Members of the Russian patriotic organizations of 1905-17 were called Black Hundreds, who adhered to the positions of monarchism, anti-Semitism, and these organizations used terror against the rebels. The Black Hundred parties participated in the dispersal of rallies, demonstrations, meetings. Organizations supported the government, carried out Jewish pogroms.

Understanding this movement at first glance is quite difficult. The Black Hundred parties included representatives of organizations that did not always act jointly. However, if we dwell on the most important thing, we can see that the Black Hundreds had common ideas and directions of development. Let us briefly present the main Black Hundred parties in Russia and their leaders.

Major organizations and leaders

"Russian Assembly", created in can be considered the first monarchist organization in our country. We will not take into account its predecessor, the "Russian squad" (this underground organization did not last long). However, the main force behind the Black Hundreds movement was the Union of the Russian People, which arose in 1905.

It was headed by Dubrovin. Purishkevich in 1908 disagreed with him and left the RNC. He created his own organization, the Archangel Michael Union. In 1912, the RNC experienced a second split. The confrontation this time arose between Markov and Dubrovin. Dubrovin has now left the Union. He formed the far-right Dubrovinsky Union of the Russian People. Thus, 3 leaders of the monarchists came to the fore: Markov (SRN), Purishkevich (SMA) and Dubrovin (VDSRN).

The main Black Hundred parties are those listed above. You can also note the "Russian Monarchist Union". However, the representatives of this party were the Orthodox clergy and nobles, so this association was small and not of significant interest. In addition, after a while the party split. Part of the organization went to Purishkevich.

The origin of the word "Black Hundreds"

The word "Black Hundreds" comes from the old Russian word meaning the townsman taxable population, divided into military-administrative units (hundreds). Representatives of the movement we are interested in were members of Russian monarchist, right-wing Christian and anti-Semitic organizations. "Black Hundred" is a term that has become widely used to refer to far-right anti-Semites and politicians. Representatives of this movement put forward in opposition to the democratic one-man, absolute power. They believed that Russia had 3 enemies that needed to be fought. This is a dissident, an intellectual and a foreigner.

Black Hundreds and teetotalism

Partially, the Black Hundred Party was formed out of the fight against drunkenness. These organizations have never denied teetotalling. At the same time, it was believed that the consumption of beer in moderation is an alternative to vodka poisoning. Part of the cells of the Black Hundreds was even framed in the form of sobriety societies, reading for the people, tea and even beer societies.

The Black Hundreds and the Peasantry

The Black Hundreds are a party whose program of action was not properly developed, with the exception of the call to beat Jews, intellectuals, liberals and revolutionaries. Therefore, the peasantry, which had practically no contact with these categories, remained almost unaffected by these organizations.

Pogroms of the intelligentsia and Jews

The Black Hundred parties made their main bet on inciting ethnic and national hatred. The result of this was the pogroms that swept across Russia. It must be said that the pogroms began even before the deployment of the Black Hundreds movement. The intelligentsia by no means always avoided the blow that was aimed at the "enemies of Russia." Its representatives could easily be beaten and even killed on the streets, often along with the Jews. It did not even save that a significant part of the organizers of the Black Hundreds movement consisted of conservative intellectuals.

Not all pogroms, contrary to popular opinion, were prepared precisely by the Black Hundred parties. In 1905-07, these organizations were still rather small in number. However, the Black Hundreds were very active in areas where the population was mixed (in Belarus, Ukraine and in 15 provinces of the so-called "Pale of Jewish Settlement"). More than half of all representatives of the Union of the Russian People, as well as other similar organizations, were in these regions. The wave of pogroms, as the activities of the Black Hundreds developed, began to subside rather quickly. Many prominent figures in these parties have pointed this out.

Funding organizations, publishing newspapers

Government subsidies were an important source of funding for the Black Hundreds' unions. Funds were allocated from the funds of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in order to control the policy of these associations. At the same time, the Black Hundred parties also collected donations from private individuals.

At various times, these organizations published the newspapers Pochaevskiy Listok, Russkoe Znamya, Groza, Kolokol, and Veche. The Black Hundred parties of the early 20th century also promoted their ideas in such major newspapers as Kievlyanin, Moskovskiye Vedomosti, Svet, and Grazhdanin.

Congress in Moscow

The organizations held a congress in Moscow in October 1906. It elected the Main Council and united all the Black Hundreds, creating the "United Russian People". However, their merger did not actually happen. The organization ceased to exist a year later.

It must be said that the constructive ideas of the Black Hundreds (both the topics discussed by the press and the programs of organizations) suggested the creation of a conservative society. There has been considerable controversy over the need for parliamentarism and representative institutions in general. The Black Hundreds are a party whose program was outlined only in general terms. Therefore, and also for a number of other reasons, these organizations turned out to be unviable.

Black Hundred parties: program

The theory of "official nationality" was at the heart of the program of these organizations. She was nominated by S.S. Uvarov, Minister of Education, back in the 1st half of the 19th century. This theory was based on the formula "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality." Autocracy and Orthodoxy were presented as primordially Russian principles. The last element of the formula, "nationality", was understood as the adherence of the people to the first two. The Black Hundred parties and organizations adhered to unlimited autocracy in matters of the internal structure of the country. Even the State Duma, which appeared during the revolution of 1905-07, they considered an advisory body under the tsar. They perceived the implementation of reforms in the country as a hopeless and impossible undertaking. At the same time, the programs of these organizations (for example, the RNC) declared freedom of the press, speech, religion, unions, meetings, personal immunity, etc.

As for the agrarian program, it was uncompromising. The Black Hundreds did not want to make concessions. They were not satisfied with the option of partial confiscation of the lands of the landlords. They proposed selling vacant land owned by the state to the peasants, as well as developing credit and lease systems.

The murder of the cadets

The Black Hundred parties of the early 20th century during the revolution (1905-07) mostly supported the policy pursued by the government. They killed two members of the Central Committee of the Kadet Party - G.B. Iollos and M.Ya. Herzenstein. Both of them were their political opponents: they were liberals, Jews and former deputies of the State Duma. The Black Hundreds were particularly angry with Professor Gertsenstein, who spoke out on the agrarian question. He was killed on July 18, 1906 in Terioki. Members of the "Union of the Russian people" were convicted in this case. These are A. Polovnev, N. Yuskevich-Kraskovskiy, E. Larichkin and S. Alexandrov. The first three were sentenced for complicity and given 6 years each, and Aleksandrov received 6 months for not informing about the impending crime. Alexander Kazantsev, the perpetrator of this murder, was himself killed by that time, so he did not appear before the court.

The Black Hundreds lose influence

The Black Hundreds are a party that, after the revolution, failed to become a single political force, despite some successes. Its representatives could not find a sufficient number of allies in the multistructural, multiethnic Russian society. But the members of this movement turned against themselves the radical left parties and liberal centrist circles, which were influential at that time. Even some of the potential allies represented by supporters of imperial nationalism also rebelled against them.

Frightened by the episodic violence and radical rhetoric of the Black Hundreds, the sovereigns who were in power saw ethnic nationalism as almost the main threat to the state. They were able to convince Nicholas II, who sympathized with the "allies", as well as the court circles of the need to turn away from this movement. This further weakened the Black Hundreds in the political arena on the eve of the events of 1917. The First World War also contributed to the weakening of this movement. Many activists and ordinary members of the Black Hundred organizations volunteered for it. The movement we are interested in did not play a significant role in the revolution of 1917. The Black Hundreds are a party whose remnants were mercilessly destroyed after the victory of the Bolsheviks, who saw nationalism as a threat to the Soviet system.

Prohibition of organizations and the fate of their members

The Black Hundred organizations were banned after the February Revolution. They remained only partially underground. Many prominent leaders during the Civil War joined the white movement. Once in exile, they criticized the activities of Russian emigrants. Some prominent representatives of this movement eventually joined the nationalist organizations.

The truth of the "Black Hundred" Kozhinov Vadim Valerianovich

Chapter 1 Who are the "Black Hundreds"?

Who are the "Black Hundreds"?

As already mentioned, the capital letter in the word "Revolution" is used to emphasize that we are not talking about any revolutionary explosion (December 1905, February 1917, etc.), but about the whole grandiose cataclysm, that shook Russia in the 20th century. The word "Black Hundreds" also has a broad meaning. Often, instead of him, they prefer to talk about "members of the Union of the Russian people", but at the same time it comes down to only one (albeit the largest) patriotic and anti-revolutionary organization that existed from November 8, 1905 until the February 1917 coup. Meanwhile, "Black Hundreds" with good reason called and are called many and very different figures and ideologists who spoke much earlier than the creation of the Union of the Russian People, and also were not part of this Union after its inception and were not even members of any organizations and associations at all. Therefore, the word "Black Hundreds", despite its odious, that is, having an extremely "negative" and, moreover, hateful meaning, is nevertheless most appropriate in the study of the phenomenon to which this chapter of my work is devoted.

Yes, the word "Black Hundreds" (derived from "Black Hundred") appears as an openly abusive nickname. True, in the latest "Dictionary of the Russian Language" (1984) an attempt was made to give a more or less objective interpretation of this word (I quote it in its entirety): "Black Hundreds, - itza. Member, member of the pogrom-monarchist organizations in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, whose activities were aimed at combating the revolutionary movement.

It is useful to understand this definition. The strange double epithet "pogromist-monarchical" is clearly intended to preserve in the interpretation of this word abusive (such is the very word "pogromist") flavor. It would be more correct to say "extremely" or "extremist monarchist" (that is, not recognizing any restrictions on monarchical power); the definition of "pogrom" is inappropriate here, if only because some obviously "Black Hundred" organizations - for example, the Russian Assembly (in contrast to the same Union of the Russian People) - no one has ever associated with any violent - that is, those that can be attributed to "Pogrom" - shares.

Secondly, in the given dictionary definition, it is unlawful to restrict the concept of "monarchism"; it was necessary to say about the "organizations" that defended the traditional tripartite, triune principle - Orthodoxy, monarchy (autocracy) and nationality (that is, original relations and forms of Russian life). It was in the name of this triad that the "Black Hundreds" waged an irreconcilable, uncompromising struggle against the Revolution, moreover, much more consistently than many of the then officials of the monarchical state, whom the "Black Hundreds" constantly and sharply criticized for reconciliation or even direct adaptation to the revolutionary - or at least to purely liberal tendencies. More than once, “Black Hundred” criticism even turned to the monarch himself, and to the head of the Orthodox Church, and to the greatest creators of national culture (most of all, to Tolstoy, although at one time it was he who created War and Peace, one of the most magnificent and full-blooded incarnations of what is denoted by the word "nationality").

Further, the analyzed dictionary definition did not quite clearly outline those, so to speak, the boundaries in which the "Black Hundreds" existed; refers to both "members" and also "participants" of the respective organizations. This shows the desire to somehow distinguish between the direct, immediate "functionaries" of these organizations and, on the other hand, "sympathizing" with them, to some extent sharing their aspirations of figures - that is, rather "accomplices" than "participants". Thus, for example, the authors and editorial staff of the famous newspaper Novoye Vremya (unlike, say, the editorial staff of the newspapers Moskovskiye Vedomosti or Russkoe Znamya) were not members of any "Black Hundred" organizations and even quite often and sometimes very they were resolutely criticized, but nevertheless, the “Novovremenists” were still quite thoroughly ranked and are ranked among the camp of the “Black Hundreds”.

Finally, the dictionary definition refers to the “Black Hundreds” only the figures of the “beginning of the 20th century”; meanwhile, this designation is often - and again with good reason - applied to many figures of the previous, nineteenth century, although they are called so, of course, in hindsight. But be that as it may, starting at least from the 1860s, ideologists appeared on the public stage who were clearly the direct predecessors of those "Black Hundreds" who operated in the 1900s-1910s. In fact, the beliefs of those who belonged to senior generations of the most prominent figures of the "Black Hundreds" organizations - such, for example, as D. I. Ilovaisky (1832–1920), K. F. Golovin (1843–1913), S. F. Sharapov (1850–1911), V. A. Gringmuth (1851–1907), L. A. Tikhomirov (1852–1923), A. I. Sobolevsky (1856–1929) - were fully developed even before the beginning of the 20th century.

Thus, the general contours of the phenomenon known as the "Black Hundreds" have been outlined. However, one cannot remain silent about the fact that this word - or, more precisely, a nickname - has been most actively used for the past few years in relation to one or another modern, today's figures and ideologists. But this is already a completely separate question, which can be discussed only after understanding the real nature of the pre-revolutionary "Black Hundreds".

As stated, the word "Black Hundreds" - as well as the phrase "Black Hundred", from which it is derived - was used and is used, in fact, as a swearing nickname, a kind of curse (although in the latest dictionaries you can find examples of a more "calm" interpretation). Back in 1907, the famous Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus-Efron (2nd additional volume) “laid the foundations” of precisely such word usage (italics in the quoted text, and also in the future, except for specially stipulated cases, mine. - VC.):

“Black Hundred is a current name that has recently been applied to scumbags population ... The Black Hundreds under various names appeared on the historical stage (for example, in Italy - the Camorra and mafia)… At cultural forms of political life, the Black Hundreds usually disappear ... "And further:" ... the Black Hundreds themselves willingly accepted this nickname, it becomes the recognized name of all elements belonging to the extreme right parties and opposing themselves " Red Hundreds". In No. 141 of Moskovskie Vedomosti for 1906, the “Manual of the Black Hundreds Monarchist” was placed ... The brochure by A. A. Maykov “Revolutionaries and Black Hundreds” (St. Petersburg, 1907) has the same character ... "

In this dictionary entry, by the way, another, not abusive, definition of “Black Hundreds” is given: we are talking about “elements”, that is, simply speaking, about people (the author of the dictionary entry, as if he did not want to call them “people”), “ belonging to extreme right parties”; the expression "extreme right" could be replaced by a more "scientific" one - "extremely conservative" or, in the end, "reactionary" (however, this word has long become "abusive" in Russia). But the dictionary has a clear preference for the designation "Black Hundreds", deftly referring to the fact that "the Black Hundreds themselves willingly accepted this nickname" - as if they were ready to take on such definitions contained in the dictionary entry as "scum" and " mafia”, as well as the accusation of complete incompatibility with culture (after all, according to the dictionary, “under the cultural forms of political life, the Black Hundreds disappear”), etc.

In itself, the fact that the "Black Hundreds" did not object to the "nickname" imposed on them is not so surprising. More than once in history the name of a movement has been adopted from hostile or even alien lips; for example, Khomyakov, Kireevsky, Aksakov, Samarin did not deny the name "Slavophiles", which was used in relation to them as a deliberately ironic, mocking (albeit not charged with such ardent hatred as the "Black Hundreds") nicknames.

At the same time, the ideologists of the "Black Hundreds" knew well the real history of the word that became their "nickname" - a history traced, for example, in the classic lecture course by V. O. Klyuchevsky "Terminology of Russian History", a lithographic edition of which appeared back in 1885. The phrase "black hundred" entered the Russian chronicles starting from the 12th century (!) and played a primary role until the Petrine era. In medieval Russia, V. O. Klyuchevsky showed, “society was divided into two categories of people - these are “service people” and “blacks”. Black people ... were also called zemstvo ... They were townspeople ... and villagers - free peasants. And “black hundreds are ranks or local societies” formed from “black”, “zemstvo” people” (1) .

So, the “black hundreds” are associations of “zemstvo” people, people of the earth, in contrast to the “servicemen”, whose life was inextricably linked with the institutions of the state. And, calling their organizations "black hundreds", the ideologists of the early 20th century sought to revive the ancient, purely "democratic" order of things: in a difficult time for the country, the unification of "zemstvo people" - "black hundreds" - are called upon to save its main foundations.

The founder of the organized "Black Hundreds" V. A. Gringmuth (he will be discussed later) in his already mentioned "Manual of the Monarchist Black Hundreds" (1906) wrote:

“The enemies of the autocracy called the “black hundred” the simple, black Russian people, who, during the armed revolt of 1905, came to the defense of the autocratic Tsar. Is it an honorary title, "black hundred"? Yes, very honorable. The Nizhny Novgorod Black Hundred, gathered around Minin, saved Moscow and all of Russia from the Poles and Russian traitors ”(2) .

From this it is clear, in particular, that the ideologists of the "Black Hundreds" adopted this "nickname" and even cherished it because of its deeply popular meaning and meaning imbued with genuine democracy. To some, the last statement may seem purely paradoxical, because it was precisely the irreconcilable enemies, the antipodes of the "Black Hundreds", who declared themselves the only real "democrats". But here is a very curious confession of an ideologist who cannot in any way be suspected of striving to “whitewash” the extreme opponents of the Revolution: “There is one extremely important feature in our Black Hundreds, to which not enough attention has been paid. This is dark muzhik democracy, the crudest, but also the deepest” (3). So wrote in 1913, not just anyone, but V. I. Lenin. Moreover, the definition of “dark” given by him must be correctly understood. We are talking, no doubt, about those sections of the people who have not yet been touched by the "light", "enlightenment" emanating from the pages of revolutionary newspapers and from the lips of militant rally agitators. But in our time it is already easy, I think, to understand that the absence of such "enlightenment" provided no small advantages. For people who were not “enlightened” in this regard understood more deeply and more clearly, or at least felt what the destruction of the basic foundations of Russian life would lead to - that is, Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. We felt and tried to resist the destructive work...

In a word, V. I. Lenin was absolutely right when he spoke of the “most profound democratism” inherent in the “Black Hundreds”. And at the same time, Lenin's definition of "muzhik" is false. The "Black Hundreds" differed from all other political currents in its, if you like, "nationwide", it took shape over the boundaries of classes and estates. From the very beginning, both the noblest princes of the Rurikovichs (for example, the great-grandson of the Decembrist M.N. Volkonsky and D.N. Dolgorukov), and the workers of the Putilov factory (1500 of them were members of the Union of the Russian People) (4), the most prominent figures cultures (which will be discussed later) and “illiterate” peasants, enterprising merchants and hierarchs of the Church, etc. This “all-estate” in the situation of the most acute “class struggle” characteristic of the beginning of the 20th century already attracts interested attention in itself.

Here it is appropriate to recall that we are talking about mysterious pages of history. And isn’t the fact itself mysterious that so many of today’s popular authors and orators, who strive to expose and curse the Revolution as “selflessly” as possible, at the same time are clearly still greater they furiously curse the “Black Hundreds”, who from the very beginning of the Revolution with remarkable, it must be said, accuracy foresaw its monstrous consequences and were, in essence, the only public (that is, not directly belonging to state institutions) force that really sought (albeit in vain) to stop the course of the Revolution? ...

This is a rather complex "mystery" that I will try to clear up throughout this essay, but it is important that readers constantly keep it in mind.

It is also worth paying attention to the fact that the purely abusive use of the word “Black Hundreds” (and, of course, “Black Hundred”) is greatly facilitated by the newest semantic content of the epithet “black”, which is present in it in addition to its direct meaning - that is, the meaning of a certain color. We have seen that at one time "black" was synonymous with the word "zemstvo". The army of Dmitry Donskoy, according to the "Legend of the Mamaev Battle", fought on the Kulikovo field under black banner, and this, perhaps, meant that not only “servicemen”, but also “zemstvo” people were participating in the battle - that is, the entire Russian Land. Let me also remind you that monks were called “chernets” (to this day, the phrase “black clergy” - that is, monasticism) is still used. Thus, the word "black" was quite ambiguous. However, in recent times, semantic shades have begun to dominate in it, speaking of something purely “gloomy”, “hostile” or even “satanic” ... And these overtones of the meaning of the word “black” are used, emphasized by the intonation when pronouncing the word “Black Hundreds”, so that it is really not easy to “whitewash” (this pun involuntarily suggests itself) the phenomenon he designates. And yet we will try to understand who the “Black Hundreds” really were?

It is advisable to start with the necessary foundation on which any social movement is created - the problems culture(philosophical, scientific, political culture, etc.). Of course, there are social movements based on a very or even extremely poor, undeveloped and narrow cultural foundation, but one way or another it is still necessarily there.

The idea of ​​the "Black Hundreds" is dominated by an assessment of their cultural level as the ultimate low; they are portrayed as a sort of "black-dark" subjects, living on a set of primitive dogmas and stereotyped slogans. This is how, for example, the constantly mentioned - usually with a purely ironic intonation - the fundamental triad for the Black Hundreds is interpreted: "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality."

Of course, in the minds of some or other ordinary people, this triple idea - as, indeed, any idea in general - existed as a flat slogan that did not have a significant meaning. But it is hardly possible to seriously dispute the assertion that in the spiritual works of Ivan Kireevsky, Khomyakov, Tyutchev, Gogol, Yuri Samarin, Konstantin and Ivan Aksakov, Dostoevsky, Konstantin Leontiev, the centuries-old realities of the Russian Church, the Russian Tsardom and the Russian People themselves appear as phenomena filled with the richest and the deepest historical content, which in terms of its cultural and spiritual value is in no way inferior to, say, the historical content embodied in Western European self-consciousness.

Despite this, both in the West and in Russia, of course, there were and are numerous ideologists who are trying in every possible way to belittle the content of the Russian historical path that has developed over the centuries, declaring it something obviously and much less significant than the content imprinted in Western European self-consciousness. . However, such attempts, I repeat, are simply not serious.

In particular, they turn out to be in a truly absurd contradiction with the obvious fact that the heritage of the Russian writers and thinkers just listed has long been highly valued in the West - sometimes (even if it sounds somehow shameful for Russian people ...) more highly, than in Russia itself. And attempts to devalue the understanding of the triple idea “Orthodoxy-autocracy-nationality”, expressed in their heritage, testify either to the wretchedness of those who make such attempts, or to their unscrupulous tendentiousness (by the way, to discredit the “triple idea”, the following technique is used: here, they say , Dostoevsky is indeed an incomparable genius, but he had a strange Achilles heel: faith in the Church, the Tsar and the People).

It is impossible not to notice that the most "intelligent" opponents of the tripartite idea acted and are acting differently. They give high or even the highest honors to the Russian thinkers of the 19th century, especially those of the pre-reform period, who were inspired by this idea, but they argue that, they say, by the 20th century this idea “decayed” or “degenerated” and began to turn into a vulgar dogma.

Vladimir Solovyov, who, by the way, began his journey precisely among the faithful Slavophiles and their heirs, in close connection with Ivan Aksakov, Dostoevsky, Leontiev, by the middle of the 1880s very sharply changed his positions and criticized more and more uncompromisingly (often surprisingly lightly) of his recent associates. In 1889, he published a lengthy article with an expressive title: "Slavophilism and its degeneration." Here, while appreciating rather highly the Slavophils of the 1840s and 1850s, he almost completely rejects the successors of Slavophilism contemporary to him.

Further, the leader of liberalism, P. N. Milyukov, in 1893 (that is, also before the appearance of the “Black Hundreds” in the literal sense of the word) appeared with the article “The Decomposition of Slavophilism”; regardless of the intentions of the author, this name also implied that at one time "Slavophilism" was something significant, but by 1893 it had "decomposed" and, therefore, lost its former meaning.

In 1911, the cultural historian M. O. Gershenzon prepared the works of Ivan Kireevsky for publication and, declaring him in his preface one of the deepest universal thinkers of the 19th century, at the same time complained that some of his ideas had by now turned into something insignificant and outrageous.

Of course, in the three quarters of a century that have elapsed since the emergence of Slavophilism and before this Gershenzonian “accusation”, much has changed in Russian self-consciousness. However, this was due not at all to some kind of “degeneration” of the idea, but to a most significant change in historical reality itself: it was impossible to think in Russia and about Russia in the 1900s–1910s in exactly the same way as in the 1840s–1850s…

For a more complete identification of the problem, I will note, looking ahead, that in our time, in the 1990s, the “process” I have outlined continues to develop, and those ideologists who reject the current successors of Slavophilism from the threshold, quite respectfully treat not only the “classical” to the Slavophils of the first half of the 19th century, but also to their heirs such as Leontiev or Nikolai Strakhov, and often later ones like Rozanov or Florensky. But these ideologists still completely "deny" any contemporary continuation of Slavophilism (in the broad sense of the word). However, we will return to this topic later.

Let us now turn directly to the "Black Hundreds" of the early 20th century. Even from the above considerations, it is clear that even the most resolute opponents of the “Black Hundreds” somehow recognized its direct connection with the long and significant previous development of Russian thought, arguing, it is true, that by the 20th century this thought had “decomposed” and “degenerated”. “Degenerated” to such an extent that, as it were, it lost its cultural status altogether. And the idea clearly prevails that the “Black Hundreds” of the early 20th century have nothing to do with true culture with its inherent height, wealth, diversity and refinement; culture, they say, is absolutely incompatible with the "Black Hundreds".

This idea has become so firmly established in the minds of the overwhelming majority of people that when they seriously get to know the real representatives of the "Black Hundreds", they experience a feeling of real amazement. So, for example, the modern archivist S. V. Shumikhin, who prepared a number of interesting publications, was, by his own admission, "amazed" when he happened to get acquainted with the legacy and personality of one of the most prominent "Black Hundred" figures of the beginning of the century - a member of the Chief Council of the Union of the Russian People B. V. Nikolsky (1870–1919). It was the archivist who "happened" to find out about this man, since he studied the valuable heritage of the half-forgotten poet, prose writer and literary critic Boris Sadovsky (who, however, as it turned out, was also a "Black Hundred" - though not by belonging to any organizations, but by internal convictions), but, having discovered a number of letters from B.V. Nikolsky in Sadovsky’s archive, S.V. Shumikhin involuntarily became interested in this close associate of his idol. And this is the impression this man made on the archivist (some words are highlighted in the text by me):

“First of all, in this outstanding personality strikes what ideas seeming US(It would be worth clarifying who these very “we” are? - VC.) in historical retrospect incompatible, combined in Nikolskoe completely organically, without a shadow of any mental discomfort. On the one hand, he was a multi-talented person: an admirer and deep researcher of Fet's work ... the largest specialist in the work of Gaius Valery Catullus; Pushkinist, poet, critic, marked by an undoubted talent; in addition - one of the best speakers of his time ... On the other hand, we have before us an active member of the "Union of the Russian People" (the archivist obviously did not dare to say: "one of the main leaders." - VC.) and no less odious (just about! - VC.) of the “Russian Assembly”… an orthodox monarchist” (5), etc. (so, being a monarchist is a crime in itself…).

To this one could add that B. V. Nikolsky was a major jurist who deeply studied Roman and modern law, that he collected one of the largest and most valuable private libraries of that time, for which he had to rent a whole separate apartment, which ... however, it's hard to list everything here. I will only mention the following fact. In 1900, Alexander Blok brought his youthful, but already wonderful poems to the journal Mir Bozhiy, which seemed to have a wide program, where N. A. Berdyaev and F. D. Batyushkov, I. A. Bunin and V. I. Lenin ... But, having become acquainted with the poems, the purely liberal editor of the magazine V.P. Ostrogorsky told Blok: “Shame on you, young man, to study this when God knows what is happening at the university” (6) (it was about the then struggle of students for “freedom.” - VC.).

The next time, Blok gave his poems to B.V. Nikolsky, and he (and he was already one of the most active figures in the “Black Hundred” Russian Assembly at that time), impartially criticizing the young poet for “decadentism”, nevertheless sent his talented poems to print. This episode throws light on the level of aesthetic culture of the liberal and the Black Hundreds.

In his 1915 autobiography, Blok recalled with satisfaction that after his failure with Ostrogorsky, he “did not go anywhere for a long time, until in 1902 I was sent to B. Nikolsky” (ibid.).

It should be emphasized that the perception by the modern archivist S. V. Shumikhin of the heritage of a prominent cultural figure and at the same time the most active "Black Hundreds" B. V. Nikolsky is only one expressive "example" that helps to clarify the problem. It would be completely wrong to understand my reasoning as a kind of reproach, or at least a controversy addressed specifically to S. V. Shumikhin. I repeat once again that the vast majority of today's readers, faced with the "phenomenon" of B. V. Nikolsky, would perceive him in exactly the same way as the named archivist, because the majority is enslaved by the myth of the "Black Hundreds". In a word, S. V. Shumikhin is just a typical modern reader (and researcher) on a rendezvous, on a date with the "Black Hundreds".

And this reader is convinced that the personality of B. V. Nikolsky, a member of the Main Council of the Union of the Russian People, decisively contradicts the completely dominant idea of ​​the “Black Hundreds”. However, perhaps this is only some exceptional case that so struck the modern observer? And the highly cultured B.V. Nikolsky - a kind of white crow in the "Black Hundreds", who ended up in its ranks for some ridiculous reason? The archivist - although he is actually a knowledgeable, knowledgeable person - perceives B.V. Nikolsky in this way (this is clearly seen from his statements). The idea of ​​the “Black Hundreds” hammered into his mind truly fatally obscures his eyes, prevents him from seeing the real state of affairs, which, in essence, just the opposite"common" view.

Outstanding figures of culture (as well as those of the Church and the state) quite rarely entered into a direct, immediate connection with any political movements. Nevertheless, a comrade (that is, a deputy - the second most important person) of the chairman of the Main Council of the Union of the Russian People was one of the two most prominent philologists of the late XIX - early XX century, Academician A.I. Sobolevsky (the second of these two philologists, Academician A.I. A. Shakhmatov, on the contrary, was a member of the Central Committee of the Cadet Party). Aleksey Ivanovich Sobolevsky (1856-1929) had the highest worldwide recognition, and after 1917, when many active "Black Hundreds" were - moreover, as a rule, without any investigation or trial - were shot (including B.V. . Nikolsky), they did not dare to touch him, and his classical works were published in the USSR even after his death.

The most active (although not agreeing to hold leadership positions) member of the “Black Hundreds” organizations was the Bishop, ace of 1917, Metropolitan Anthony (in the world - Alexei Pavlovich Khrapovitsky; 1863-1934). In his youth, he was close to Dostoevsky and was - which, of course, says a lot about him - the prototype of the image of Alyosha Karamazov. The four-volume collection of his works, published in 1909-1917, appears as the embodiment of the heights of the theological thought of the 20th century, which is convincingly stated in the fundamental treatise of Fr. Georgy Florovsky's Ways of Russian Theology, published here in 1991 (see pp. 427–438 and especially p. 565, where G. V. Florovsky shows how much deeper and higher understanding of the essence of the Church in the writings of Metropolitan Anthony was than in writings on this subject, belonging to the famous V. S. Solovyov). By the way, Bishop Anthony constantly communicated and corresponded with the aforementioned B.V. Nikolsky.

At the All-Russian Local Council in November 1917, Archbishop Anthony was one of the two main candidates for the post of Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia; Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow (V. I. Belavin) received only 12 votes more than Anthony when he was elected Patriarch (the ratio of votes was 162:150). But Tikhon, now (in 1990) canonized by the Church as a saint, was apparently more ready for the difficult moral feat that he accomplished as Patriarch in 1917-1925 (Antony emigrated and became head of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad).

And it is impossible not to recall that the future Patriarch Tikhon, holding the post of Archbishop of Yaroslavl and Rostov in 1907-1913, at the same time quite officially led the provincial department of the Union of the Russian People (Antony, as already mentioned, did not agree to occupy a leading position in the "Black Hundred" organizations, although he was very actively involved in their activities).

The ascetic tragic fate of St. Tikhon is quite widely known today, but during his glorification, the fact that he was the most prominent “Black Hundred” is hushed up, just like the luminous archpriest John of Kronstadt, who was canonized at the same time with him. V. I. Lenin was absolutely correct when, during his fierce struggle with Patriarch Tikhon and his associates, he constantly called them "the Black Hundred clergy."

As already mentioned, many prominent figures of the Church, state and culture of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century did not consider it possible or necessary to directly associate themselves with the "Black Hundred" organizations. Nevertheless, in the lists of members of the main of these organizations published at the beginning of the 20th century - such as the Russian Assembly, the Union of Russian People, the Russian Monarchist Party, the Union of the Russian People, the Russian People's Union named after Michael the Archangel - we find many names of the most prominent cultural figures of that time (moreover, some of them even occupied a leading position in these organizations).

Here are at least a few of these names (all of them, by the way, are presented in any modern encyclopedic dictionary): one of the most authoritative philologists, academician K. Ya. Grot, an outstanding historian, academician N. P. Likhachev, a wonderful musician, creator of the first orchestra in Russia folk instruments V. V. Andreev, one of the greatest physicians Professor S. S. Botkin, the great actress M. G. Savina, the world-famous Byzantine academician N. P. Kondakov, excellent poets Konstantin Sluchevsky and Mikhail Kuzmin and no less excellent painters Konstantin Makovsky and Nicholas Roerich (who later became famous for his spiritual initiatives), one of the leading figures in botanical science, Academician V. L. Komarov (later President of the Academy of Sciences), an outstanding book publisher I. D. Sytin, etc. etc.

I repeat, we are talking about people who were directly involved in the "Black Hundred" organizations. If we turn to the names of prominent figures in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, who to some extent shared the “Black Hundred” ideology, but for one reason or another did not join the relevant organizations, we will have to come to an unexpected conclusion for many, many modern readers.

It would be appropriate to formulate this conclusion immediately, even before the presentation of substantive evidence. There is every reason to assert (although this assertion, of course, will cause distrust and even, in all likelihood, outright protest) that prevailing part of the most deep And creative in its spirit and - this is absolutely indisputable - the most visionary in its understanding of the course of history of the figures of the early 20th century, one way or another, in fact, turned out to be in line with the “Black Hundreds”. We are talking, in particular, about people who not only were not members of the "Black Hundred" organizations, but sometimes even dissociated themselves from them (which had its own good reasons). Nevertheless, if we “try on” the views and moods of these people to the parties and political movements that were available at that time, it becomes quite clear that only it was precisely and only the "Black Hundreds" that was close to them, and their opponents quite reasonably stated this more than once.

It is appropriate to start with the question of historical foresight, and here I will turn to a truly remarkable document - a note filed in February 1914 by Nicholas II. Its author, P. N. Durnovo (1845–1915), from October 23, 1905 to April 22, 1906, was the Minister of the Interior of Russia (he was replaced in this post by P. A. Stolypin), and then took a much more “calm” » the position of a member of the State Council (it is worth noting that P. N. Durnovo, like almost all Russian ministers of the interior of the early 20th century, was sentenced to death by left-wing terrorists).

Even if only by virtue of his official position, P. N. Durnovo did not belong to any organizations, but no one doubted his “Black Hundred” convictions. His note to the tsar is imbued with such an amazing spirit of foresight that the modern historian A. Ya. and an equally selfless detractor of all her opponents, - nevertheless, he could not refrain from a kind of dithyramb addressed to Pyotr Nikolaevich Durnovo. Declaring that this figure is “an extreme reactionary in his views” (and this, as noted above, is a synonym for “Black Hundreds”), A. Ya. Avrekh immediately characterizes him as the creator of “a document that, as subsequent events showed, turned out to be real prophecy, fulfilled in all its major aspects."

In February 1914, the impending threat of war with Germany was already obvious, and P. N. Durnovo, urging Nicholas II to prevent this war at any cost, wrote: “... it will begin with the fact that all failures will be attributed to the government. A furious campaign against him will begin in legislative institutions, as a result of which revolutionary actions will begin in the country. These latter will immediately put forward socialist slogans, the only ones that can stir up and group broad sections of the population, first a black redistribution, and then a general division of all values ​​and property. ... An army that has lost ... during the war the most reliable personnel, captured for the most part by the spontaneously common peasant desire for land, will be too demoralized to serve as a bulwark of law and order. Legislative institutions and opposition-intelligent parties deprived of real authority in the eyes of the people will be unable to restrain the divergent popular waves raised by them, and Russia will be plunged into hopeless anarchy, the outcome of which cannot even be foreseen. Further, P. N. Durnovo explained more: “Behind our opposition (meaning the Duma liberals. - VC.) there is no one, it has no support among the people ... our opposition does not want to reckon with the fact that it does not represent any real force ”(7) .

This is a surprisingly clear foresight of everything that happened then in Russia until the establishment of the Bolshevik dictatorship (p. puts to shame all the then "liberal" and "progressive" ideologists (beginning with the more "leftist" P. N. Milyukov and ending with the least "left" Octobrist A. I. Guchkov), who believed that the transfer of power into their hands - and it really happened in February 1917 - will be a solid guarantee of solving the main Russian problems (in fact, the same Milyukov and Guchkov stayed in power for only two months ...).

So, the historian A. Ya. Avrekh calls P. N. Durnovo "an extreme reactionary in his views" and at the same time calls the note he compiled "a real prophecy, fulfilled in all its main aspects." It is clear from the context that the historian sees here a direct “contradiction” (just as S. V. Shumikhin contrasts the higher culture of B. V. Nikolsky and his “Black Hundreds”). Meanwhile, in reality exactly those qualities which, according to the terminology of A. Ya. Avrekh, were “extreme reactionary”, determined the prophetic power of P. N. Durnovo and his other like-minded people.

One of the most important Cadet leaders, V. A. Maklakov, unlike the vast majority of his comrades, honestly admitted in his memoirs published in 1929 by the Parisian Sovremennye Zapiski (vol. 38, p. 290) that “they are right in their predictions ( the right as a whole, and not just P. N. Durnovo or anyone else. VC.) turned out to be prophets. They predicted that the liberals in power would be only the forerunners of the revolution, they would surrender their positions to it. That was the main argument why they fought so hard against liberalism.”

So, the struggle of the rightists (V. A. Maklakov in this case was clearly embarrassed to use the nickname "Black Hundreds") against liberalism was determined, dictated by the true understanding the future path of Russian history; the Cadet ideologist even found it possible to sublimely call these irreconcilable opponents "prophets". The very definition of “right” suddenly acquires a most valuable meaning here: “rights” are those who, in contrast to liberals, who belonged to the “left” to one degree or another, were right in their understanding of the course of history.

And the opponents of the "Rights" can, of course, find in them a variety of negative, bad traits and call them "conservatives", "reactionaries" and, finally, "Black Hundreds", putting rejection and hatred into these names, but one cannot but recognize that it was and only these figures and ideologists who really understood where Russia was heading at the beginning of the 20th century...

Before going any further, it is necessary to characterize, at least briefly, the real meaning of the term "reactionary." It is based on the Latin word meaning "opposition". Deprived, in essence, of any specificity, the terms "reaction", "reactionary", "reactionary", etc., have developed as antonyms (that is, words of the opposite meaning) to the terms "progress", "progressive", "progressive" etc., coming from the same Latin word meaning "moving forward."

The term "progress" in modern times has become the most important for most ideologists, who put into it a purely "evaluative" meaning: not just "moving forward", but moving towards a fundamentally better, ultimately perfect society - a kind of earthly paradise.

The idea of ​​progress was established during the period of the spread of atheism and became a replacement (or rather, substitution) religion. True, in the last decades of the 20th century, even unconditional "progressives" seemed to be forced to stipulate that "progress" has a more or less "relative" character. So, in the corresponding article of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (vol. 21, published in 1975), it is first stated that progress is “a transition from the lower to the higher, from the less perfect to the more perfect” (p. 28), and then it is said, that “the concept of progress is not applicable to the Universe as a whole, since there is no unambiguously defined direction of development here” (p. 29). This seems to be understood in such a way that in the development of human society (unlike the Universe as a whole) one completely “definite” direction of development (towards perfection) reigns, however, elsewhere in the article it is said that “in pre-socialist formations ... some elements of the social whole systematically progress at the expense of others”, that is, to put it simply, something improves and something worsens at the same time… And even “socialist society… does not cancel the inconsistency of development”.

If you think about it, these reservations, in fact, deny the idea of ​​progress, for it turns out that gains at the same time lead to losses. And the very “removal” of the existence of people from the existence of the Universe as a whole is extremely doubtful, where, even from the point of view of the progressives themselves, there is no progress (in the sense of “improvement”); after all, people, in particular, are not only a special - public, social - phenomenon, but also a phenomenon of nature, an element of the universe as a whole. And today it is clear to any thinking person, for example, that the colossal progress of technology has brought the very existence of mankind to the brink of catastrophe...

In a word, one can talk about progress as a certain development, change, transformation of society, but the idea of ​​progress as some kind of fundamental “improvement”, “perfection”, etc., is only myth modern times - from the 17th-18th centuries (a solid reason for reflection is given by the fact that earlier the opposite myth dominated in the minds of people, according to which the "golden age" remained in the past ...).

The myth of the ever-increasing “improvement” of human society is clearly refuted by a simple comparison of the specific and integral incarnations of this society at different stages of its development, separated by centuries and millennia: who, in fact, dares to assert that Plato and Phidias, Christ’s apostles and Emperor Mark Are Aurelius, Sergius of Radonezh and Andrei Rublev less “perfect” than the most “perfect” people of our time, which was preceded by such a long human “progress”? But the true reality of society is still not the amount of energy consumed, not the nature of the political structure, not the education system, etc., but the people themselves, one way or another absorbed all aspects and elements of the social life of their time. And one more thing: who dares to prove that people living in a later, more "progressive" era are happier than people of previous eras? Art, which captures in one way or another the spiritual and spiritual life of people of any era, will in no way confirm such a thesis ...

But, speaking of all this, one cannot remain silent about a truly acute problem. Despite the fact that the myth of progress has recently been noticeably discredited, it still remains the property of the majority (or, perhaps, even the vast majority) of "civilized" people. After all, as already mentioned, faith in progress was a substitute for faith in God, and people cannot live at all. without faith. And the mass of people is imbued with an entirely illusory conviction that by "improving" the existing society, they - or at least their children - will find true satisfaction and happiness.

Particularly dangerous, of course, are the diverse ideologists who are convinced not only that this goal is achievable, but also that they know how to achieve it. At the same time, naturally, not even the task of creating a more perfect social order comes to the fore, but a preliminary radical alteration or even complete elimination of the existing structure.

Now we can return directly to our topic. At the beginning of the 20th century, innumerable “progressives” were exceptionally active in Russia - both liberal, striving to radically reform Russian society, and revolutionary, convinced of the need for its complete destruction (which, as it were, would in itself ensure the welfare and prosperity of Russia). They called their opponents "reactionaries" (that is, literally "opposing"); this word, in fact, became abusive and directly adjacent to the nickname "Black Hundreds".

Of course, there were different people among the "reactionaries" (more on this below). But let's focus on the most significant of them - those whom the "progressives" themselves were sometimes embarrassed to call "reactionaries" (and even more so "Black Hundreds"), preferring the not so harsh designation "conservative", that is, "protector" (by the way, this Russian equivalent the word "conservative" was much more "swearing": "protector" seemed to merge with the "tsarist secret police").

The "reactionaries" included those who clearly understood the illusory nature of the idea of ​​progress, clearly saw that the weakening and destruction of the age-old foundations of Russia would lead to innumerable troubles and suffering, and in the end fatally "disappoint" even the "progressives" themselves.

We have already spoken of the amazing power of foresight possessed by the "reactionaries". The fact is that the "progressives", enslaved by their myth, obviously could not see the real course of history. Their vision of the future was, as it were, obscured by their own lightweight projectors and inevitably turned out to be superficial and primitive.

And, of course, not only foresight as such, but in general, spiritual depth and richness are most often organically linked with the so-called "right" beliefs. It is appropriate to start with the name of the greatest scientist of the late XIX - early XX century, D. I. Mendeleev, who in his mature years professed strong "right" convictions. This was curiously recalled by one of his very "liberal" students - V. I. Vernadsky. Speaking about the obviously "conservative" (the word "reactionary" Vernadsky did not want to use, but "protective" is enough. - VC.) political views "of D. I. Mendeleev, he at the same time testified:" ... brightly and beautifully, figuratively and strongly he painted before us the endless field of exact knowledge, its significance in the life and development of mankind ... We, as it were, were freed from the vice, entered a new, wonderful world... Dmitry Ivanovich, lifting us up and arousing the deepest aspirations of the human personality for knowledge and its active application, aroused in very many such logical conclusions and constructions that were far from him" (8) .

Here we are once again faced with an imaginary - imposed liberal myth - "contradiction" between "conservatism" and the depth and richness of spiritual culture. In Soviet times, even a kind of “concept” of the so-called in spite of, with the help of which they tried to prove that the great thinkers, writers, scientists who professed unconditionally "conservative" and "reactionary" convictions - such as Kant, Hegel, Goethe, Carlyle, Balzac, Dostoevsky - achieved greatness due to a certain paradox - " contrary to their views. But this artificial "concept" is simply not serious, and, of course, the opposite is true.

The "superiority" of conservatism is especially clear when it comes to foreseeing the future (which has already been mentioned). From the very beginning of the Revolution, and moreover, back in the 19th century, the Russian "rightists" predicted its results with amazing perspicacity. And the following is quite obvious: the figures and ideologists who opposed the "right" proceeded from a deliberately untenable and, moreover, in fact, a primitive worldview, according to which, having rejected and destroyed the age-old foundations of Russia's existence, it is possible to more or less quickly acquire some if and not heavenly, then in any case a fundamentally more fertile life; while they were convinced that their mind and their will are quite suitable for the implementation of this undertaking.