On October 17, 1905, Nicholas II issued his famous manifesto, in which he proclaimed a number of political and civil freedoms. In particular: freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, a parliament was established, without the approval of which no law could be adopted.

However, the document was adopted only on October 17, and the rally in Minsk was being prepared much earlier. And the city administration seriously thought about its forceful suppression. It was planned to set up military posts throughout the city, in particular to guard the railway lines. That is why the manifesto caught the city authorities by surprise - freedom of assembly was proclaimed, after all. But, apparently, their misunderstanding of this manifesto led to the event, which in history was called the Kurlovsky execution.

Further events developed as follows. The rally gathered at the Libavo-Romensky railway station (now Station Square). Initially, there were not very many demonstrators, but by 2 o'clock in the afternoon, when it became known about the tsar's manifesto, their number increased dramatically. In general, according to various estimates, from 10 to 30 thousand people gathered. The main initiators and speakers at the rally were railway workers P. Zhaba and P. Gamzahurdi.

After the news about the emperor’s decree appeared, a delegation was even sent to the Minsk commandant Kurlov, who suggested that, firstly, to recognize the rally as sanctioned (freedom of assembly, after all), and secondly, to release political prisoners from Pishchalovsky Castle (now - Detention Center No. 1 on Volodarsky street). Kurlov complied with both of these requirements. The rally became sanctioned, and the prisoners were released. When this became known in the square, the political rally turned into a real holiday. People rejoiced in their freedom! There are a lot of new speakers.

The protesters did not make any attempts to disturb public order, there was not even a procession - the rally did not move all the time.

And now, in the midst of general euphoria, when the rally began to gradually dissipate, and people dispersed, shots were fired. Shooting at the rally participants was opened by three divisions of the Oka regiment, together with the police. In his memoirs, Kurlov justified that the soldiers opened fire only when the protesters began to snatch the weapons from their hands. But this is not confirmed either by documents, or in the memoirs of the protesters, or by the investigation. Moreover, according to the information of the study of corpses, most of them were killed by shots in the back and the back of the head. That is, people left or ran away from the military, but did not show aggression in any way or took away their weapons.

Thus, the manifesto of Nicholas turned out to be a complete falsehood. All other officials were simply unprepared for such “freedom”. They continued to live their imperial ideals, according to which any meeting is illegal, as well as the people present at it.

All the demands of the people to start an investigation into the execution were ignored. During this execution, several unsuccessful attempts were made on Kurlov. But in the end, none of the perpetrators was ever punished. The authorities pretended that everything happened as it was planned.

After the execution, the railway workers of Minsk declared a general strike. They demanded the immediate resignation of Kurlov, the heads of the Minsk gendarmerie police department on the railway and the Minsk provincial gendarmerie police department, as well as the removal of all Cossacks from the city. These demands were ignored and railroad strikes swept across Belarus. It was possible to stop them only by the spring.

October 18 (October 30, according to the new style) should be a black day in the calendar in Belarusian history. According to various estimates, from 60 to 100 people died that day, and the number of wounded is generally incalculable. This day should be a sign of barbarism when people are shot in the back (probably out of fear of their reaction). And the names of such people as Kurlov (Minsk governor), Cherntsov (vice-governor), Colonel von Wildemann-Klopman (police chief) are inscribed in black paint in the history of the country.

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, Jewish youth "with a visible sense of their superiority and even impudence 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 ... inadvertently 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 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 ] The Tver province was not included in the Pale of Settlement, however, for the period from April 1 to October 1, 1907, 14 people were subjected to administrative expulsion from its borders for revolutionary activities, 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 most active role in the pogroms was played by the peasants, whose main goal was to rob 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 into the 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 Kyiv events, noted: "During the days of the pogrom, what was striking was the inaction of the troops and police that was close to connivance" [ 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 police officers, the latter were removed from their posts and concentrated in stations in order to prevent attacks on lone police officers. 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 journal Peaceful Labor" [ 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 intended 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 the Black Hundred movement gained strength, only two pogroms occurred in the Russian Empire, 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 terms of number of 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 - Kyivian. 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: Kyivian. 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.

The Supreme Manifesto of October 17, 1905 is a legislative act of the supreme power of the 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 general 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 the other highest state institutions of the 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 at the end of the 19th century, did not wait for the tsarist Manifesto either. 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 essay // New Journal. 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?

Socialist parties

1903- II Congress of the RSDLP, the adoption of the party program. The split of the party into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

December 31, 1905- The I Congress of the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) in Finland adopted a program and charter.

Liberal parties

October 12–18, 1905 d. - Creation of a liberal political party - constitutional-democratic (the party of the Cadets, which also called itself the "People's Freedom Party").

November 10, 1905- Formation of the party "Union of October 17" (Octobrists) - a right-liberal party.

Right parties

1905-1907- There are parties that stood on the extreme right positions, including monarchists and nationalists "Black Hundreds".

October 1905- Creation of the "Union of the Russian people" by the extreme right.

1907- Formation of an independent organization "Russian People's Union" named after Michael the Archangel, headed by V. M. Purishkevich, which broke away from the "Union of the Russian People".

The beginning of Russian parliamentarism

October 17, 1905-Manifesto of Nicholas II "On the improvement of the state order", the proclamation of a number of civil freedoms (personal immunity, freedom of speech, assembly, unions), the expansion of suffrage, the real participation of the State Duma in lawmaking. Laws after the adoption by the Duma were approved by the king. Executive power, governmental power remained with the king.

February 20, 1906- Manifesto on the transformation of the Council of State from an advisory body into the upper house of parliament.

April 23, 1906- Approval by Nicholas II of the "Basic State Laws of the Russian Empire": the assignment of legislative power to the State Council and the State Duma. The definition of imperial power as unlimited was eliminated.

June 3, 1907- Decree of Nicholas II on the dissolution of the II Duma and the introduction of the "Regulations on elections" to the State Duma (new electoral law). According to the Manifesto of October 17, the tsar did not have the right to independently change the electoral law: therefore, the June events began to be called a coup d'état.

DICTIONARY OF PERSONALIES

Azef Evno Fishelevich (1869-1918)- one of the organizers of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, the leader of a number of terrorist acts. A provocateur, since 1892 a secret employee of the police department, he betrayed many members of the party and the "Combat Organization" to the police. In 1908 he was exposed, sentenced to death by the Central Committee, disappeared.

Gershuni Grigory Andreevich (1870-1908)- one of the organizers and leaders of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, the head of the "Combat Organization", led a number of terrorist acts.

Guchkov Alexander Ivanovich (1862-1936) capitalist, politician Founder and Chairman of the Central Committee of the "Union of October 17". Member and Chairman of the III State Duma (1910-1911). During the First World War, the chairman of the Central Military-Industrial Committee. Together with V. V. Shulgin, he accepted the abdication of Nicholas II, and then - Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. The first composition of the Provisional Government included the Minister of War and the Navy. Since 1918 in exile.

Dubrovin Alexander Ivanovich (1885-1918)- doctor, founder of the "Union of the Russian people". After the October Revolution, a participant in counter-revolutionary conspiracies. Shot for anti-Soviet activities.

Martov L. (Zederbaum Julius Osipovich, 1873-1923)- one of the active participants in the revolutionary movement. In 1895 he was a member of the St. Petersburg Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. Since 1903 - one of the leaders of Menshevism in the RSDLP. In 1905 he was a member of the St. Petersburg Council of Workers' Deputies. Since 1919 - a member of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. Since 1920 - an emigrant.

Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich (1859-1943)- historian, public figure, one of the leaders of the liberal movement in Russia. Founder and leader of the constitutional democratic party (cadets). Member of the III and IV State Duma. In the first composition of the Provisional Government - the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He took an active part in the white movement in southern Russia. Since 1920 - in exile.

Muromtsev Sergey Andreevich (1850-1910)- lawyer, professor, publicist, public (zemstvo) figure. One of the founders and leaders of the Cadets Party. Chairman of the First State Duma.

Purishkevich Vladimir Mitrofanovich (1870-1920)- a large landowner, one of the founders of the Union of the Russian People and the Union of Michael the Archangel. Deputy I, II, IV State Duma. One of the leaders of the extreme right, distinguished by hooligan speeches in the Duma. He took part in the murder of G. E. Rasputin.

Rodzianko Mikhail Vladimirovich (1858-1924)- one of the leaders of the Octobrist party, a monarchist; large landowner, deputy of III, IV State Duma. Since 1911 - Chairman of the Duma.

Chernov Viktor Mikhailovich (1873-1952)- one of the founders of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, its theorist. In the revolutionary movement - from the 80s. 19th century In May-August 1917 - Minister of Agriculture of the Provisional Government. Chairman of the Constituent Assembly (1918). Since 1920 - in exile.

Chkheidze Nikolai Semyonovich (1864-1926) Social Democrat, Menshevik Member of the III and IV State Duma, chairman of the Social Democratic, and then the Menshevik faction in the Duma. After the February Revolution - Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets. Since 1921 - in exile.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND CONCEPTS

Bolshevism- an ideological and political trend in Russian Marxism, which took shape in 1903. It was a continuation of the radical line in the revolutionary movement in Russia. At the II Congress of the RSDLP in 1903, during the elections of the governing bodies, supporters of V. I. Lenin received a majority and began to be called Bolsheviks. Their opponents, led by L. Martov, began to be called Mensheviks by a minority of votes. Bolshevism advocated the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the construction of socialism and communism. The revolutionary practice of the 20th century rejected many provisions of Bolshevism as utopian.

Cadets (Constitutional Democrats)- "Party of People's Freedom" - one of the largest political parties in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. It existed from October 1905 to November 1917. It represented the left wing in Russian liberalism. She advocated a constitutional monarchy, democratic reforms, the transfer of landlord lands to the peasants for redemption, and the expansion of labor legislation. Leaders: P. N. Milyukov, V. D. Nabokov and others. They dominated the I and II Dumas. In August 1915, the Progressive Bloc was created with the aim of achieving victory in the war and preventing revolutionary uprisings. The party was banned after the October Revolution of 1917

Liberalism (lat. - free)- a trend that advocated parliamentarism, bourgeois rights and freedoms, the democratization of society and the expansion of entrepreneurship. He rejected the revolutionary path of transformations, sought changes by legal means, reforms.

Menshevism- a trend in Russian social democracy, which was formed at the II Congress of the RSDLP (1903) from a part of the delegates who received a minority during the elections of governing bodies. Leaders: G. V. Plekhanov, L. Martov, I. O. Akselrod and others. After the February Revolution, they supported the Provisional Government, did not recognize the October Revolution, believing that Russia was not ripe for socialism. Part of the Mensheviks went over to the Bolsheviks.

Octobrists- members of the right-liberal party "Union of October 17", created after the publication of the Manifesto by Nicholas II on October 17, 1905. According to the Octobrists, this document meant Russia's transition to a constitutional monarchy. The party considered its main task to be assistance to the government if it follows the path of social reforms. Program: a constitutional monarchy in a single and indivisible Russian state, the solution of the agrarian question without the alienation of landowners' lands; limited right to strike and an 8-hour day. The party represented the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie, liberal-minded landowners, part of the officials and the wealthy intelligentsia, the leaders of the Octobrists: A. I. Guchkov, M. V. Rodzianko, etc.

"Progressives" ("progressive party")- the national-liberal party of the big Russian bourgeoisie and landlords (1912-1917), occupied an intermediate position between the Octobrists and the Cadets. The founders of the party were textile manufacturers A. I. Konovalov, V. P. and P. P. Ryabushinsky, S. N. Tretyakov, and others.

Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs)- the largest party in Russia 1901-1923. They advocated the elimination of the autocracy, the establishment of a democratic republic, the transfer of land to the peasants, democratic reforms, etc. They used the tactics of terror. Leaders - V. M. Chernov, A. R. Gots and others.

June 3 coup d'état of 1907- the dissolution of the II State Duma and the publication of a new electoral law in violation of the Manifesto on October 17, 1905. It was the end of the revolution of 1905-1907, after which the bourgeois third of June monarchy was established - the union of the tsar, the nobles and the big bourgeoisie, united by the State Duma, pursuing a policy of maneuvering.

Trudoviks- The "Labor Group" in the 1st and 4th State Dumas from the deputies of the peasants and the populist intelligentsia, which acted in a bloc with the left forces for the nationalization of the land and its transfer to the peasants according to the labor norm, for democratic freedoms (1906-1917).

Black Hundreds- members of extreme right-wing organizations in Russia in 1905-1917, speaking from the positions of monarchism, great-power chauvinism and anti-Semitism ("Union of the Russian People", "Union of Michael the Archangel", etc.). They fought against the revolutionary movement, supported the repressive measures of the government.

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. The armed forces of tsarism also wavered. 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 on the part of 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 relations, 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 Fauvists 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) was a Dutch-born French painter. 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). The modest landscapes are so mesmerizing with calmness and lyricism 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!".