will give you the king (or the government)" [ 7 ]. In response, "more or less numerous crowds of workers and people of various professions began to appear on the streets, who followed with icons in their hands, with portraits of the Sovereign Emperor, national flags." Along the way, the demonstrators were fired upon, bombs were thrown at them, one of which killed 6 people [ 8 ].

On October 20 in Mariupol, according to an eyewitness, when a patriotic manifestation, together with the Cossack units, after a prayer service, appeared in the city, "they began to shoot at it from the windows of Jewish houses, shooting through the hand of a student-technician who was carrying a portrait of the Sovereign. Then there was turmoil, chaos, stampede, children, women, old people cried, fainted, shouted, and the workers, adult residents and Cossacks, mad with anger, such unheard of insolence and outrageous insult to patriotic feelings, embittered by the previous events of October 18 and 19 [revolutionary demonstrations - I.O.] how furious beasts attacked the houses of the Jews, from where they fired volleys at the people, the procession and the Cossacks" [ 9 ].

In Poltava on October 22, after a prayer service on Cathedral Square, "the crowd began to disperse, and at that time, on the main street and adjacent lanes, a number of shots were fired by Jews at peacefully passing groups of patriotic demonstrators, as well as at the police" [ 10 ]. In Ivanovo-Voznesensk, riots also began on October 22. After one of the speakers at a rally near the City Duma concluded his speech with the words: "We don't need a Tsar," "the mood of the crowd immediately changed: grumbling and indignation began in the crowd, and groups of "nationalists" immediately began to organize." On the same day, a prayer service was served on the square, "with the participation of ... a crowd of 20-30 thousand people, with white bows on the chest", after which, "immediately the crowd began to pogrom Jewish shops and houses." 11 ].

Very often, the outward manifestation of disloyalty to the monarch served as reasons for the clash. In Moscow on October 22, a crowd of monarchist workers at the corner of Kamenny Bridge "attacked a student who was passing through here, who ... carelessly expressed himself at the address of the Reigning House. The demonstrators threw him into the Moscow River" [ 12 ]. In Nizhyn, after a prayer service, a patriotic manifestation with a portrait of the emperor walked around the city, forcing "Jews and students to swear allegiance to the tsar." But just as not everyone agreed to kneel in front of the portrait, the beatings began, turning into a pogrom [ 13 ].

Thus, the pogroms of October 1905, which went down in history under the name "Jewish", were directed not so much against Jews as against "revolutionaries" in general, among which, as is known, Jews constituted a significant percentage. Senator E. Turau, who was entrusted with investigating the causes of the pogrom in Kyiv, argued that the riots of October 18-21, 1905 "were in direct connection with the general revolutionary movement that engulfed almost all of Russia" [ 14 ]. Nicholas himself? in a letter dated October 27, 1905, addressed to his mother, Empress Maria, he assessed the events that followed the publication of the highest manifesto as follows: on those - hence the Jewish pogroms ... the Russian agitators also got it ... "[ 15 ].

The modern American researcher A. Asher also claims that "although the Jews were the main target of the October 1905 pogroms, not only they were attacked", but in fact everyone who "supported the victory of the opposition over the autocracy" [ 16 ]. For example, in Shuya, a pogrom that began as a Jewish pogrom very soon turned into an anti-revolutionary uprising, and the Jews were simply forgotten [ 17 ]. In Veliky Ustyug, "a crowd of people smashed the apartments of people who spoke political speeches at rallies", in Ivanovo-Voznesensk not only Jewish houses and shops were destroyed, but "also Russian ones, where there were apartments of socialists" [ 18 ].

In total, during the October pogroms in the Russian Empire, 1622 people died and 3544 people were injured. S.A. Stepanov managed to establish the national-confessional affiliation of 2/3 of the victims, of which Jews: killed - 711, wounded - 1207; Orthodox: killed - 428, wounded - 1246 [ 19 ]. At the same time, the pogrom in Zhytomyr that took place in April 1905, that is, not connected with the revolutionary events of that autumn, was indeed directed exclusively against the Jews. Therefore, among the victims of this pogrom were 18 Jews and 1 Christian - a student who was part of the Jewish self-defense [ 20 ].

One of the reasons for the outbreak of violence in October 1905, the opposition considered the spread of provocative rumors and pogrom literature among the population, allegedly undertaken by the Black Hundreds. In Kyiv, on the eve of the pogrom, appeals "To the Russian people" with anti-Semitic content and handwritten leaflets signed by the non-existent Great Hermit of the Lavra [ 21 ]. In Kharkov, according to a police report, "an unknown peasant from the village of Vvedenskoye, Zmiev district, selling cabbage, told his customers that unknown persons appeared in their village, who incited people to beat the Jews, while assuring that it was the Tsar ordered" [ 22 ]. It is unlikely that such agitation was carried out by representatives of the few and not very influential at that time Black Hundred parties. In addition, there were similar cases in areas where these parties could not have influence, in particular, in the Kingdom of Poland, the vast majority of the population of which professed Catholicism. For example, in June 1905 in the villages of Vysokiy Kol and Togovo, Radom province, "several agitators intervened, inciting them to pogrom" [ 23 ].

S.A.Stepanov cites the facts of provocative actions on the part of Jewish political organizations. On May 11, 1905, three Jews were detained in Nizhyn (Chernihiv province), throwing appeals in Russian "People, save Russia, save yourself, beat the Jews, otherwise they will make you their slaves." At the same time, in Chernigov, socialist Zionists distributed proclamations in Hebrew calling on the "Israelis" to arm themselves [ 24 ].

Considering the causes of the pogroms, one cannot ignore the anti-Semitic sentiments characteristic of a significant part of the Christian population, especially in the Jewish Pale. The hysteria caused by them in the spring of 1905 covered entire counties in Volhynia. Influenced by rumors that "Jews will beat Christians," "whole villages (not excluding women) armed with pitchforks, rakes, clubs and other weapons do not sleep at night and go out to the outskirts of the villages to meet imaginary enemies," wrote the Kievlyanin newspaper [ 25 ]. During the October riots of the same year in Kyiv, "a rumor spread that the Jews in the city burned down the Goloseevsky monastery and slaughtered all the monks" [ 26 ]. Even the denials signed by General Carass, pasted around the city, could not calm the population.

The Black Hundreds themselves called the active participation of Jews in the revolutionary movement the main reason for the Jewish pogroms. "Taking into account such Jewish zeal in revolutionary work, the manifestation of outbursts of popular indignation against the people of Israel will become understandable," Moskovskie Vedomosti wrote. 27 ]. “Sooner or later, the patience of ordinary Russian people bursts, and the consequences are, no matter how hard it is, Jewish pogroms,” argued the right-wing publicist A.V. Ososov [ 28 ].

The rightists had grounds for such statements. By 1905, 18.8% of the members of the RSDLP were Jews [ 29 ], among anarchists and socialist-revolutionaries, this figure was even higher. Moskovskiye Vedomosti claimed that "out of the total number of revolutionary agitators detained by the administration, about 90% are Jews" [ 30 ]. In Odessa, on October 16, 1905, the authorities arrested 214 rioters, 197 of them were Jews [ 31 ]. D.I. Ilovaisky from the pages of his newspaper also claimed that in Odessa "the majority of those detained for shooting at troops and police are mainly Jews" [ 32 ]. According to M.M. Borodkin, a member of the Russian Assembly, Jews accounted for 29.1% of those brought to justice in political cases in 1904-1907. [ 33 ] Tver province was not included in the Pale of Settlement, however, for the period from April 1 to October 1, 1907 for revolutionary activity 14 people were subjected to administrative expulsion from its borders, of which four (i.e. 35%) were Jews [ 34 ].

But still it is impossible not to admit that in the actions of the pogromists there were not only political, but also religious and ethnic motives. In many cases, Orthodox icons displayed in the windows of Jewish apartments served as a reliable defense against pogromists [ 35 ]. General A.S. Lukomsky recalled his arrival in Kyiv after the October pogroms: "Icons were displayed in all the windows of apartments, hotels, shops. Icons adorned the windows of obviously Jewish shops ..." [ 36 ].

The social composition of the pogromists underwent significant changes over several days in October. The initiators of patriotic manifestations that turned into pogroms were, as a rule, workers. In Odessa, port loaders were the first to take to the streets [ 37 ]. In the suburbs of Kyiv, Solomenka, a party of unskilled workers from the city (about 2,000 people) staged a pogrom, in another suburb - Demiivka - the workers of the sugar factory became the initiators of the riots after the revolutionary demonstration with red flags left for Kyiv [ 38 ]. V.V. Shulgin also noted that among the rioters, the majority "apparently are workers" [ 39 ]. Subsequently, declassed elements began to join the pogroms. In Odessa, according to eyewitnesses, pogroms were staged by people who joined patriotic demonstrations: "... along the way, many other people who accidentally got into the crowd, including many hooligans, tramps ..." [ 40 ]. In Kyiv, on the third day of the pogrom, "the composition of the crowd changed significantly, it was dominated by various unemployed and tramps" [ 41 ].

But the peasants played the most active role in the pogroms. main goal which was the robbery of Jewish property. In Starodub, Chernihiv province, on October 24, "all day long, the voluntary Russian militia with difficulty delayed the incursions into the city of parties armed with guns of rural thugs and robbers" [ 42 ]. In Gostomel (a suburb of Kyiv) "a crowd of 300 people arrived from the surrounding villages. They staged a pogrom, loading carts with looted property, went home, after asking the priest to serve a prayer service for the health of the Sovereign-Emperor" [ 43 ]. According to the calculations of S.A. Stepanov, the peasants made up 83% of the rioters [ 44 ].

The pogroms were the reaction of a certain part of the population to the further development of the revolution and were directed, first of all, against it. But, at the same time, they pursued another goal: to eliminate economic competitors, mainly in the field of trade. An investigation of events in Kyiv established: "It happened that petty shopkeepers, competitors of the Jews, instigated the pogrom ... owners of small handicraft establishments ..." [ 45 ]

The manifesto of October 17 introduced a certain disorganization into the actions of the authorities, because the "granted freedoms" contradicted the martial law introduced in many places. Officials, with rare exceptions, did not take any measures to stop the pogroms. Senator E. Turau, who investigated the Kiev events, noted: "In the days of the pogrom, what was striking was the undoubted, close to connivance, inaction of the troops and the police" [ 46 ]. In Odessa, the commander of the troops of the district A.V. Kaulbars, giving instructions to the police, said: "We all sympathize with the pogrom ..." [ 47 ]. Among the pogromists also prevailed the conviction that "the authorities allowed the Jews to be robbed." For example, in the Chernigov province in the village of Lechitsy, the headman told his fellow villagers about the order that had come from the city to beat the Jews [ 48 ].

The police, for the most part, also did not interfere with the riots. In Odessa, after several incidents between the population and policemen, the latter were removed from their posts and concentrated in stations in order to prevent attacks on lone policemen. By order of the mayor D.B. Neidgart, the troops were also removed from the streets in order to "give the population the opportunity to freely use the freedom provided by the manifesto in all forms" [ 49 ]. Thus, the authorities abandoned the city to its fate.

Seeing the inaction of the police, the troops often simply did not intervene in what was happening. One Cossack in Kyiv explained his task received for patrolling the streets in this way: "so that no one shoots at the thugs from windows and balconies, and so that they do not fight among themselves" [ 50 ]. Many contemporaries even believed that servicemen took part in the pogroms. But such cases were only in Odessa. According to the report of the commander of the troops of the Odessa district, "in the crowd of street thugs and robbers there were individuals in military clothes" [ 51 ]. In Kyiv, the spares, released home after the end of the Russo-Japanese War, took part in the pogrom. In addition, in the same Kyiv, the troops were ordered to take away and demolish the loot to the indicated places. The sight of the soldiers loaded with things, carrying out this order, and caused rumors about their participation in robberies [ 52 ].

The October pogrom was countered by one Jewish self-defense. But her activity, in most cases, only exacerbated the situation. Unable to protect the Jewish population from numerous crowds, the Jewish self-defense only provoked an escalation of the pogrom with their shots. An investigation by Senator E. Turau showed that "in response to self-defense shots even at thugs, the troops fired a volley at the windows, then the crowd robbed him" [ 53 ].

Most contemporaries believed that the October events of 1905 were organized by someone, arguing that the pogroms simultaneously covered a vast territory. Both liberal and democratic circles did not allow the possibility of independent action by the masses in defense of the autocracy. The first considered them incapable without the influence of agitators on mass organized actions (which they imagined pogroms), and the second did not admit that the people, whom they considered the bearer of the highest moral values, were capable of organizing bloody riots on their own initiative.

The American researcher A. Asher considers "quite plausible" the notion that the pogroms of 1905 were "planned by the tsarist government", otherwise how, in his opinion, can one explain "such an explosion of hatred in many remote regions of a huge country with a time interval in just a few days" 54 ]. As the main argument in favor of organizing pogroms by the authorities, A. Asher considers the activities of the notorious printing house of the gendarmerie captain M.S. Komissarov, who semi-legally printed anti-Semitic leaflets within the walls of the Police Department [ 55 ]. But the above-mentioned "printing house" consisted of one manual rotary press confiscated from the revolutionaries, and therefore could not provide the whole country with printed products and it operated from December 1905 to February 1906 [ 56 ], that is, after a wave of pogroms swept across the country.

It is unlikely that in Russia in October 1905 there was a force capable of taking tens of thousands of people into the streets in hundreds of settlements and organizing them for decisive action . The monarchists also adhered to the same point of view. “So that the Jewish and Jewish newspapers do not talk about the intrigues of the police and the administration, about the organization of the “Black Hundreds,” they themselves must admit in their hearts that this is either ... self-consolation, or a “reception” of the struggle. Events erupted too unanimously, too spontaneously on the publication of the Manifesto on October 17, so that the malicious incitement of the dark crowd or bribery can be recognized here, especially since the Manifesto came as a surprise, "wrote the Peaceful Labor magazine [ 57 ].

The version put forward by the opposition and firmly entrenched in journalistic literature about the organization of the pogroms of October 1905 by the Black Hundred (monarchist) parties does not stand up to criticism either. Part of the Jewish pogroms generally occurred before the emergence of mass right-wing organizations. So only in 1904, during the Russo-Japanese War, according to the information of Ya.S. Khonigsman and A.Ya. Naiman, "about three dozen pogroms were noted in various localities" [ 58 ]. In the summer of 1905, in the Kerch region, there was a "pogrom in the villages of Yenikale, Opasnoe, Kapkany", the reason for which "was the attitude of the Jews to the defeats of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War" [ 59 ].

In October 1905 there were 690 pogroms in 660 settlements [ 60 ]. By this time, there were only three Black Hundred organizations in Russia that planned to expand their activities throughout the country: the Russian Assembly, the Union of Russian People (SRL) and the Russian Monarchist Party (RMP). The number of their supporters numbered in the hundreds, most of whom lived in the capitals. Several dozen small monarchist circles that arose locally during the summer and autumn of 1905 did not represent a serious force due to the political marginality of both their organizers and participants.

"Kiev" in his characteristic style wrote: "The whole glorious flock of Jewish lawyers, the most famous, just famous and not at all famous, with all the packs of bloodhounds, used incredible efforts to find at least a small proof of the terrible organization of hooligans and robbers, and found nothing "[ 61 ]. The right-wing publicist A.P. Liprandi explained the pogroms of 1905-1906. just "the absence of monarchist organizations, whose influence on the masses later turned out to be exactly the opposite; with the growth and ubiquity of their pogroms, they did not intensify, but, on the contrary, completely stopped" [ 62 ]. For example, the monarchist manifestation held by the Union of the Russian People on June 4, 1907 in Odessa during a sharp aggravation of the confrontation between the Jewish and Orthodox population of the city, passed without excesses [ 63 ]. And according to the newspaper "Tverskoe Povolzhye", in the spring of 1907, in the Krasnoye Selo of the Kostroma province, the riots were "stopped solely due to the intervention of members of the Union [of the Russian people]" [ 64 ].

When black-hundred movement gained strength, in the Russian Empire there were only two pogroms, comparable in scale to the October ones, in Sedlec and Bialystok in 1906. But the monarchist parties could not have much influence in these cities, since the Russian population in them was significantly inferior in number to the Poles and Jews. For example, in Bialystok by 1889, there were 3447 Catholics, 2366 Protestants and 48552 Jews for 2242 Orthodox [ 65 ]. According to information provided by V.M. Ostretsov, the main role in the pogrom was played by peasants from the surrounding villages who came to the market [ 66 ]. And the fact that anti-Semitic sentiments were also present among the Polish population is evidenced by the documents of the Police Department. So, in one of them it is reported that on November 13, 1906, a Pole B. Orpikovsky was detained in Volhynia in the Starokonstantinovsky district "for calling for the beating of Jews" [ 67 ].

Thus, the Jewish pogroms of the autumn of 1905 arose spontaneously as a reaction of the conservative-minded part of the urban lower classes to the further development of the First Russian Revolution, in which the Jews played an active role. The bloody riots were caused by several reasons at once. The most important of these were the appearance on the streets of large masses of people with opposing political convictions, electrified by previous revolutionary events, and the economic struggle between Jewish and Christian trade and crafts. That is why the poorest strata of the Jewish population suffered, for their revolutionary nature, and the wealthy, as economic competitors. In addition, a certain role in the escalation of violence was played by "tribal enmity", which was based on the religious-ethnic confrontation between the followers of Christianity and Judaism.
Igor Vladimirovich Omelyanchuk, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor (Kharkiv)

FOOTNOTE

1 - The monarchists themselves did not refuse this name, considering it an honorary one, and saw a direct connection of their organizations with the medieval "Black Hundreds" (township trade and craft corporations) that became the basis of the Second Militia that liberated Moscow from Polish invaders in 1612.
2 - Shulgin V.V. Years. days. 1920. M., 1990. S. 343; Pogroms according to official documents. S-PB., 1908. S. 229.
3 - Pogroms according to official documents. S. 227.
4 - Shulgin V.V. Years. days. 1920. S. 340.
5 - RGIA. F. 1405. Op. 539. D. 384. L. 3.
6 - Pogroms according to official documents. S. 230.
7 - Ibid. C. CXXIV, CXXV.
8 - Ibid. C. CXLVIII, CL.
9 - GARF. F. 116. Op. 1. D. 128. L. 19 rev.
10 - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1905. October 23. N 281.
11 - The same. October 30. N 288.
12 - Same. October 23. N 281.
13 - Kiever. 1905. October 28. N 298.
14 - RGIA. F. 1405. Op. 539. D. 384. L. 3.
15 - Quot. by: Shulgin V.V. "What we don't like about them...": about anti-Semitism in Russia. S-Pb., 1992. S. 239.
16 - Asher A. Pogromi 1905 rock: arbitrariness? St, chi planned violence? // Ph?losofska? sociologist?chna thought. 1994. N 5-6. S. 187.
17 - Ivanov Yu. Rabinovich and others. The Jewish Question in the Shuya Uyezd // Motherland. 2002. N 4-5. S. 119.
18 - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1905. October 25. No. 283; October 30. N 288.
19 - Stepanov S.A. Black Hundred in Russia (1905 - 1914). P.56.
20 - Speeches on pogrom cases. Issue. II. K., 1908. pp. 95, 105.
21 - Pogroms according to official documents. S. 263.
22 - GAHO. F. 3. Op. 287, part 1. D. 1115. L. 3, 3v.
23 - Kiever. 1905. June 26. N 174.
24 - Stepanov S.A. Black Hundred in Russia (1905 - 1914). P.58.
25 - Kievan. 1905. April 29. N 117.
26 - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1905. October 22. N 280.
27 - Ibid.
28 - Ososov A.V. Jewish Question // Peaceful Labor. 1906. N 2. S. 24.
29 - Kiselev I.P., Korelin A.P., Shelokhaev V.V. Political parties in Russia in 1905 - 1907: number, composition, location // History of the USSR. 1990. No. 4. S. 72.
30 - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1906. January 11. N 8.
31 - Pogroms according to official documents. C. CXXV.
32 - Kremlin. 1906. January 16. NN 23, 24 and 25.
33 - Borodkin M. [M.] About the Revolution // Peaceful Labor. 1907. No. 6-7. S. 137.
34 - GATO. F. 927. Op. 1. D. 1184. L. 32v.
35 - See for example: Kievan. 1905. October 21. N 291; October 26th. N 296 and others.
36 - Lukomsky A.S. Memories // Questions of history. 2001. N 6. S. 73.
37 - Pogroms according to official documents. C. CXLVIII.
38 - Kiev citizen. 1905. the 25th of October. N 295.
39 - Shulgin V.V. Years. days. 1920. S. 363.
40 - Pogroms according to official documents. C. CL.
41 - Kiever. 1905. October 21. N 291.
42 - Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1905. October 29. N 287.
43 - Kiever. 1905. October 26. N 296.
44 - Stepanov S.A. Black Hundred in Russia (1905 - 1914). S. 79.
45 - Pogroms according to official documents. S. 239.
46 - Ibid. S. 239.
47 - Ibid. C. CLXIV, CLXXXI.
48 - Stepanov S.A. Black Hundred in Russia (1905 - 1914). S. 80.
49 - Pogroms according to official documents. S. CXXXXIV.
50 - Pogroms according to official documents. S. 241.
51 - Ibid. P.193.
52 - Ibid. S. 245.
53 - Pogroms according to official documents. S. 238.
54 - Asher A. Decree. op. S. 185.
55 - Ibid. S. 191.
56 - Ruud Ch.A., Stepanov S.A. Fontanka, 16: Political investigation under the tsars. M., 1993. S. 297.
57 - R.E. Modern impressions // Peaceful labor. 1905. N 9. S. 215.
58 - Khonigsman Ya.S., Naiman A.Ya. Jews of Ukraine. A brief outline of history. Part 1. K., 1993. S. 140.
59 - TsGIAU. F. 348. Op. 1. D. 86. L. 2.
60 - Kozhinov V.V. Mysterious pages of the history of the twentieth century. M.: Prima V, 1995. S. 109.
61 - Kiever. 1905. December 16. N 347.
62 - Liprandi A.P. Equality and the Jewish Question // Peaceful Labor. 1910. No. 10. S. 35.
63 - TsGIAU. F. 268. Op. 1. D. 112. L. 16.
64 - Tver Volga region. 1907. March 28. N 142.
65 - encyclopedic Dictionary/ Publishers F.A. Brockhaus, I.A. Efron. T. V. SPb., 1891. S. 236.
66 - See: Ostretsov V.M. Black Hundred and Red Hundred (The Truth about the Union of the Russian People). M., 1991. S. 21.
67 - TsGIAU. F. 1335. Op. 1. D. 582. L. 1.

After declaring the manifest by big cities The Russian Empire was swept by a wave of demonstrations, clashes with troops and police, and pogroms. Kyiv was no exception. Here the events played out on October 18, 1905.

In principle, the situation was heating up a few days before. A strike began, the first small clashes with the police and troops began, the strikers tried to stop the movement of the city tram. The city was flooded with some shady personalities, while checking documents in the Peterburgskaya Hotel, the person being checked, a certain Alexander Krasovsky, opened fire with a revolver, seriously wounded a policeman ( police officer Volsky, three wounds, one in the stomach) and the soldier accompanying him ( Private of the 44th Kamchatka Infantry Regiment Fyodor Melnik, wounded in the leg), and was himself killed by return fire.

On the morning of October 18, crowds of demonstrators blocked the city center, Khreshchatyk Street and Dumskaya Square, and broke into the Duma. The royal monograms decorating the pediment of the building were immediately broken, the royal portraits were destroyed (by the way, on the same day this provoked a cruel Jewish pogrom, so propaganda efforts have not stopped until now, aimed at proving that there was no damage to portraits and monograms. However, eyewitness accounts published at that time in the press show that yes, there was.) The usual revolutionary arts began in the Duma building - raising money for weapons, promises from speakers to the people that they were about to give a lift and begin distributing weapons, that troops would soon go over to the side of the people and etc.

It was here that something happened that in almost all open and accessible sources is called "the shooting of a peaceful demonstration by the tsarist troops." The most vivid description was left, of course, by Paustovsky:

".." We ran out of the gymnasium. That year it was an unusual autumn. In October, the sun was still hot. We walked in light overcoats.
We poured out into the street and saw crowds with red flags near the long building. Speeches were made under the columns of the university. They shouted "hooray". Hats flew up...
The crowd fell silent, the red flags bowed, and we heard solemn singing: "You fell a victim in the fatal struggle ..." Everyone began to kneel. We also took off our caps and sang a funeral march, although we did not know all the words ...

"The crowd moved back and separated us from Suboch ( Latin teachers). Young woman ( guardian of Paustovsky) took my hand, and we began to make our way to the sidewalk.

"Calm down, citizens!" shouted a hoarse voice nearby. It became very quiet. The girl was dragging me towards the wall of the yellow house. I recognized the post office. I did not understand why she held my hand so tightly and dragged me into the gateway. I didn't see anything but pigeons and - they were flying over the crowd like sheets of paper. Somewhere in the distance a trumpet sang: ti-ti-ta-ta! Ti-ti-ta-ta! Then it quieted down again.

Comrade soldiers! - the torn voice shouted again, and immediately after that it cracked violently, as if a calico had been torn. We were covered in plaster. The doves darted away, and the sky seemed completely empty. There was a second crash, and the crowd rushed to the walls.

The old building of the Kiev post office

This excerpt from artwork is still used to justify the special bloodthirstiness of tsarism. For example, right here

http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3637118 user Alcibiades cites this passage and pathetically exclaims: “Only in Kyiv in 1905, crowd shootings were used at least twice. Of course, both Paustovsky and the Latinist Suboch and the girl were "fighters of the RSDLP".

Well, the young schoolboy Paustovsky and the teacher of the gymnasium Suboch may not have been. But the militants were there, yes. Even in the work of Paustovsky, the veil opens a little and we see the edge of real events:

“The last thing I saw on Khreshchatyk was a little student in an unbuttoned overcoat. He jumped on the window sill of Balabukha's store and picked up a black browning.

Here Browning fire is presented as a response to the actions of the troops. In fact, everything was far from being so kosher.

Here is what eyewitness Yakov Lisovoy writes about this (newspaper "Kievlyanin", No. 295 of October 25, 1905):

“... at 4 ½ hours, the equestrian-mountain division appeared from behind the thought. In vain, the officer riding ahead tried to prevent a collision - nothing helped, the crowd moved towards him with sticks, revolvers, stones; only then, seeing the futility of all efforts, was the signal “forward” given. H and one shot was not heard from among the soldiers at the time when they flew by, showered with a hail of bullets from the crowd; students fired, women fired, high school students fired... And only when the square was cleared by the "cavalry", volleys were heard from the infantry units, but again there was no longer that thick crowd of many thousands…., I repeat, the area has already been cleared. And again, before the shooting, a signal was given that served as a warning. At the same time, there was return firing at the soldiers from windows, doors, roofs of houses; I personally saw a polytechnic student shooting from the doors of the Universal Hotel

Another letter on the same topic (newspaper "Kievlyanin", No. 354 of December 23, 1905), signed "Eyewitness":

“... At that moment, horse artillerymen arrived, without guns, with revolvers in holsters. The trumpeter played the signal once, twice, and a third time. Then only the soldiers rushed to disperse the crowd. One who was standing near me in the form of a student, the other in civilian clothes, began to shoot. One of the gunners fell off his horse. Near the doors of the city council building, several people fired from revolvers. The horse and the soldier fell. One of the polytechnics was brandishing a naked saber. Immediately a company of soldiers arrived from Mikhailovskaya Street and stopped. The trumpeter began to play the signal. At that moment, shooting began from the windows of the city council and the stock exchange at the standing soldiers. Then only on the orders of the company commander they fired a volley into the windows of the thought…. When I got up, the soldiers were standing between the building of the stock exchange and the assembly of the nobility. The first two lines were on their knees. At this time, shots were fired from the stock exchange building. One soldier fell. The soldiers got alarmed and wanted to shoot, but the officers calmed them down….”

The building of the Kiev noble assembly

But in "Kievlyanin" number 338 contains quite detailed description of this episode, written by a direct participant in the events, an officer of the 1st division of the 33rd artillery brigade:

“... this detachment, formed just the day before, consisted of 120 people, little trained here, mounted on horses recently brought to us for mobilization (completely not driven out). On October 18, the detachment was urgently called and, having received an order: to arrive at the Duma, ask the surrounding crowd to disperse, .... on the way, the detachment leader ordered all people not to touch checkers and revolvers, in extreme cases, use whips ...

Near the thought, the detachment stopped, since further on the entire square was crowded with a dense crowd .... We were greeted with a protesting rumble, among which some abusive shouts stood out - in the form of “shame!”, “Stop!” and etc…. The squad leader stepped forward. In response to an urgent request - to give the opportunity to drive along Khreshchatyk ... .., in response to a long persuasion of the public ... .. the captain received a series of threats and exclamations like: leave here, shame on artillery, down with it, we will not let you in, we will shoot and etc. …. The captain announced that he ordered to play "trot" and after 3 signals he would start moving .... Meanwhile, already after the 1st signal, a revolver shot was heard from the balcony of the thought and, according to the lower ranks, 2-3 shots from behind. After the 3rd signal, there were already a lot of shots and the detachment moved. From the beginning of the movement, 2 lower ranks (Savin and Proskurin) and several horses (one in the ear) were already mortally wounded.

... a race of distraught horses began - terrible under the present conditions ... At the corner of Nikolaevskaya ... several horses fell and several people were crushed. At Proreznaya, the “squadron” was stopped, put in order, sent the wounded people and horses. People were wounded - 9 (two mortally) and horses - 7. Mortally wounded - Savin died on the 19th, and Proskurov - on the 20th of October.”

Incidentally, Alexey Shmakov's article "Pogrom of Jews in Kyiv" provides information about the specialty of the soldiers killed“ peaceful demonstrators”- Sanin was a veterinarian, and Proskurin was a paramedic .

And these were not the only losses of the military that day. After the October events in Kyiv, under the leadership of the wife of Major General V.V. Treskina, a Society was formed that collected funds in favor of the lower ranks who suffered in the line of duty, and their families. In the report on the distribution of the amounts of the company (“Kievlyanin”, No. 355) we find the following information:

“Flying Park of the 33rd Artillery Brigade

Gunner Kozma Sidelnikov - killed in October (100 rubles were sent to the mother) ”

In addition, here you can find detailed information about the wounded:

1st Battalion, 33rd Artillery Brigade

Junior fireworker Zakhar Ponomarev , wounded in the head and right eye, married

Gunner Ivan Butov , shot through in the right arm and in the front wall of the abdomen, dismissed for health improvement, single

Gunner Xenophon Kucher , injury from a fall from a horse, single

Medical assistant Alexander Udalykh , headshot, married, 2 children

Bombardier Boris Bocharov , leg injury, single

Gunner Vasily Pleshakov , bruised by falling from a horse, married

Gunner Savva Volk , slight bruise, married, 2 children

Kiev City Duma