Why did the Decembrists turn out to be patriots under Stalin? Who were the Decembrists? Spoiled young guards or members of the elite, driven by a sincere desire to turn Russia on the path of freedom? During a discussion organized by the Yegor Gaidar Foundation and the Free Historical Society, doctors of historical sciences Oksana Kiyanskaya and Sergei Erlikh argued about whether the uprising on December 14, 1825 was a great historical event or a great myth.
Oksana Kiyanskaya:
The Decembrists were nobles, the elite of Russian society. As it seems at first glance, they decided to sacrifice themselves, their lives for the sake of some abstract ideas. Why did they do it?
The Russia of Alexander I was an autocratic monarchy, a rigidly stratified state, where every person from his youth understood the limit of his capabilities. If he was born in the family of a general, then, most likely, having made a career, he could also become a general. If his father is a philistine, then he will never become a general; if a person was born into a peasant family, then, of course, he will plow the land all his life, like his ancestors.
Great career opportunities opened up for the Decembrists, since they were born into privileged noble families and understood that they could achieve a lot. But the war of 1812 passed, the young nobles returned to Russia with victory and realized that they would never be able to become politicians, determine the fate of the country, or participate in political life. Only the emperor was engaged in this in the autocratic state, and the rest, as soon as they managed to break through to the throne, weaved undercover intrigues that could be interrupted at any moment, and then the end of their careers.
The Decembrists wanted to sit in parliament. The autocracy did not allow them. Hence the main idea of these people: equality. Equality, of course, is for oneself, not for the unfortunate serfs. For all the difference in their programs (the Northern Society, the Southern Society, Pestel's "Russian Truth" or Nikita Muravyov's constitution), this was the defining idea of the Decembrists at various stages in the development of secret societies. For her sake, for the sake of building a society of equal opportunities, they sacrificed themselves.
Promotional video:
Sergey Erlikh:
The uprising of the Decembrists is not a great event in Russian history, but a great one, moreover, the main myth of the Russian intelligentsia. In school, we taught that the meaning of a historical event is determined by its consequences. A great event must have great consequences.
If we think about the results of the December 14, 1825 uprising, we can highlight two points. First, the Decembrists, who were not hanged, but sent to Siberia, had a great influence on the local population, made a great contribution to the culture of the region. Secondly, they gave rise to what the school textbooks called the "Nikolaev reaction", that is, the tightening of legislation and practices in relation to the press, higher education, the gendarme corps, and so on. Can we regard these consequences as great? I think not.
In addition to the arguments of the logic of history, arguments of authority can be cited. A contemporary of the Decembrists, the great Russian poet Fyodor Tyutchev dedicated a poem to them, which is called “December 14, 1825”. It ends with the following lines: "The iron winter has died - and not a trace remains."
We can say that Tyutchev was anti-Western and poetically downplayed the significance of the Decembrist uprising. But there is also the opinion of the famous Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky, who said: "The Decembrists are a historical accident, overgrown with literature." The last argument: there is a huge Russian historiography of Western origin. Thousands of authors, dozens of magazines, a huge number of publications. In this entire stream, we will scrape together ten works about the Decembrists, but twenty are unlikely. Western historians do not see in their revolt something that requires close examination.
At the same time, the number of Russian publications about the Decembrists, I think, has already exceeded 20 thousand. So, our scientists and writers are not all right with their brains, why did they pay such attention to an ordinary event?
Uprising on December 14, 1825 on Senate Square
It is worth remembering here that the past for us exists in two forms. The first is history, the search for truth about the past, and the second is historical memory, which is not interested in how it really was, it is important for it to use those events for modern purposes. This is a set of role models, models of actions in certain life situations - that is, myths. The Decembrists are one of the greatest myths of memory, but not all of the Russian national memory, but of the Russian intelligentsia. Moreover, this is the myth of the founding of the Russian intelligentsia. If Nicholas I had not hanged the Decembrists, there would have been no myth. He made the same mistake as the Jews, who crucified Christ and said "let his blood fall on us."
Let me give you an example. When Anna Ioannovna ascended the throne, she was forced to sign the conditions that were the prototype of the Russian constitution. True, then, under the pressure of the nobility, she realized that they could be torn apart. Why don't we talk about it? For two weeks Russia was then a constitutional monarchy.
Herzen was not found, who created the legend about the Decembrists, "heroes, forged from pure steel from head to toe." It is simply impossible to underestimate his role in the origin of this myth. First of all, he was a genius who was very unlucky that Lenin mentioned him in his work "In Memory of Herzen", writing that the Decembrists "woke him up". Leo Tolstoy said about him: "This is the best stylist of Russian literature."
Herzen painted a brilliant image of the revolution - the Decembrist heroes kill the dragon-autocracy, like St. George the Victorious - the Serpent. And when the autocracy begins an offensive, the Decembrists turn into Christian martyrs, sacrificing themselves for the sake of the people.
Oksana Kiyanskaya:
Not every speech that opposes the authorities ends in success. This does not mean that they have no meaning and consequences. The idea of equality did not go anywhere, it lived in the Russian nobility, spread to other segments of the population. The example of the Decembrists inspired many.
Lenin, who wrote that the Decembrists woke Herzen up, was not a fool. Much of what he said in relation to the Decembrists (and not only to them) was, in my opinion, fair.
The reign of Nicholas I was determined not only by fear of a possible revolt, but also by a clear idea of Russia's place in the world. And all the same, under him there was a noble opposition, it simply took on other, unarmed forms - Hegelianism, Westernizers, the same Herzen.
Of course, there were people in the Decembrist movement who thought it was stylish and fashionable, especially for young people who did not fight. In this environment, it was considered very cool if Pestel or Muravyov-Apostol noticed you, introduced you to his circle, and you are connected with him by a common secret. But there were also leaders of this movement, for whom it was not following fashion, but the meaning of their life. And for this they sacrificed it.
Of course, both Pavel Pestel and Kondraty Ryleev were not examples of purity both in everyday life and in the service. After Pestel was arrested, it turned out that a tail of debts was behind him, that he used regimental money, and so on. This money was used to bribe officials who, in his opinion, would help him make a revolution.
But here it is important to say that the Decembrists were politicians. All is fair in politics. I assure you that the opponents of the Decembrists were not less, but much more corrupt.
In addition, if Pestel had absolutely clean hands and would like to exist only in the world of ideas, without touching the army practice of Alexander I, completely built on corruption, he would have retired and read books in the countryside. We would now either not know him, or knew him as one of the domestic Russian thinkers, and not as a Decembrist and the leader of the conspiracy.
There is no contradiction here. People exist in certain circumstances, life dictates the conditions of the game to them. Pavel Pestel atoned for his guilt before history - he was executed, died for his beliefs.
Decembrists in exile in Siberia
Sergey Erlikh:
There were no immediate consequences of the Decembrist uprising, and the delayed effect was enormous. This is what we are talking about - after many years the event no longer acts as a history, but as a model, example or myth.
This myth had a huge impact on Russian history from the second half of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century. Believers are trying to prove the historicity of Christ, looking for documentary evidence of his deeds and existence. The closest ones appear only 30-40 years after his alleged crucifixion. That is, when this event happened, no one noticed it - there were many such teachers walking across Palestine, and most likely, some of them were crucified. But when everything was formalized in the form of the Gospels, it began to play its role, and it still plays.
The same thing happened with the Decembrists. An ordinary historical event took place, standing on a par with the palace coups. Thanks to Herzen, who created a brilliant legend, it became a technological weapon in the fight against undemocratic government.
Stalin was not only afraid of the veterans of the Great Patriotic War, the memory of the Decembrists was also muted. In the Stalinist version, they were not so much fighters against the autocracy, but patriots - an emphasis was placed on their participation in the hostilities of 1812. Figuratively speaking, the Decembrists are a metaphor for the revolt of Russian culture, and therefore the authorities are afraid of it.
