Sergei Nechaev: the evil genius of the revolution. Nechaev, Sergey Gennadievich See what the “Trial of the Nechaevites” is in other dictionaries

THE SO-CALLED “NECHAYEV CASE” AND ATTITUDE

TO HIM RUSSIAN JOURNALISM

For the first time: OZ, 1871, No. 9, dept. “Modern Review”, pp. 1-33 (published on September 20). Signature: M. M. Authorship is disclosed in the “Index to the “Notes of the Fatherland” for 1868–1877.” (OZ, 1878, No. 8, p. XVII, and separate edition) and in the fee sheets of “Domestic Notes” of 1871 (LN, vol. 53–54, M. 1949).

In July - August 1871, the first open political trial in Russia took place - over participants in the secret society "People's Retribution". Almost all members of the organization were brought to trial - 84 people, divided into four categories (according to the severity of the charges brought) - mainly intelligent youth and students. Saltykov himself was at the trial (in particular, on August 27, see note on page 191) and could have known many details from his friend A. M. Unkovsky, one of the defenders.

The student unrest at the end of 1868 - beginning of 1869 was the impetus for the creation of the “People's Reprisal”. As if continuing the student movement of 1861 under new conditions, its participants demanded the right to freely gather assemblies, organize libraries, mutual aid funds, etc. At the same time, some young people were not limited to the desire to democratize student life alone, but went directly to the struggle for liberation of the entire people from the oppression of the autocratic state. Soon, the revolutionary activity of student youth was used by S. G. Nechaev to create a secret anarchist organization. Nechaev himself, a volunteer student at St. Petersburg University, was an energetic participant in student unrest, fanatically devoted to the revolution. The anarchism of Bakunin had a significant influence on the entire nature of his activities. However, many of Nechaev’s views and deeds evoked a strong protest from Bakunin. This applies, in particular, to the famous document “Catechism of a Revolutionary,” which until recently was considered the work of Bakunin and Nechaev. As evidenced by Bakunin's lengthy letter to Nechaev dated July 2, 1870, first published in 1966, the Catechism was written by Nechaev. Defining his disagreements with Nechaev, Bakunin refers to their previous disputes: “Remember how angry you were with me when I called you an abrek, and your catechism the catechism of abreks,” and further: “...In your way of thinking, you are closer to the Jesuits than to us. You are a fanatic - this is your enormous characteristic strength; but at the same time your blindness, and blindness is a great and destructive weakness” (“Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique”, 1966, Sorbonne, Vol. VII, No. 4, p. 632). Formulating the basic principles that should guide the creation of a revolutionary society, Bakunin rejected Nechaev's tactics of conspiracy, terror and mystification. He wrote: “Jesuit control, the system of police entanglement and lies are decisively excluded from all 3 degrees of secret organization: in the same way from the district<ного>and region<ного>, as from the People<ного>brotherhood The strength of the whole society, as well as the morality, loyalty, energy and devotion of each member, are based solely and entirely on mutual truth, on mutual sincerity, on<заимном>trust and open fraternal control of all over each” (ibid., p. 672).

In the long article “The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the International Workers' Association,” devoted primarily to the criticism of Bakuninism, Marx and Engels especially examine the “Catechism of a Revolutionary.” “These all-destructive anarchists,” they note, “who want to reduce everything to a state of amorphy in order to establish anarchy in the field of morality, take bourgeois immorality to the extreme.”

On March 4, 1869, fearing persecution by the police for participating in student unrest, Nechaev went abroad and, appearing in Geneva, to Ogarev and Bakunin, pretended to be the leader of the student revolutionary movement who had fled from the Peter and Paul Fortress. 1868–1869 were especially difficult in Ogarev’s life: the possibilities of publishing “The Bell” were exhausted, disagreements with the “young emigration” deepened, and there were almost no living ties left with Russia. Therefore, Ogarev greeted Nechaev with great enthusiasm and assured Herzen that the arrival of the St. Petersburg student “turns to the resurrection of the foreign press” (letter dated April 1, 1869, LN, vol. 39–40, p. 545). Ogarev, together with Nechaev and Bakunin, launched a wide propaganda campaign, he himself wrote a brochure (“In memory of people on December 14, 1825”), proclamations (“From old people to young friends,” “Our Tale”), as well as the poem “Student” , dedicated to “the young friend Nechaev,” which subsequently appeared in the materials of the trial.

It should be noted that Herzen always treated Nechaev with distrust and hostility. In his letters “To an Old Comrade” (1869), addressed to Bakunin and partly Ogarev, he decisively rejects the theory and tactics of anarchism as phenomena deeply hostile to the revolution. Herzen argues that it is necessary “to finally sacrifice the criminal point of view, and it, unfortunately, breaks through and interferes with the concept, introducing personal passions into the common cause and the perverse rearrangement of involuntary events into a deliberate conspiracy.” And further: “Wild calls to close the book, leave science and go to some senseless battle of destruction belong to the most frantic demagoguery and the most harmful.”

In August 1869, Nechaev returned to Russia, and in Moscow, mainly from students of the Petrovsky Agricultural Academy, he created a secret society “People's Retribution”, consisting of small, unrelated circles. This gave Nechaev the opportunity to instill in the members of “People’s Retribution” the illusion of the enormous scale of the organization, whose cells were allegedly scattered throughout the country and even around the world. Nechaev presented especially trusted persons with a mandate signed by Bakunin on behalf of the “Russian Department of the World Revolutionary Union” and used special forms with the Alliance emblem. Nechaev demanded unquestioning obedience to his orders from the members of “People’s Retribution”. On this basis, at the end of 1869, a tragic event occurred that resulted in the arrest of almost all participants in the underground organization. For refusing to obey Nechaev, student I. Ivanov was killed on November 21 in the park of the Petrovskaya Academy. The murder was committed by Nechaev himself with the help of four members of the “People’s Retribution” - P. Uspensky, A. Kuznetsov, I. Pryzhov, N. Nikolaev. Nechaev managed to flee abroad, the other four, along with other participants in the “People’s Retribution”, appeared before the St. Petersburg Court Chamber a year and a half later. (In 1872, Nechaev was extradited by the Swiss authorities to the Russian government and sentenced to hard labor in Siberia.)

The first reports and then articles about “Nechaev’s history” appeared already in January 1870. Moskovskie Vedomosti was especially zealous, accusing other press organs of liberalism and nihilism. (In the article “Our Storms and Bad Weathers,” Saltykov wrote that, in the opinion of this newspaper, one should arrest “not on undoubted evidence, and not even on evidence, but simply, on a suggestion, or, more precisely, on inspiration.”) However, later, when the process itself took place and when its materials, first published in the Government Gazette, were then reprinted and commented on on the pages of many publications, the “literary unanimity” that Saltykov showed with such deadly irony was clearly revealed. Of course, there were isolated, sometimes even significant disagreements between some press organs. So, for example, the St. Petersburg Vedomosti reasonably condemned the Moskovskie Vedomosti for the fact that they “think that the defenders should have thundered against nihilism” and “exposed all the harm of this trend.” “In all educated states,” wrote the St. Petersburg Gazette, “people are punished not because they hold certain false views, but because they have committed certain acts that are positively prohibited by law.” Both Moskovskie Vedomosti and Golos were indignant at the “refined turns of phrase” used by the chairman of the court and the defense attorneys in relation to the defendants. The St. Petersburg Gazette, on the contrary, approved of this manner. But despite the disagreements, the press organs of the conservative and bourgeois-liberal trends agreed on the main thing: identifying the “Nechaev cause” with the entire Russian revolutionary movement, they reviled the revolutionary youth as a whole, declaring that in Russia there is no soil for revolution and that only madmen, ignoramuses and Khlestakovs.

Saltykov writes with deep irony about that harmonious “anti-nihilistic” chorus that, as if on cue, emerged from the discord of the modern press (see his introduction to the article and numerous author’s notes).

Otechestvennye zapiski could not directly and frankly express its view on the “Nechaev case” without touching on the general problems of the revolutionary movement, which, for censorship reasons, was impossible for a radical publication. But this attentive reader could determine the view from the totality of materials published in Otechestvennye zapiski and, above all, in the issue where Saltykov’s article was published: “The so-called “Nechaev case” ...”

Back in February 1870, with the article “Our storms and bad weather,” Saltykov responded to the preparation of the “Nechaev trial” (see this volume, pp. 170–190).

In a letter to Nekrasov dated July 17, 1871, he wrote: “In my opinion, it would be useful to publish the Nechaev case in Otechestvennye zapiski completely, and begin this printing in the August book (probably, the 2nd category will already be finished by that time). A reprint can be made from the Government Gazette, where this process is then printed so that other journals can follow its report. It will be interesting for readers to have in their hands a complete statement of the whole process, which it now has in fragments scattered in many issues of newspapers.

Then it would seem to me useful to publish in the September book a set of articles that appeared on this<делу>in newspapers and magazines. This, too, will not be without interest for readers; if you want, I will take this work upon myself and do it completely modestly. It will be convenient to do this in the September book, because the impression will cool down somewhat” (see Vol. 18 of this edition).

Only the second half of Saltykov’s plan was realized - his “absolutely modest” article about the “Nechaev case” appeared in the September book. Together with the anonymous article “Literary Notes”, published in the same issue, this article by Saltykov aroused the displeasure of Alexander II, who, as stated in the report of the III Department, in the margins against these two articles “deigned to write with his own hand: “draw the attention of the minister to this.” internal affairs".

Denouncing well-intentioned journalism, Saltykov seemed to return the reader’s thoughts to one of his articles of 1868 - “Literature at Lunch,” where the same phenomenon was touched upon in a broad sense. Saltykov explained the reason for the absence of “serious journalistic literature” by the fact that it cannot exist “in a country where there is no complete freedom of speech” (p. 59). Leading articles, where there is at least something independent, resemble, in Saltykov’s opinion, “those petitions that were written by sovereign orphans in ancient times” (ibid.). And, probably, it is no coincidence that this particular image is repeated in the mentioned “Literary Notes”. “Speaking frankly, there is nothing more tragicomic than the position of a publicist thrown by fate onto the banks of the Neva<…>His writings do not even have the significance that the petitions of the royal orphans once had” (OZ, 1871, No. 9, department “Modern Review”, p. 153).

In Saltykov’s article there are almost no direct author’s judgments about the position of this or that newspaper; they are replaced by Aesopian phraseology, the caustic irony of “words of praise” about loyal journalism. However, in “Literary Notes” the reader found a unique and detailed commentary on what he had already learned from the article “The so-called “Nechaev case” ...” (this article opened the “Modern Review” department). Referring to the same reasoning of Moskovskie Vedomosti, which was abundantly quoted in Saltykov’s article, the author of Literary Notes accuses the newspaper of “political monomania”, the desire to see “conspiracies, separatism, and state crimes” everywhere (p. 167).

Using many examples, the critic explains the true meaning of the “concern for the fatherland” that Moskovskie Vedomosti has been showing for many years in a row. He contrasts well-intentioned like-mindedness with an “open and free” struggle of opinions, for “human thought can mature and grow stronger only in the struggle of heterogeneous worldviews” (p. 171). The critic calls for a “sober look at political processes” and their connection with the development of social thought. In order to separate the “Nechaev cause,” which Mikhailovsky called a “monster” in one of his articles in 1873, from the cause of progress, which is necessary and inevitable, he creates a transparent allegorical image: if someone jumped out of a window, this is not a reason to ban people, those thirsting for light, approach the windows (p. 175).

This issue of Otechestvennye Zapiski, like many other books in this magazine, is arranged in such a way that the different materials printed in it each develop the same topic in their own way. For example, before Saltykov’s article, a cycle of satirical poems by V. Burenin was published. The first of them - “Public Opinion” - precedes one of the important topics of the article about the “Nechaev case”:

“Is it bad, Pyotr Ivanovich?

It’s bad, Pyotr Ilyich!

I thought today overnight

Enough paralysis:

We heard in court

What is happening? Oh,

Believe me: this is us

God punishes!

For schoolchildren, boys -

Just shame and disgrace -

Indulges too much

The chairman himself!

Polite, like in a salon:

"I dare to tell you..."

In a certain tone

Reason with them!”

The poem ends with these words:

“Yes, sir, this progress will bring

Us misfortune in the ditch,

If he doesn't support

Mister Katkov!

In the same issue of the magazine, after a long break, the printing of “Paris Letters” by Charles Chassin resumed. The events of the Paris Commune were described here, the thought of which was naturally associated in those days with the fate of the Russian revolution. And although Chassin was far from a deep understanding of the causes and character of the Commune, although the point of view of Saltykov himself (see “Results”, vol. 7) was significantly different, nevertheless, the detailed information about the French events, the revealing characterization of the executioner of the Commune Jules Favre represented great interest for the Russian reader. By the way, Chassin in his “Paris Letters” regards Jules Favre’s circular of June 6, which is discussed in Saltykov’s article, as a shameful police document.

Finally, in the same issue of “Domestic Notes” a chapter was placed from Saltykov’s new book “Gentlemen of Tashkent” - “Tashkent Preparatory Class”, which depicts the fear of the nobility of the “secret societies” of nihilists and the thirst for revenge on the new Karakozovs. The denunciation of the conservative and bourgeois-liberal (“penkosnimatsky”) press is the main topic of the article “The so-called “Nechaev case” ...” - Saltykov continued in “The Diary of a Provincial in St. Petersburg” (1872).

Page 191...entering one of the court hearings...we found... - The court hearings, where the cases of defendants of the fourth category were considered, took place on August 27, 1871.

...to the separation of vast parts (Siberia) from the state... - This charge was brought against a group of defendants of the fourth category: “Koshkin, Dolgushin, Dudoladov and Lev Toporkov<…>were members of the circle of Siberians<…>It was for this circle that the charter was written by Dolgushin<…>in its meetings there was talk about the separation of Siberia<…>and in the very charter of the society of Siberians, drawn up by Dolgushin, it was said, as Koshkin said: “We cannot determine the goals of our future activities because it is not known what the position of Siberia will be during the improvement of its material well-being, whether then it will be necessary to separate Siberia or not "(Government Bulletin, 1871, No. 205 of August 28, p. 2).

Page 193…to formalize - to take offense (from French - formaliser).

One talented feuilletonist... not without venom called us “silent brothers.” - As established by S. S. Borshchevsky, Saltykov had in mind Suvorin’s feuilleton “Weekly Sketches and Pictures” (“St. Petersburg Gazette”, 1871, dated May 16), where the publicists of “Domestic Notes” were called the “silent legion” for their inherent desire to remain silent when discussing important social issues (see ed. 1933–1941, vol. 8, p. 539).

Page 194…“Domestic Notes” is a monthly publication… - This argument is put forward, of course, ironically, since “Bulletin of Europe”, quoted by Saltykov, is also a monthly magazine.

...“ringing metal”... - See note. to page 137.

Page 195...four defendants were sentenced to hard labor... - On July 15, a court verdict was read out, according to which Uspensky, Kuznetsov, Pryzhov and Nikolaev were sent to hard labor for various terms with the deprivation of all rights of state.

...releasing these latter... - In the court transcript we read: “Chairman: Defendants Orlov, Volkhovsky, Korinfsky and Tomilova! Would you like to go out into the middle of the hall?

(The defendants left).

Defendants! You are free from trial and detention. Gentlemen! From now on, your place is not on the bench of shame, but among the public, among all of us” (“Government Bulletin”, No. 168, p. 6).

Emphatic... - that is, pompous.

Page 197... he spoke like a stranger... - This refers to Spasovich’s speech in defense of Alexei Kuznetsov. See below about this.

And then one barked in verses... - Pryzhov ended his final words with verses from Goethe. “You will excuse me, honorable judges,” he said, “if I allow myself to quote here the words of the greatest German poet Goethe, which seem to directly relate to a real matter that is extremely regrettable for everyone.

On this occasion, the author of the already mentioned “Literary Notes” wrote: “When, at the end of the judicial debate, Pryzhov was given the floor, as it is usually given to all defendants, he said several insignificant and incoherent phrases, concluding them with three verses from Goethe. "Moskovskie Vedomosti" was outraged by this and did not fail to notice "how one defendant barked in poetry." We admit that we have never read anything more disgusting than this note in Russian literature. There are moments when all human hatred fades away; the words of a person sentenced to death, whether physical or political, are listened to by everyone calmly, if not out of respect and curiosity, then out of decency. Only the executioner is able to stop the victim from saying the last word in his life, permitted by law...” (OZ, 1871, No. 9, p. 180).

...another took advantage of the opportunity... referred to Brutus and Cassius... - We are talking about the final word of Uspensky, who sought to justify the murder of Ivanov, who was dissolving the secret society before the “critical moment” and claiming the role played by Nechaev. “There was no question of cementing the matter with blood,” said Uspensky. - We had a different connection, a stronger one; This is the idea that animated us, the idea of ​​a common cause. Who doesn’t know that shed blood not only does not bind, but breaks all ties?.. If there were any connection left, it would be purely external, heavy, like a slave’s chain. So Brutus and Cassius quarreled on the eve of the Battle of Pharsalus. Between them stood the shadow of Caesar" (Government Bulletin, No. 168, p. 5).

Page 198…controversy is a dispute.

But here is the catechism of a Russian revolutionary. It was read at the trial. - “Catechism” was published in the “Government Gazette”, 1871, No. 162 dated July 9 (21).

Page 205...learn by heart even some pages of Kant. - Pryzhov told the court that Nechaev quoted entire pages from the Critique of Pure Reason by heart.

Imagine also Ogarev, Bakunin and Nechaev conspiring with a reliable person sent to Geneva by the Kyiv administration (see the statement of one of the defenders at the meeting on July 8). -

This refers to the statement of attorney Sokolovsky: “The case has the following circumstance: a student of the Kyiv Academy, Mavritsky, was sent proclamations from Geneva, which were delivered to his superiors. As a result, Prince Dundukov-Korsakov took advantage of this and sent a reliable person to Geneva, who became acquainted with Nechaev and Bakunin and brought proclamations, and Nechaev was informed of the addresses of people he knew. We would like to get acquainted with these addresses in order to prove how few accomplices Nechaev had in the student movement.” The prosecutor refused the defense lawyer's request (Government Gazette, No. 162, p. 5).

Page 206. “in the snowy penal servitude of Siberia” - a line from Ogarev’s poem “Student”, dedicated to Nechaev:

He ended his life in this world

In the snowy hard labor of Siberia...

Page 208...femgericht - secret court. From him. Femgericht - secret Westphalian court of justice in the Middle Ages.

...like the Turkish envoy in Khlestakov’s story. - In Khlestakov’s story it’s different: “...the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the French envoy, the English, German envoy and me.”

Page 213...Jules Favre considered it necessary to name Russia in his circular. - The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Thiers government, Jules Favre, sent a circular to all European powers on June 6, 1871, calling on them to fight the International Workers' Association, even to the point of destroying it. All the documents given in the circular had nothing to do with the International, but were related to the activities of Bakunin’s “Alliance of Socialist Democracy”. This fraud was revealed by Marx and Engels in the “Statement of the General Council on the Circular of Jules Favre” (dated June 12, 1871) - see K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, ed. 2nd, vol. 17, pp. 372–373.

Page 219...it seems that something was not said or written about the Panurge herd... - “Anti-nihilistic” novel by Vs. Krestovsky's "Panurgovo Herd" was published in 1869.

...everything with us is empty, dry, bare... the past of Poland in purple and gold... - This refers to the following words of Spasovich, a Pole by nationality: “This past appears before his eyes in purple and gold, in wondrous grandeur, and he rushes into this is the national past in order to realize through it their democratic dreams. This is how he becomes a revolutionary. The Russian youth is another matter. His past is not rich, no matter what Slavophilism says, the present is dry, poor, bare, like a rolling steppe, in which you can walk around, but there is nothing to stop on” (“Government Bulletin”, No. 165, p. 5).

From the book Articles. Magazine controversy author Saltykov-Shchedrin Mikhail Evgrafovich

THE SO-CALLED “NECHAYEV CASE” AND RUSSIAN JOURNALISM’S ATTITUDE TO IT For the first time: OZ, 1871, No. 9, dep. “Modern Review”, pp. 1-33 (published on September 20). Signature: M. M. Authorship is disclosed in the “Index to the “Notes of the Fatherland” for 1868–1877.” (OZ, 1878, No. 8, p. XVII, et seq.

From the book How to Write a Brilliant Detective by Frey James N

From the book Thought Armed with Rhymes [Poetic anthology on the history of Russian verse] author Kholshevnikov Vladislav Evgenievich

From the book History of Russian Literature of the 19th Century. Part 2. 1840-1860 author Prokofieva Natalya Nikolaevna

Main directions of journalism and criticism The 1840s are the heyday of Russian literary criticism. Until the 1840s, Russian criticism developed theoretical and philosophical foundations for assessing literary phenomena and the current historical and literary process. Thanks to

From the book GA 5. Friedrich Nietzsche. A fighter against his time author Steiner Rudolf

From the book Collected Works in ten volumes. Volume ten. About art and literature author Goethe Johann Wolfgang

FAVORABLE ATTITUDE TOWARDS “THE WANDERING YEARS OF WILHELM MEISTER” Since the time has come for me to make frank confessions, let the following be stated here. In later years I submitted my writings to the press more willingly than in middle years, because at that time the nation

From the book Unknown Shakespeare. Who, if not he [= Shakespeare. Life and works] by Brandes Georg

From the book About Television and Journalism author Bourdieu Pierre

From the book Articles. Essays (collection) author Lukin Evgeniy Yurievich

From the book All essays on literature for grade 10 author Team of authors

From the book Literature 2.0 [Articles about books] author Chantsev Alexander Vladimirovich

53. What is A.P. Chekhov’s attitude to the formula: “the environment is stuck”? (using the example of the story “Ionych”) A.P. Chekhov, understanding the tragedy of petty reality, repeatedly warned with his creativity: “There is nothing more depressing, more offensive than the vulgarity of human existence.” For him

From the book Universal Reader. 4th grade author Team of authors

11. “Attitude to passion”[*] Lesbian literature - from subculture to culture1 Isolation and attempt, if not research, then at least descriptions of certain trends in lesbian literature within the framework of the modern Russian literary process may seem

From the book Literature 6th grade. A textbook-reader for schools with in-depth study of literature. Part 2 author Team of authors

Good attitude towards horses. They beat their hooves. They sang as if: “Mushroom.” Rob. Coffin. Rough - Experienced by the wind, shod with ice, the street slid. The horse fell on its croup, and immediately behind the onlooker the onlookers, who had come to flare Kuznetsky’s pants, huddled together, laughter rang and tinkled: “The horse fell!”

From the book The ABC of Literary Creativity, or From Tryout to Master of Words author Getmansky Igor Olegovich

Reading laboratory How to determine the author's attitude towards the hero The author's attitude towards the hero is a manifestation of the author's position in a work of art. It helps the reader understand the value system that the writer affirms or denies in literary

THE NECHAYEVTS TRIAL - the first public political trial in Russia, took place in the St. Petersburg Judicial Chamber from July 1 to September 11, 1871. 87 people were put on trial; 77 people were brought to trial (several people died before trial, some were released on bail and disappeared). The defendants were mainly members of the People's Retribution organization, which was created by S. G. Nechaev(hid abroad before the trial). The main accused: P. G. Uspensky, A. K. Kuznetsov, I. G. Pryzhov, N. N. Nikolaev. 152 people were involved in the investigation. The main charge was participation in an “anti-government conspiracy.” By speculating on Nechaev's documents (Catechism of a Revolutionary, a false mandate of an agent of the 1st International) in his criminal case (the murder of student Ivanov), the tsarist government hoped to discredit the revolutionaries. But the defendants, distinguished (except for individuals) by revolutionary conviction and high moral qualities, fended off the attacks of the court. Defense (V.D. Spasovich, D.V. Stasov, A.M. Unkovsky and others) and the democratic press (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, N.K. Mikhailovsky) helped them in this. The General Council of the 1st International rebuffed the attempts of European reaction to portray the Nechaev Process as a “process of the International”. K. Marx wrote a special statement “... regarding Nechaev’s abuse of the name of the International.” (Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 17, p. 440). The trial of the Nechaevites revealed the odiousness of Nechaevism (i.e., Nechaev’s methods), but attracted public sympathy for the revolutionaries and contributed to the rise of the revolutionary populist movement.

The list of defendants and the verdict will be completed. form: Aleksandrovskaya V.V. (born 1833) - exile to Siberia; Alekseev A.P. (born 1847) - acquitted; Belyaeva E.I. (born 1843) - 2 months in prison; Bobarykova Yu. V. (born 1844) - acquitted; Buturlin A. S. (1845-1916) - acquitted; Volkhovsky F.V. (1846-1914) - acquitted; Vorontsova L. E. (born 1850) - acquitted; Gavrishev G. Ya. (born 1846) - 4 months. prisons; Golikov L.I. (born 1851) - acquitted; Golikov N.I. (born 1848) - acquitted; Debogoriy-Mokrievich P.K. (born 1847) - acquitted; Dementyeva A.D. (1850-1922) - 4 months in prison; Dolgov N. S. (1844 - after 1906) - 1 year in prison; Dolgushin A.V. (1848-85) - acquitted; Dudoladov A. E. (born 1848) - acquitted; Enkuvatov D. A. (born 1847) - 8 months in prison; Enkuvatov P. A. (1848-77) - 1 year in prison; Ivakin P.F. (born 1844) - 2 months. prisons; Ishkhanov D. P. (born 1847) - 4 months. prisons; Kalachevsky A. N. (1848-1888) - acquitted; Klimin I.F. (born 1847) - 1 year in prison; Kovalevsky V.I. (1848 - after 1923) - acquitted; Kovedyaev D. G. (born 1850) - 2 months. prisons; Korinthsky M.P. (born 1844) - acquitted; Korobin P.I. (born 1844) - 2 months. prisons; Kostyrkin A. A. (born 1840) - acquitted; Koshkin P. M. (born 1850) - 2 months. conclusions in smirit. home; Kuznetsov A.K. (1854-1928) - 10 years of hard labor; Kuznetsov S.K. (born 1847) - acquitted; Lazarevsky M. (born 1846) - acquitted; Lange V.K. (born 1848) - 2 months. prisons; Lau E.V. (born 1843) - 4 months in prison; Likhutin I.N. (born 1848) - 1 year 4 months of imprisonment in a restraint house; Likhutina E. N. (born 1845) - acquitted; Lunin V.I. (1843-1913) - acquitted; Makariev K. (?) - acquitted; Malyutin V.I. (born 1845) - 7 days in prison; Maslov N. (born 18 48) - acquitted; Mendeleev N. (?) - acquitted; Moravsky L.F. (born 1843) - acquitted; Mutafov S. L. (1845-72) - 2 months. prisons; Nikolaev N. N. (born 1850) -7 years 4 months hard labor; Orlov V.F. (1843 - after 1895) - acquitted; Pajon-de-Monce I. G. (born 1844) - acquitted; Pyramidov N. M. (1847 - after 1900) - 2 months in prison; Pomerantsev N. D. (born 1850) - acquitted; Popich A. M. (born 1851) - 7 days in prison; Popkov M. (born 1834) - acquitted; Popov V.K. (born 1846) - 2 months in prison; Popov P.I. (born 1847) - acquitted; Prokofiev S. (born 1845) - acquitted; Pryzhov I. G. (1827-85) - 12 years of hard labor; Rakhimov I. R. (1849-1927) - 3 weeks in prison; Rimsky-Korsakov N. N. (born 1843) - acquitted; Ripman P. P. (born 1842) - 1 year in prison; Rozanov I.G. (?) - acquitted; Roslyakov K. A. (born 1847) - acquitted; Ryazantsev V. V. (born 1845) - 2 months. prisons; Ryazantsev I.V. (born 1847) - 2 months in prison; Saribekov Ya. I. (born 1847) - acquitted; Svechin G. A. (born 1846) - 2 months. prisons; Svyatsky V.I. (born 1847) - acquitted; Skipsky V.P. (born 1847) - 2 months. prisons; Staritsyn A.P. (1846-71) - died during the trial; Talitsky A. (?) - acquitted; Theils de A. (1844-1875) - 4 months in prison; Tkachev P.N. (1844-1885) - 1 year 4 months in prison; Tomilova E. X. (1839-1890s) - acquitted; Toporkov L. A. (born 1847) - acquitted; Toporkov P. A. (born 1849) - acquitted; Uspenskaya A.I. (1847-1923) - acquitted; Uspensky P. G. (1847-1881) - 15 years of hard labor; Florinsky I.I. (born 1845) - 6 months in prison; Khadzhibekov A. (born 1849) - acquitted; Cherkezov V.N. (1846-1925) - exile to Siberia: Shanaev I. (born 1847) - acquitted; Shestakov N. A. (born 1844) - 8 months. prisons.

N. A. Troitsky. Saratov.

Soviet historical encyclopedia. In 16 volumes. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1973-1982. Volume 11. PERGAMUS - RENUVEN. 1968.

Read further:

Narodnaya Volya, a revolutionary populist organization, was formed in August 1879.

Land and Freedom, a secret revolutionary society, existed in the 1870s.

Petrashevtsy, members of the circle of M. V. Petrashevsky (1827-1866).

Literature:

State crimes in Russia in the 19th century, vol. 1, St. Petersburg, 1906; Nechaev and Nechaevites. Sat. materials (preface and note by B.P. Kozmin), M.-L., 1931; On the history of the Nechaev trial (published by B.P. Kozmina), "KA", 1930, vol. 6 (43); Saltykov-Shchedrin M.E., T.N. "Nechaev case" and the Russian attitude towards it. journalism, Complete collection soch., t. 8, M., 1937; Mikhailovsky N.K., The Nechaev Case and Mosk. Vedomosti, Complete. collection soch., 2nd ed., vol. 10, St. Petersburg, 1913; Ullman G.S., Marx and Engels about Nechaev and the Nechaev trial, Uch. zap. Leningr. state ped. in-ta. Department of New History, 1948, vol. 62.

At the end of the 1860s. A number of events took place in the Russian revolutionary underground that can be combined under the name of the Nechaev affair: education in the student movement of 1868–1869. political wing, publication and distribution by S.G. Nechaev, M.A. Bakunin and N.P. Ogarev’s radical proclamations, attempts to create the organization “People’s Retribution” and a number of related stories. The persons involved in the investigation and trial in the Nechaev case are known in history as “Nechaevites.” They did not receive due attention from researchers. Let us note that even a clear distinction in the use of the term “Nechaevites” between the participants in the “People’s Retribution”, defendants in the Nechaevites trial of 1871 and all persons involved in the investigation cannot be traced in the literature.

The main reason for the historiographical gap is the figure of Nechaev himself, who has pushed less noticeable individuals out of sight. Often discussions around his personality acquired a journalistic and ideological character. So, in the 1920s. A. Gambarov raised the question of his “historical rehabilitation”: in Nechaev he saw a “lone genius”, “the predecessor of the working class”, who was unable to effectively carry out revolutionary work in the environment of the populist intelligentsia, which was alien to him. Similar views in the literature then gave way to the opposite: the authors of the book “Chernyshevsky or Nechaev?” in the 1970s attributed the latter to the “imaginary” revolutionaries, noting that “Nechaevism” was and remains “the antipode of revolution.” In modern historiography, there are often opinions according to which in “Nechaevism” one can see the origins of not only Blanquist and terrorist sentiments, but even “the essential features of such large-scale phenomena as “war communism”, “Stalinism” and “developed socialism”.

The focus on the most prominent revolutionaries has contributed to research into Nechaev's relationships and collaborations with Bakunin and Ogarev during the proclamation campaign, as well as with other prominent figures. The problem of “Nechaev and Nechaevites” was openly stated only by B.P. Kozmin in the preface to the collection with the appropriate title: the historian, rightly noting the undeveloped nature of the topic, set the task of “studying the state of revolutionary forces in Russia” in the late 1860s in order to understand who Nechaev relied on in his activities, where he came from, as he put it Kozmina, “extracted suitable material” for his organization. The scope of the collection allowed only the publication of important sources on this topic, but coverage of Nechaev’s conflicts with his opponents (some of whom, ironically, also became “Nechaevites” when they found themselves in the dock in 1871) can be found in Kozmin’s 1932 article. His work did not find a worthy continuation - perhaps due to the changed attitude towards the problems of the populist movement in Soviet historiography and the cessation of the activities of the Society of Political Prisoners.

Valuable facts about the Nechaevites in the literature can be gleaned from a number of studies of the Nechaevites trial. For example, N.A. Troitsky, in an article on a related topic, analyzes the social composition and age of the accused, and provides estimates of the number of defendants. But this subject was often addressed in the context of the history of domestic legal proceedings, rather than the history of the revolutionary movement. Inattention to the situation in the revolutionary underground can lead to erroneous conclusions. Thus, in an article with the characteristic title “Well-Intentioned Demons,” A. Grezneva considers the speeches of jury attorneys solely as a justification of the “demonic figures” of the defendants, a successful attempt to “convince public opinion of the injustice of the charges laid on their charges.”

Indeed, lawyers for the Nechaevites argued that none of the accused, according to K.K. Arsenyev, “does not combine the conditions that make up the type of conspirator,” that all of them were involved in Nechaev’s adventure thanks to, “on the one hand, deception, on the other hand, gullibility and self-delusion.” However, is it worth looking in this only for the professional interests of the legal profession?.. The further fate of the Nechaevites, who more often than not either dropped out of the revolutionary movement completely or took the path of non-radical populist propaganda, forces us to agree with Arsenyev’s opinion. Kozmin, out of dozens of Nechaevites, was able to name only one P.M. as a follower of Nechaev. Koshkin (not even a member of “People’s Retribution”), who went on to kill a woman who threatened the members of his circle with denunciation.

Of course, perceiving all Nechaevites only as random victims will be just as wrong a generalization as viewing them as “demons.” For example, during the student unrest, V.N. took a pro-Nechaev position. Cherkezov, a former Ishutin resident and member of the St. Petersburg circle “Smorgon Academy”. Cherkezov, who had good underground experience, can hardly be considered a naive young man who succumbed to the psychological influence of Nechaev. In a personal letter, he called Nechaev a person “not with a particularly clear and broad development” who cannot “even be a representative<...>serious and consistent political agitation." Obviously, Cherkezov became a participant in Nechaev’s adventure in order to realize his own political ambitions. Such pragmatism can also explain cooperation with P.N. Nechaev. Tkachev. But it is worth coming to conclusions common to all Nechaevites only after a serious study of individual cases.

Even in the specialized literature one can find dubious assumptions indicating poor study of the problem. Thus, in the scientific encyclopedia “Revolutionary Thought in Russia” A.Yu. Minakov categorically asserts that Nechaev “managed to form about 30 circles that united up to 400 people.” This number probably has its source in the statements of Nechaevite A.K. Kuznetsov, who also spoke about the 310 people arrested in the Nechaev case. However, in reality, the commission of Senator Ya.Ya. Chemadurov questioned about 200 people, of whom 152 became persons under investigation and only 87 were brought to trial. Of the defendants, no more than 60 people were participants in the “People's Retribution”.

The lack of development of the topic cannot be attributed to the lack of sources. Archival forensic investigative materials await your researcher: multi-volume cases of the III department, materials of the criminal department of the I department of the Ministry of Justice, etc. And this is not to mention sources of personal origin that can illuminate the problem of the relationship between Nechaev and the Nechaevites from unexpected angles. For example, a comparison of the memoirs of F.A. Borisov with the facts of the so-called Elizavetgrad case allowed us to put forward the assumption that the defendants in this case, V.I. Kuntushev and M.P. Troitsky not only did not profess terrorist ideas and were close to Nechaev (as was often believed in the literature), but, on the contrary, because of their disagreement with Nechaev’s radical attitudes, the latter wrote anonymous denunciations against them to the local police.

So, the above analysis of the historiographical situation allows us to conclude that the problem of the Nechaevites in the Nechaev case has been almost unexplored. Without understanding the characters and motives of dozens of Nechaevites, it is impossible to understand either the place and role of Nechaev himself in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement, or to answer the question of what was hidden under the word “Nechaevism” known to publicists and writers in the real historical situation of the late 1860s.

Published according to the publication: Historical documents and current problems of archaeography, source studies, Russian and general history of modern and contemporary times. Collection of materials of the Fifth International Conference of Young Scientists and Specialists “Clio-2015” / (chief editor A.K. Sorokin, executive editor S.A. Kotov). M.: Political Encyclopedia, 2015. pp. 133–137.


Read also on this topic:

Notes

Gambarov A. In the debate about Nechaev. On the issue of the historical rehabilitation of Nechaev. M.; L., 1926. P. 143.

Volodin A.I., Karyakin Yu.F., Plimak E.G. Chernyshevsky or Nechaev? About real and imaginary revolutionism in the liberation movement of Russia in the 50s and 60s of the 19th century. M., 1976. P. 267.

Minakov A.Yu. S.G. Nechaev and P.N. Tkachev: on the issue of ideological identification of “non-Chaevism” // Russia and reforms. Sat. articles. Vol. 4. M., 1997. P. 104.

See for example: Svatikov S.G. Student movement of 1869 (Bakunin and Nechaev) // Our country. 1907. No. 1. P. 165–249; Kozmin B.P. Herzen, Ogarev and the “young emigration” // Him. From the history of revolutionary thought in Russia. Selected works. M., 1961. S. 483–577; Pirumova N.M. Bakunin or S. Nechaev? // Prometheus. T. 5. M., 1968. pp. 168–181.

For example, with the Bulgarian revolutionary H. Botev: Bakalov G. Hristo Botev and Sergei Nechaev // Chronicles of Marxism. Book IX–X. M.; L., 1929. P. 3–37.

Nechaev and Nechaevites. Collection of documents / Ed. B.P. Kozmina. M.; L., 1931. S. 3–4.

Citizenship:

Russian empire

Date of death:

Sergei Gennadievich Nechaev(September 20, Ivanovo village, now Ivanovo - November 21, St. Petersburg) - Russian nihilist and revolutionary of the 19th century. Leader of the People's Retribution. Convicted of the murder of student Ivanov.

Biography

Sergei Nechaev's father is the illegitimate son of the landowner Pyotr Epishev, a serf by birth. He was adopted by the painter G.P. Pavlov and received the surname Nechaev (“unexpected”, “unexpected”). Nechaev spent his childhood in Ivanovo. Having moved to Moscow (1865), he was engaged in self-education and was close to the writer F. D. Nefedov. Passed the teacher exam; from the autumn of 1868 he conducted revolutionary propaganda among students of St. Petersburg University and the Medical Academy; the student unrest in February 1869 was largely his doing.

Emigration

Then he went abroad, entered into relationships with Bakunin and Ogarev, and through the latter received 1000 pounds from Herzen. Art. (from the so-called “Bakhmetyevsky Fund”) for the cause of the revolution, and through the first joined the International Society.

Society of People's Retribution

Second emigration

Nechaev published the magazine “People's Retribution” abroad. Most Russian emigrants have extremely unpleasant memories of him. Even Bakunin, whose closest follower was Nechaev, writes about him in one letter (printed in the collection of Bakunin’s letters, ed. Drahomanov), as a dishonest person capable of spying, opening other people’s letters, lying, etc.

The extremely negative characterization of the younger generation of revolutionaries made by Herzen (in his posthumous articles) was apparently inspired by his acquaintance with Nechaev.

Extradition and trial

Prisoner of the Peter and Paul Fortress

In the fortress, Nechaev acquired great influence over the guard soldiers, who considered him a high-ranking person, and through them entered into relations with the Narodnaya Volya members who were at large. Zhelyabov invited him to arrange his escape from the fortress, but Nechaev refused, not wanting to interfere with the success of the revolutionary plans, which he to some extent led.

Vera Figner does not agree with this opinion. In her “Sealed Work” (vol. 1, chapter 10, § 4) she writes about the choice between the assassination attempt on Alexander II and organizing Nechaev’s escape: “In the literature, I came across an indication that the Committee allowed Nechaev to decide which of the two cases. put first, and as if Nechaev spoke out in favor of the assassination attempt. The Committee could not ask such a question; he could not suspend preparations on Malaya Sadovaya and doom them to almost inevitable collapse. He simply informed Nechaev about the state of affairs, and he replied that, of course, he would wait. Tikhomirov’s story that Zhelyabov visited Ravelin’s island, was under Nechaev’s window and spoke with him is pure fiction. This did not happen, it could not have happened. Zhelyabov was assigned a responsible role in the alleged assassination attempt. The mine on Malaya Sadovaya could have exploded a little earlier or a little later than the passage of the sovereign’s crew. In this case, at both ends of the street, four throwers had to use their explosive shells. But if the shells had missed, Zhelyabov, armed with a dagger, had to finish the job, and this time we decided to finish it at all costs. Is it possible that with such a plan the Committee would allow Zhelyabov to go to the ravelin, not to mention the fact that it was generally impossible to take him there? And would Zhelyabov himself take such a pointless and insane risk, not only with himself and his role on Sadovaya, but also with the release of Nechaev? Never!"

Nechaev advised Zhelyabov to resort to methods of spreading false rumors, extorting money, etc., for revolutionary purposes, but Zhelyabov did not agree; On this basis, Nechaev parted ways with Narodnaya Volya.

Nechaev’s conspiracy was revealed to the authorities by Narodnaya Volya member Leon Mirsky, who was serving a prison term in Alekseevsky Ravelin. Soldiers from the garrison of the Peter and Paul Fortress were tried for organizing Nechaev's relations with the people and were sentenced to various punishments.

In literature

  • Nechaev served as the prototype for Pyotr Verkhovensky in Dostoevsky's novel The Demons; The plot of Shatov's murder is connected with the murder of Ivanov by Nechaev.

Notes

Literature

  • Burtsev, “For a Hundred Years” (L., 1897);
  • Thun, “History of revolutionary movements in Russia” (St. Petersburg, 1906);
  • Notes about Nechaev (in a negative spirit, since we are talking about Nechaev’s personal integrity, and enthusiastic, since we are talking about the firmness of his will, energy and convictions) in “Bulletin of Narodnaya Volya”, No. 1.
  • For the speech of Spasovich, who defended Kuznetsov, Tkachev and Tomilova in the first part of the Nechaev trial, see the fifth volume of Spasovich’s “Works” (St. Petersburg, 1893).
  • On the Nechaevsky case, see Art. K. Arsenyev in No. 11 of “Bulletin of Europe” for 1871

Links

Sergey Gennadievich Nechaev in Wikiquote
Sergey Gennadievich Nechaev on Wikimedia Commons
  • Paul Avrich Bakunin and Nechaev
  • “Nechaev” (M. Insarov. Essays on the history of the revolutionary movement in Russia (1790-1890))
  • Which prisoner was able to subjugate the prison guards of Petropavlovka?
  • Lurie F. M. Nechaev: Creator of Destruction Publishing House "Young Guard", 2001

see also

How did the first public trial in Russia proceed, who acted as chairmen, defenders and defendants? What charges were brought against the participants in the “Nechaevtsev Trial”, what testimony was given by the defendants? How did one of the largest legal proceedings in Russia of the 19th century end?

The process, which began on July 1, 1871 at 11:40 a.m., continued intermittently for almost three months. There were about 300 people arrested in the case, 87 were put in the dock. The case was investigated publicly, reports, as decided on June 19, were published in the Government Bulletin, and then in other newspapers, such as Moskovskie Vedomosti, Golos ", "St. Petersburg Gazette".

According to the court report on the “Trial of the Nechaevites,” “the presence at the trial was: Chairman A.O. Lyubimov, members of the Chamber: Markevich, Messing, Medvedev, Shakhov, Bogaevsky; accused the prosecutor of the St. Petersburg Judicial Chamber V.A. Polovtsev. Secretary Golievich. Defenders of the defendants, sworn attorneys: Prince Urusov (Uspensky and Volkhovsky), Spasovich (Kuznetsova, Tkachev and Tomilova), Arsenyev (Pryzhova), Sokolovsky (Dementievoy), Turchaninov (Nikolaeva), Khalturi (Korinfsky) and Depp (Florinsky).

All defendants were divided into 11 groups with a corresponding number of indictments. The first included the main defendants in the “Nechaev case”:

“1) nobleman Pyotr Gavrilovich Uspensky, 2) merchant son Alexey Kirillovich Kuznetsov, 3) retired collegiate secretary Ivan Gavrilov Pryzhov, 4) Moscow tradesman Nikolai Nikolaev, 5) priestly son Vladimir Fedorov Orlov, 6) nobleman Felix Vadimov Volkhovsky, 7) candidate Peter Nikitin Tkachev is right, 8) St. Petersburg bourgeois Elizaveta Khristyanova Tomilova, 10) priestly son Ivan Ivanov Florinsky, 11) priestly son Mikhail Petrov of Corinth.”

After the list of defendants included in the first group was announced, A.O. Lyubimov began reading the indictment, according to which “Uspensky, Kuznetsov, Pryzhov, Nikolaev are accused of conspiring with Nechaev to overthrow the Government and murder Ivanov. Florinsky - that he took part in the conspiracy. Orlov, Volkhovsky, Tkachev and Korinfsky took part in the conspiracy and carried out preparatory actions for the overthrow. Tomilov - in helping Nechaev and Orlov make preparations for a state crime. Dementieva - that she printed and distributed appeals “to society.” (p.34-35)

As material evidence of the guilt of the defendants, the chairman presented the following documents seized during the preparation of the trial: the first edition of the magazine “Narodnaya Resprava” for 1869, “General Rules of the Organization”, “General Rules of the Network of Branches”, an appeal “To Society” written by Tkachev and Dementieva, the false mandate of the People's Retribution Committee with the signature of M. Bakunin, numerous proclamations of the "Organization", and, among other things, the "Catechism of a Revolutionary", which many of the defendants first became acquainted with only during the trial.

Further A.O. Lyubimov read a proclamation from the “People’s Retribution” organization, which contained similar premises: “We have only one negative, unchangeable plan for merciless destruction...” “Yes, we will not touch the tsar unless we are forced to do so prematurely by some insane measure or fact..." "...And now we will immediately begin to exterminate his Arakcheevs, that is, those monsters in shiny uniforms, spattered with people's blood...” It is not surprising that after reading this work, the prosecution came to the conclusion that “members of society do not recognize any other way to destroy an imaginary or real obstacle to achieving their goals than murder.”

The purpose of the “People’s Retribution” according to the indictment was as follows: “... it is clear that after long disputes with Nechaev about ways to change the state structure of Russia, the idea of ​​​​the need to begin to act exactly as Nechaev advised was finally strengthened in the minds of the members of the organization, those. strive to create an uprising among the people."

After the indictment was announced, the moment came for the defendants to testify. P.G. Uspensky, K. Kuznetsov, N.N. Nikolaev, I.G. Pryzhov gave very frank and similar testimony, confessed to being associated with Nechaev, to participating in a secret organization and to the murder of Ivanov. Others – D.P. Volkhovsky, I.I. Florinsky, admitted only what they were convicted of, but mostly remained evasive. However, all the defendants sought to prove to the court that each of them was a victim of Nechaev’s lies, who used them as tools to achieve his goals. Pryzhov generally stated that all this time he knew Nechaev “by the name of Petrov or Pavlov.” Kuznetsov admitted that he saw that things were heading towards revolution, but “he believed Nechaev and therefore agreed to participate in this matter because he did not doubt Nechaev’s assurances about the enormity of this matter, about its community and its nationality, about its close connection with The West, with the uprising of the working class."

In addition, according to the head of the secret agency of the III department, K.F. Philippeus, “almost all the defendants take the slightest opportunity to express their views on the existing order, on its abnormality, on the need for a different, better structure of society.” The Nechaevites spoke with heartache about the misfortunes of the people and their desire to help them, and A.D. Dementieva made a detailed speech on the “women’s issue,” pointing to the lack of rights of women as a factor that constantly arm them against the government. This speech at the trial of the Nechaevites went down in the history of the Russian liberation movement.” According to Volodin, Karjakin and Plimak, “even then the trial clearly did not justify the hopes placed on it from above, since it gradually turned into an accusation against the autocratic system itself.”

None of its members, except the organizer himself, learned about the true purpose of the secret revolutionary society until the trial. This can be judged from the testimony of Pryzhov, Kuznetsov, Piramidov: “What was the final goal of society... from the first conversation with Nechaev, I knew that his final goal was extremely radical. I asked him for details. But he did not speak, but pointed to the proclamations...” (I. Pryzhov); “Actually, the purpose of the organization’s circles was twofold: some members were supposed to recruit people, and others ... to act directly on the people. The question of what would happen after the uprising was not explained by Ivan Petrovich...” (A. Kuznetsov); “What was the purpose of society? It was nothing more, as it seemed to me, a desire to gather like-minded people in view of the supposed popular movement...” (N. Pyramidov).

As for the proclamations of the “People’s Retribution”, which members of the organization were supposed to distribute, then, according to Kuznetsov’s testimony, “Nechaev explained the meaning of the “People’s Retribution” in such a way that “the horrors of the people are set out in it so that those persons to whom it is intended , they allowed proclamations to be read in order to intimidate society.”

Next, it is necessary to consider the speeches of the main defenders of the defendants, Prince Ya.I. Urusova and V.D. Spasovich. It must be recalled that the defense acted in complete solidarity with the defendants, sympathized with them and tried in every possible way to justify the Nechaevites, or at least mitigate their sentence.

Thus, Urusov sought to prove to the court that “People’s Retribution” is a secret society, and not a conspiracy,” which is what it was called in the indictment, and that it was an unarmed society that did not have certain clearly defined goals.

Thus, the prince apparently wanted to soften the sentence of the Nechaevites, since “the conspirators, their leaders and accomplices are punished by death or hard labor. In secret societies, the main culprits are also punished with hard labor, but secondary and last figures are subject to much less severe punishment.” In addition, Urusov stated that “Nechaevism” must be considered “as a phenomenon that depends on the environment where it arose, bearing the character of the conditions under which it was formed. This environment can be called the Russian thinking proletariat... whose representatives we see here in the dock of this category... All of these people, except Pryzhov, are extremely young; one of them has not reached that usual degree of maturity, which in other countries would give ... the right to participate in political affairs." Thus, the defense attorney tried to prove that one cannot judge harshly people who do not have much life experience who, due to their youth and ardor, tried to get involved in political affairs.

Spasovich talked more about the personality of Nechaev than about the Nechaevites. He stated that

“In general, we can say that if Nechaev is cut out according to the type of one of the heroes of Goncharov’s novel “The Precipice” - Mark Volkhov, then in addition, there is still a lot of Khlestakov in him. Lies appeared in Nechaev, in all likelihood, because his plan of action included lies as a means to achieve a certain goal.” Spasovich’s point of view coincides with the opinion of the newspaper “St. Petersburg Vedomosti”, in one of the issues of which Nechaev was also compared with Khlestakov. As examples of Nechaev’s lies, the defense attorney cites the myth of his arrest in January 1869, lies to Bakunin and Ogarev about his martyrdoms in Russia, and the concealment of the “Catechism of a Revolutionary” from all members of the “People’s Retribution.” Regarding the “Catechism,” Spasovich believed that this “is an emigration work that made a certain impression on Nechaev and was accepted by him in many parts as a guide.” Thus, the defense attorney sought to justify the defendants by proving that they were all cleverly deceived by Nechaev and used by him for his own selfish purposes.

The open trial of the participants in the revolutionary conspiracy naturally aroused unprecedented interest. As for the public who attended the trial of the Nechaevites, among them, according to Phillipeus, “student youth predominated (to an enormous extent). She filled the entire hall so quickly and unanimously that a fair portion of society, coming to court for hearings, found all the seats already occupied by the same public...” The public clearly sympathized with the defendants, since the latter came from the same student society as her.

These were the conditions under which the Nechaevites were tried. Actually, all the “benefits” for the defendants boiled down to compliance with the law. According to N.A. Troitsky, “this is precisely what distinguished the Nechaev trial from both previous and subsequent trials in tsarist Russia. The same must be said about glasnost.”

The case of the Nechaevites ended on August 27, 1871. As for the verdict, taking into account both the arguments of the defense and the explanations of the defendants, taking into account that Nechaev recruited the conspirators fraudulently, the court acquitted more than half of the 78 defendants - 42 people. However, for the remaining 36, and especially for the first group, the sentence was quite harsh: “Uspensky - 15 years of hard labor in the mines, Kuznetsov - 10 years of hard labor in the fortresses, Pryzhov - 12 years of hard labor in the fortresses, and Nikolaev - 7 years in the fortresses and 4 months, then settled in Siberia forever... Florinsky - in prison for 6 months, then under police supervision for 5 years... Tkachev - 1 year and 4 months in prison, Dementieva - 4 months. Release Tomilova, Orlov, Volkhovsky and Korinfsky.”

It is not surprising that the verdict caused great disappointment among the public, who closely watched the progress of the trial for all 3 months and sincerely sympathized with all the Nechaevites. In addition to the public, reactionary leaders were also angry at the verdict. However, according to N.A. Troitsky, “the authorities were disappointed not only with the verdict, but also with the entire course of the trial, especially with the collapse of the expectation of humiliating the defendants.” Contrary to the hopes of the authorities, the case of the Nechaevites aroused a lot of sympathy among the public, especially among young people. The government, obviously, organized such a large and high-profile political trial with the obvious hope of discrediting its opponents before public opinion. Moreover, the tsarist government hoped to compromise not only the accused at the Nechaev trial, but also the international revolutionary movement, especially the International, in the name of which Nechaev covered himself.

Having publicly revealed the fundamental difference between the ideals of the Nechaevites and the methods of “Nechaevism,” the process, thus, according to Troitsky, “did not drown the revolutionaries in Nechaevsky mud - on the contrary, it washed away this dirt from them.”

Another advantage of the Nechaev trial was that after it, which did not live up to its expectations, the government began to withdraw political cases from ordinary criminal jurisdiction, and then on June 7, 1872, judicial counter-reform began in Russia.

As for Nechaev himself, he, according to V. Zasulich, “during the arrests managed to escape and fled abroad.” So on December 17, 1896, Nechaev arrived in Switzerland. From that time on, by order of the Russian emperor, a real pursuit abroad was established for the revolutionary. According to A. Gambarov, “no one, not even the most dangerous revolutionary, was looked for by the tsarist police as much as they were looking for Nechaev.”

After a series of failures, the gendarmes resorted to a trick and bribed the Polish emigrant Adolf Stempkovsky, who knew Nechaev, to hand over the revolutionary to the police.

Judging by the report on Nechaev’s arrest, “On August 14, 1872, agents of the III Division finally managed to detain S.G. Nechaev in Zurich. Adolf Stempkovsky...made an appointment with the latter that day in a restaurant...Arriving at the restaurant, Nechaev was immediately arrested...and extradited as a “criminal” to Russia.”

The court sentenced Nechaev to hard labor in the mines for 20 years, after which he was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where he died in the Alekseevskaya ravelin at the end of 1882, never being released again. Thus ended the fate of the Russian revolutionary.

From all of the above, we can conclude that the “Trial of the Nechaevites” was the most high-profile trial in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. It differed from all previous trials in the length of preparation, publicity and openness, the number of participants, their desire not to prove their own innocence, but in During the speeches, try to expose all the vices of the government and the top government of that time, point out the most pressing problems and injustices of life, and call the people to action. This process did not live up to the expectations of the government, which wanted to compromise the revolutionary movement both in Russia and abroad. The Nechaevites managed to win over the public, highlight the most pressing problems in their testimony, and shake the inviolability of the autocracy. They completely achieved their original goal and influenced the people.

Fitting © 2024 CatMania - Information portal