Immediately after the uprising Senate Square, on the night of December 15, arrests began in St. Petersburg. The Decembrists were taken for interrogation directly to Nicholas I himself in Winter Palace from which, according to the apt expression of the Decembrist Zakhar Chernyshev, these days they “arranged an exit”. Nikolai himself acted as an investigator and interrogated the arrested (in the rooms of the Hermitage). After interrogations, “state criminals” were sent to the Peter and Paul Fortress, in most cases with personal notes from the tsar, which indicated that this prisoner should be kept in such conditions. The Decembrist Yakushkin, for example, was sent with the following royal note: “The sent Yakushkin should be chained in foot and hand irons; deal with him strictly and do not otherwise contain, as a villain.

The investigation was focused not on the ideology of the Decembrists, not on their political demands, but on the issue of regicide.

The behavior of the Decembrists during the investigation was different. Many of them did not show revolutionary fortitude, lost the ground under their feet, repented, wept, betrayed their comrades. But there were also cases of personal heroism, refusal to testify and extradite the conspirators. Lunin, Yakushkin, Andreevich 2nd, Pyotr Borisov, Usovsky, Yu. Lyublinsky and others were among those who were persistent and behaved with dignity. Pestel, at first answering all questions with complete denial: “Not belonging to the society mentioned here and knowing nothing about its existence, all the less I can say what its true goal is striving for and what measures it envisaged to achieve it,” he answered, for example, when asked about the purpose of the secret society. Later, issued by many, he was forced to give detailed answers.

“I was not accepted by anyone as a member of a secret society, but I myself joined it,” the Decembrist Lunin proudly answers the investigators. “I deem it contrary to my conscience to reveal the names of their [members], for I should have discovered Brothers and friends.”

There is one remarkable place in the investigation file of Mikhail Orlov. Even under arrest, during interrogations, the thought suddenly broke through him that the uprising could have won under other circumstances. When asked why he did not betray the conspirators, although he knew about their plans and even at the very recent times, Mikhail Orlov replied: “Now it’s easy to say:“ It should have been reported, ”for everything is known and the crime has been committed. But then, wasn’t it permissible for me to at least postpone the report for a while? But, to their misfortune, circumstances ripened before their plans, and that's why they disappeared. Nicholas I underlined the words typed in italics twice, and put eleven exclamation points above the words “but unfortunately”;

But at the same time, many investigative cases of the Decembrists contain numerous repentant appeals to the tsar and members of the commission, tearful letters from repentant "criminals", oaths to earn, forgiveness. Why did so many members of society fail to stand firm? The answer seems clear. There was no revolutionary class behind the participants in the uprising of December 14 imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Outside the prison walls, they felt no support, and many lost heart. Cases of suicide also occurred in the prison (for example, the Decembrist Bulatov smashed his head against the wall of the prison cell). Chaining “in iron” was a form of physical torture (other forms, apparently, were not used), but moral torture was no less severe - intimidation, reassurance, influence on the family, threats of the death penalty, etc.

The tsarist authorities were interested in widely informing the noble society about the supposedly “deep repentance” of the prisoners, who admitted the fallacy of the speech and praised the mercy of the tsarist government. By the way, for this purpose, one document was widely distributed through the police and the provincial administration, which was a combination of three letters - Ryleev's suicide letter to his wife, the Decembrist Obolensky's letter to his father and Yakubovich's repentant letter, also to his father. All three letters were distributed by the government in an official way: this is clearly evidenced by a special “file” of the office of the St. Petersburg civil governor, in which these letters of repentance are neatly filed with official reports on the investigation and trial, excerpts from Senate statements, etc.

During the investigation, very quickly - at the very first questions - the name of A.S. Pushkin was mentioned. It was revealed what great significance his poems had for the Decembrists. A lot of free-thinking poems - Ryleev, Yazykov and other well-known and unknown poets - were found during the search and were recorded during interrogations. Unknown army poets (Zhukov and others) who composed poems in imitation of Pushkin and Ryleev were discovered.

Nicholas I was especially afraid of poetry; they could easily spread, they could be written off or memorized even by the scribes of the Commission of Inquiry. Therefore, during the investigation, the tsar gave an order that the history of Russian literature will never forget: “Remove and burn all outrageous poems from the cases.” The order was carried out, the poems were burned; among them, probably, there were many works that remained unknown to us, and quite a few Pushkin's poems. By chance, only one Pushkin's poem "The Dagger" survived. At the request of the investigation, the Decembrist Gromnitsky (a member of the Society of United Slavs) wrote it down as a keepsake. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, he testified, “in his conversations, he praised the works of Alexander Pushkin and read by heart one ... no less free-thinking. Here it is ... ”The text of Pushkin's“ Dagger ”was written down by heart. It was not possible to “take it out and burn it” according to the royal order: it was located on two adjacent pages of testimony, the turns of which were occupied by important interrogation texts that were not subject to destruction. Then the Minister of War Tatishchev, Chairman of the Investigative Commission, nevertheless found a way out: he thickly crossed out the text of Pushkin's poems, putting a “clip” at the beginning and end with the following content: “With the highest permission, the Minister of War Tatishchev blacked out.”

“Under the current circumstances, there is no way to do anything in your favor,” Zhukovsky wrote to the poet, who was languishing in exile in Mikhailovsky. - You're not involved in anything, it's true. But in the papers of each of those who acted there are your poems. It's a bad way to befriend the government."

In essence, there was no trial of the Decembrists. The parody of the trial took place behind closed doors, in deep secrecy. The summoned Decembrists were hastily offered to testify their signatures under the testimony during the investigation, after which they read a pre-prepared verdict and called the next “discharge”. “Have we been judged? the Decembrists asked later. “And we didn’t know that it was a trial…”

Five Decembrists were placed “outside the ranks” and sentenced to be quartered. But Nicholas replaced the quartering with hanging.

An extract from the protocol of the Supreme Criminal Court dated July 11, 1826 read: “Consistent with the high monarchical mercy shown in this case ... The Supreme Criminal Court, by the highest authority granted to it, sentenced: instead of the painful death penalty by quartering, Pavel Pestel, Kondraty Ryleev, Sergey Muravyov-Apostol, Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin and Pyotr Kakhovsky, by the verdict of a certain court, hang these criminals for their grave atrocities.

On the night of July 13, on the crown work of the Peter and Paul Fortress, by the light of bonfires, a gallows was arranged and, early in the morning, the imprisoned Decembrists were taken out of the fortress to be executed. On the chest of those sentenced to hanging hung boards with the inscription: "Regicide". Their hands and feet were shackled in heavy shackles. Pestel was so exhausted that he could not cross the high threshold of the gate - the guards were forced to lift him up and carry him over the threshold.

The morning was gloomy and foggy. At some distance from the place of execution, a crowd of people had gathered.

The head of the crownwork later said: “When the benches were taken away from under the feet, the ropes broke and three Criminals ... collapsed into the pit, breaking through the boards laid over it with the weight of their bodies and shackles. There were no spare ropes, they were in a hurry to get them in the nearest shops, but it was early in the morning, everything was locked, so the execution was delayed. However, the operation was repeated and this time it was successful. To this terrible story, one can add a cynically laconic “most subservient report” of the St. Petersburg Governor-General Golenishchev-Kutuzov, where the names of those who escaped from the gallows are indicated: “The execution ended with due silence and order, both from the side of the troops who were in the ranks, and from few spectators. Due to the inexperience of our executioners and the inability to arrange the gallows at the first time, three, namely: Ryleev, Kakhovsky and Muravyov, broke, but were soon hanged again and received a well-deserved death. What I most submissively report to Your Majesty.”

All other imprisoned Decembrists were taken out into the courtyard of the fortress and placed in two squares: in one - belonging to the guards regiments, in the other - others. All sentences were accompanied by demotion, deprivation of ranks and nobility: swords were broken over the convicts, epaulettes and uniforms were torn off them and thrown into the fire of blazing bonfires.

The sailors-Decembrists were taken to Kronstadt and that morning they were sentenced to be demoted on the flagship of Admiral Kroun. Their uniforms and epaulettes were torn off and thrown into the water. “It can be said that they tried to destroy the first manifestation of liberalism with all four elements - fire, water, air and earth,” the Decembrist V.I. writes in his memoirs. Steingel.

Over 120 people of the Decembrists were exiled for various periods to Siberia, to hard labor or a settlement. Demoted to the rank and file were exiled to the Caucasus. There were Decembrists who visited both Siberia and the Caucasus (Lorer, Odoevsky and others): after serving a certain term of punishment in Siberia, they were assigned as “mercy” as ordinary soldiers in the Caucasian army where military operations were carried out. They were sent under bullets.

Arrests of members of secret societies went on until mid-April 1826. A total of 316 people were arrested, but in the case of the Decembrists, 579 people were involved in the investigation and trial (many of them were investigated in absentia), of which 80% were military men. In the Winter Palace, those arrested were interrogated by Nicholas I himself - he acted as an investigator. After interrogation, state criminals were sent to the Peter and Paul Fortress, in most cases with personal notes of the sovereign; in them the highest indicated how this prisoner should be kept. Speransky played an important role in organizing the court.

After the first interrogations of the Decembrists in the Winter Palace by Nicholas I, further interrogations were already conducted in the commandant's house of the Peter and Paul Fortress. As a rule, interrogations were always carried out at night. Not for a minute did not stop walking along the prison corridors, the loud knock of doors being opened and locked, and the clang of shackles did not give rest.

The trial of the Decembrists took place behind closed doors and looked more like a parody than an objective trial: the summoned defendants were offered to testify signatures under their previously given testimony, after which a pre-prepared verdict was announced.

These night meetings of the Commission of Inquiry resembled the courts of the medieval Inquisition. The Decembrists were taken to interrogations blindfolded. In the first hall, they were seated behind the screens with the words: “You can now open.” Sitting behind the screens, the Decembrist could hear the shuffling of the feet of numerous parade grounds - adjutants and gendarmes. Laughter was heard, jokes were told, complete indifference to the fate of the Decembrists was emphasized.

Through a tiny hole in the screens, almost made on purpose, one could see how the comrades were being led for interrogation with their hands twisted and with shackles on their hands and feet.

In another room - the same screens, behind them - two burning candles on the table, and not a single person in the whole room.

Finally, the prisoner was led, again wearing a blindfold, into the third room.

And then, after a minute of dead silence, the abrupt order of Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich:

Take off your scarf!

Blinded by many candles, the Decembrist suddenly found himself in front of the Investigative Committee.

In the center sat the chairman of the Investigative Commission, Minister of War A. I. Tatishchev, on the sides - Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich, adjutant general Dibich, Golenishchev - Kutuzov, Benkendorf, Chernyshev, Potapov, Levashev and civil dignitary Prince A. N. Golitsyn.

The Decembrists were deprived of the opportunity to defend themselves. This was not an investigation in the usual sense of a trial, but an interrogation, where investigators were at the same time judges. Here the interrogations begun by Nicholas I in the Winter Palace continued, but only more in-depth, with endless face-to-face confrontations.

The Decembrists behaved differently during the investigation. Some swore loyalty to the existing order and betrayed their comrades. Many repented. Among those who behaved with dignity were M. S. Lunin, I. D. Yakushkin, P. I. Borisov, A. V. Usovsky and others. give detailed information.

Many Decembrists were kept in dark casemates, where not a single ray of light penetrated, they had shackles on their hands and feet, from time to time they reduced their food and drink ration to a hungry norm. Naturally, some of them, in an effort to get rid of the torment, in desperation, under pressure from the committee, took upon themselves something that actually did not exist and about which they had no idea.

The work of the Commission of Inquiry was directed by the emperor himself. As a result, 289 people were found guilty. Of these, 121 were brought before the Supreme Criminal Court. In addition, in Mogilev and Bialystok, another 40 members of secret societies were tried. On July 5, 1826, the court sentenced P. I. Pestel and K. F. Ryleev, who were placed outside the categories. S. I. Muravyov-Apostol, M. P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and P. G. Kakhovsky to death by quartering. However, the fear of being branded as a savage in enlightened Europe led Nicholas to replace this medieval execution by hanging. Other convicts were divided by the Supreme Court into 11 categories. Of the 72 members of the Supreme Court, only one person was found - Admiral Mordvinov, who openly voted against the death penalty. He found that it contradicted the decrees of Elizabeth Petrovna, the Order of Catherine II and the decree of Paul of April 13, 1799, which once again abolished the death penalty. Mordvinov's opinion was not taken into account.

I category. This category included the Decembrists, who gave personal consent to regicide, and also committed murder on Senate Square: members of the Northern Society - S. P. Trubetskoy, E. P. Obolensky, V. K. Kyuchelbeker, A. I. Yakubovich, Alexander Bestuzhev , Nikita Muravyov, I. I. Pushchin, I. D. Yakushkin, A. P. Arbuzov, D. I. Zavalishin, N. A. Panov, A. N. Sutgof, D. A. Shchepin - Rostovsky, V. A. Divov N. I. Turgenev; members of the Southern Society - Matvey Muravyov - Apostle, A. P. Baryatinsky, A. V. Poggio, Artamon Muravyov, F. F. Vadkovsky, V. L. Davydov, A. P. Yushnevsky, S. G. Volkonsky and V. I. Povalo - Shveikovsky; members of the Society of United Slavs - brothers Peter and Andrey Borisov, I. I. Gorbachevsky, M. M. Spiridonov, V. A. Bechasnov, Ya. M. Andreevich and A. S. Pestov. Only 31 people, of which N. Turgenev was abroad and was convicted in absentia.

All of them are declared the same sentence: the death penalty by beheading.

II category. Among them: M. S. Lunin, brothers Nikolai and Mikhail Bestuzhev, N. V. Basargin, K. P. Torson, I. A. Annenkov, V. P. Ivashchev, Dr. F. B. Wolf and others. All of them they had to put their heads on the executioner's chopping block - such was the rite of political death - after which it was announced to them that they were sentenced to eternal hard labor. All of them were accused of agreeing with the intent of regicide.

III category- two people: V. I. Shteingel and G. S. Batenkov, sentenced to eternal hard labor.

IV category- 16 people, including: M. A. Fonvizin, P. A. Mukhanov, N. I. Lorer, poet A. I. Odoevsky, M. M. Naryshkin, P. S. Bobrischev - Pushkin, A. M. Muravyov, brothers Alexander and Pyotr Belyaev and others. Sentence - 15 years of hard labor, after which - an eternal settlement in Siberia.

V category- 5 people: Mikhail Kuchelbeker, brother of the lyceum comrade Pushkin, A. E. Rosen, N. P. Repin, M. N. Glebov and M. A. Bodisko 2nd. All of them were sentenced to 10 years of hard labor and after that to eternal settlement.

VI category- two people, A. N. Muravyov and Yu. K. Lyublinsky: 6 years of hard labor and a settlement.

VII category- 15 people sentenced to 4 years of hard labor and settlement. Among them were: A. V. Entaltsev, Z. G. Chernyshev, P. F. Vygodovsky, A. F. Briggen and others.

VIII category- 15 people. Sentence: deprivation of ranks and nobility and exile to the settlement.

IX category- 3 people sentenced to deprivation of rank and nobility and surrender to soldiers in especially distant garrisons.

X rank- 1 person, Mikhail Pushchin, brother of the lyceum comrade Pushkin, sentenced to deprivation of rank and nobility and demoted to soldiers with the right to long service.

XI category- 8 people. Sentence: deprivation of rank and demotion to the soldiers with the right to length of service.

The verdict struck everyone with its terms. Nicholas I dictated it to the Commission of Inquiry, but the Supreme Court did not judge, but only unconditionally, without any criticism, accepted what was dictated to him.

In order to show the deep repentance of the prisoners, who seemed to admit the fallacy of their speech, and the mercy shown to them by the tsarist authorities, the latter officially distributed a document through the police and the provincial administration, which consisted of three letters from the arrested - Ryleev's suicide letter to his wife, Obolensky's letter to his father and a letter of repentance Yakubovich to his father.

On the night before the execution, Archpriest P. N. Myslovsky, archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral, who had been appointed by him as confessor, came to those sentenced to death. He confessed, admonished and exhorted the executed. When Myslovsky left them a few hours later, he was crying. With difficulty, he said: They are terribly guilty, but they were mistaken, and were not villains! .. We must pray that God would soften the heart of the king! He further added that Ryleev was a true Christian and thought that he was doing good, and was ready to lay down his soul for his friends.

On the night of July 13, 1826, in the courtyard of the Peter and Paul Fortress, a rite of civil execution was performed on those convicted in 11 categories. They were read a verdict on punishment measures, as a sign of demotion, their uniforms and orders were torn off and thrown into blazing fires, sawn-off swords were broken over their heads. Early morning On the same day, five Decembrists were executed on the rampart of the fortress crownwork.

In the early morning of July 13, on the crown work of the Peter and Paul Fortress, by the light of fires, an execution took place. On the chest of the condemned hung boards with the inscription: Kingslayer. By royal command, a board with the name and surname of Ippolit Muravyov-Apostol was also nailed to the gallows. Ryleev, Kakhovsky and Muravyov-Apostol's ropes broke during the execution and they fell. According to the priest Myslovsky, Muravyov, whose eyebrow was cut during the fall, exclaimed: My God! And they don’t know how to hang decently in Russia! After a long delay, the execution was repeated. The governor-general immediately reported this to the king.

Special commissions and courts that considered the cases of soldiers who participated in the uprising issued cruel sentences: about 180 people were driven through the ranks and sent to hard labor, 23 were punished with sticks and rods. Of the rest, a consolidated regiment was formed and sent to the army in the Caucasus. All was sent there. Chernihiv regiment.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Introduction ................................................ ................................................. ........

1. The first denunciations of the Decembrists .............................................. ...................

2. Consequence ............................................... ................................................. ...

4. Judgment ............................................... ................................................. ...............

Literature................................................. ................................................. ....

Introduction

The history of the Supreme Criminal Court of 1826 over the Decembrists has been studied quite thoroughly. The subject of the study was the number of court sessions and the time they were held, the issues discussed and decisions on them, the role of M.M. Speransky and Nicholas I at different stages of the court's activity (when developing its procedure and during the process). The most significant works are prepared by S. V. Mironenko, S. A. Selivanova and V. A. Fedorov, the XVII volume of the collection "The Revolt of the Decembrists. Documents" (M., 1980), dedicated specifically to the organization of the process and activities of the Supreme Criminal Court, as well as monograph by V. A. Fedorov on the investigation and trial "We are proud of our fate ..." (M., 1985).

But, it should be noted that for last years after the publication of Fedorov's fundamental monograph, neither any significant new research on this topic nor a major publication of sources appeared. The aforementioned volume of The Revolt of the Decembrists was considered by the compilers as the final work, despite the fact that thousands of archival sheets remained unpublished. According to the compilers, the information contained in them no longer represented any significant value for researchers. It is not surprising that the publication of the reports of one of the judges A.Kh. new.

The decline in interest in the topic gives serious grounds for saying that it is necessary to look for new approaches. First of all, this refers to updating the look at the source base. After all, as you know, the main sources of information about the movement of the Decembrists are the materials of the investigation of them and the memoirs and notes of the Decembrists themselves. The ability to compare both types of sources with each other and identify their informational capabilities is provided by an analysis of that part of the Decembrist memoir heritage, which is devoted to the actual story of the investigation. Any major study of this kind, with the exception of individual articles and essays, has not yet been carried out, although a rare work on the Decembrists did without comparing information from investigative materials and memoirs, but as a rule, various aspects of the history of secret societies and uprisings were the object of consideration. Decembrists, the content of their programs. The history of the investigation itself attracted less attention, and the researchers who turned to it, using information from memoirs to clarify or refute these sources of official origin, did not set a special goal to analyze the memoirs themselves.

However, to what extent the image of the investigation and trial, created by the Decembrists, corresponds to reality, remains unclear to this day. Based on the foregoing, the relevance of studying this topic leaves no doubt. The aim of this work is to describe trial over the Decembrists.

1. The first denunciations of the Decembrists

Of the well-known denunciations of the Decembrists, the three most detailed are the denunciations of I.V. Sherwood and A.K. Boshnyak (refer to the summer-autumn of 1825) and A.I. Maiboroda, who sent his denunciation after the death of Alexander I, on November 25. Fedorov V.A. “We are proud of our fate...” (Investigation and trial of the Decembrists). M., 1988

And if Mayboroda only took advantage of the imprudent gullibility of his regimental commander P.I. Pestel, Sherwood and Boshniak made special efforts to penetrate the secrets of the conspiracy. Undoubtedly, for this they had to know in advance about its existence.

Both spies launched their activities in the spring of 1825, and both rather quickly ended up in Kamenka, the Davydov estate. Sherwood, back in December 1824, overheard the conversation of Ya.N. Bulgari with F.F. Vadkovsky about the constitution and, with the help of Bulgari, met with Vadkovsky in Kamenka; Boshnyak, in a note compiled by him in March 1826 for the Investigative Committee on the case of the Decembrists, wrote: “Count Witt revealed to me that he was entrusted with the highest supervision of the midday region of Russia; that he knows the Davydov family as a bunch of enemies of the government; that he has been trying to penetrate its secrets for a long time, but that until now he has not had success; finally, that he finds me alone capable of dispelling the darkness with which the villains surround themselves, and that in the name of the government he demands unconditional obedience from me. www . decemb . hobby . en This is additional evidence that Kamenka was under strong suspicion in advance.

On October 18, 1825, Count Witt reported the results of Boshnyak's observations to Alexander I. Based on Witt's report, a report was drawn up by the Chief of the General Staff I.I. Dibich dated December 4, already addressed to Konstantin and Nikolai Pavlovich. We read in it: “There is such a society that has increased significantly in both armies and tried, but in vain, with the help of Major General Mikhail Orlov and the sons of General Raevsky, to infect and Black Sea Fleet that such meetings often take place in the Davydov family, which are all infected with this spirit, and that from among the most active members<Витту>of the Guards General Staff, Captain Muravyov, Guards officer Bestuzhev, who had previously served in the Navy, a certain Ryleev (probably the second of the late lieutenant Chernov in a duel with the adjutant wing Novosiltsov), that the 18th Infantry Division was especially infected with this spirit, and that it plays a major role commander of Vyatka infantry regiment Colonel Pestel, that the adjutant of Count Wittgenstein Kryukov and Lieutenant General Rudzevich Shishkov are also members, and that, finally, one of the main members is Lieutenant Likharev of the Quartermaster, who recently married the daughter of Senator Borozdin.

Thus, the scammer confirmed the rumours. The sequence of named names is indicative. Orlov and Raevsky are mentioned first, the importance of Likharev, who served as the main source of information for Boshnyak, is exaggerated, while Pestel is called a member influential in his division, and not at all the head of society.

The story of Mayboroda's denunciation of his regimental commander, Colonel P. I. Pestel, chairman of the Directorate of the Southern Society, has repeatedly attracted the attention of both memoirists and later researchers. Maiboroda's denunciation, filed by him through General Roth, said only that he noticed in his regimental commander "a tendency to disturb the general peace," and that Pestel and Yushnevsky, and in St.

When Mayboroda on December 20-22 gave detailed testimony to Generals Chernyshev and Kiselev and wrote a list of members of the society, he placed General Orlov in the first place on this list. Pestel was under the fifth number, the 21st and 22nd were the Raevsky brothers, and, for example, S. Muravyov-Apostol was named the 25th, Bestuzhev-Ryumin and the 45th of the 46 names named. Edelman O.V. "Kamenskaya Council of the Southern Society under secret supervision"www . decemb . hobby . en

At the same time, Mayboroda’s testimony contains a most curious presentation of the history of the Moscow Congress of 1821: he writes that after the incident in the 16th division, “when Mikhailo Orlov retired to Moscow, Burtsov and Komarov, under the pretext of vacation, went there to Orlov as deputies sent from Tulchinskaya council; that Orlov, through these deputies, proposed to the Tulchinsk council some decisive measures, which they did not take. In a word, the scammer himself was fully convinced of Orlov's leading position in society. We can only guess whether he proceeded only from the reputation of Orlov that existed in the 2nd army, or Pestel also used the rumors about the disgraced general to give greater significance to the secret society.

2. Consequence

Immediately after the uprising on Senate Square, on the night of December 15, arrests began in St. Petersburg. The Decembrists were taken for interrogation directly to the tsar in the Winter Palace. Nikolai himself acted as an investigator and interrogated the arrested (in the rooms of the Hermitage). After interrogations, state criminals were sent to the Peter and Paul Fortress, in most cases with personal notes from the tsar, where they worked out the conditions under which this prisoner should be kept, the Decembrist Yakushkin was, for example, sent with the following tsar's note: deal with him strictly and not otherwise contain him as a villain.

The interference of the sovereign from the very beginning turned the Investigative Committee into a simple tool of the monarch's will and took the situation beyond the framework of formal legality: a demonstration of repentance and loyal feelings acquired a great price, and options possible solutions the fates turned out to be much more diverse than one might expect, given the severity of the criminal legislation in force.

In St. Petersburg, by the Highest Decree of December 17, 1825, a secret Investigative Committee was created to "search" for accomplices in a malicious society, chaired by Minister of War AI Tatishchev. Commissions of inquiry also worked in Mogilev, Bialystok, Warsaw, Belaya Tserkov, in separate regiments. Six months later, on May 30, 1826, the commissions presented the emperor with a most humble report. 579 people were involved in the investigation, which lasted more than six months. Almost all of them, with the exception of I. Yakushkin, the Bestuzhev brothers and some others, gave very frank testimony, believing that by doing so they would inspire the emperor how noble the goals of the secret society were.

The Decembrists were kept in the Peter and Paul and Shlisselburg fortresses, as well as in other prison castles in Russia. They were deprived of communication with each other and relatives. Many were even forbidden to read and write.

The Commission of Inquiry often acted as an intermediate authority between the arrested and the tsar: it allowed writing to the sovereign, conducted "confidential conversations" on his behalf, reporting, for example, that "the sovereign only wants to see your frankness, and that you feel his grace", or, on the other hand: "You, gentlemen, do not want to trust the mercy of the sovereign and force him to deal with you to the fullest extent of our laws." Trubetskoy S.P. Materials about life and revolutionary activity. T.1.

People endured the hardships of unfreedom and consequences in different ways. Few of the Decembrists held firm, with dignity, not betraying their comrades (M. S. Lunin, I. D. Yakushkin, P. I. Borisov and some others). “I was not accepted by anyone as a member of a secret society, but I myself joined it,” Lunin answered proudly to the investigators. “I consider it contrary to my conscience to open their names (members of the society), because I should have found brothers and friends.” The quotation is given by N. Eidelman. The Doomed Squad. M., ed. Soviet writer, 1987 Most were frank with the emperor and investigators, wrote detailed confessions, letters of repentance, some prayed for forgiveness. Historians explain this in different ways: some of the former conspirators were guided by the code of noble honor, which prescribed to be frank with the sovereign, others wanted to draw the attention of the authorities to the need to solve the problems that prompted the Decembrists to revolt, Nechkina M.V. Decembrists. M., Nauka 1984.

still others were confident in the non-application of the death penalty in Russia.

The course of the investigative proceedings was focused not on the ideology of the Decembrists, not on their political demands, but on the issue of regicide.

The investigation of the Decembrists was organized in such a way that during oral interrogations the Committee asked questions, which were then sent to the Decembrist in writing to the casemate. Oral and written questionnaires were largely the same. Thus, the question points available in the investigative files and the written answers to them quite fully reflect the course of the inquiry. And from them it is clear that when drafting questions, the officials of the Committee not only did not falsify the testimony of other Decembrists when they presented them to the person under investigation, but did not even state them, but rewrote them verbatim with the replacement of the first person by the third and in necessary cases omitting the names of the authors of the testimony and the persons mentioned. There are no cases when fictitious testimonies of comrades that are absent in their investigative files were presented to anyone.

As already noted, the main sources in the course of the investigation of the Decembrists are investigative documents, notes and memoirs. All descriptions of the investigation by the Decembrists have much in common with each other, and not only in terms of facts, which is natural, but also in the very approach to narration.

It is the denunciation of the dishonesty of the investigation that is the central theme of almost all the notes. For the most part, the Decembrists unanimously report that during interrogations in the Investigative Committee they were presented with fictitious testimonies of their comrades. Let us now consider those main monuments of the Decembrist memoirs. First of all, these are notes by S.P. Trubetskoy, as well as the personality of the prince, caused conflicting opinions in historiography.

Description initial period Troubetzkoy's investigation is distinguished by many accurately conveyed details. Trubetskoy also described the circumstances of the first interrogation and conversation with Nicholas I. V.P. Pavlova, commenting on Trubetskoy's notes, showed that most of the details of the investigation he mentioned are confirmed in the investigative materials. Moreover, it is worth paying attention to the fact that the very beginning of the investigation - the second half of December 1825 - is described by the prince to the nearest day, and then he begins to stray, greatly confuses the dates of interrogations. Perhaps it was the first days that so strongly etched into his memory, but it seems that during this period Trubetskoy could keep some kind of diary that has not come down to us, which he used when working on notes. But in the future, despite the confusion in numbers, Trubetskoy also remembered the interrogations themselves quite clearly. He reports what time he was asked, lists confrontations. Indeed, it can be said that almost all of his memories are confirmed by investigative materials. But the latter also shows how much the prince kept silent about.

Turning to the investigation case, we see that Trubetskoy defended himself stubbornly and prudently. At the first interrogation, he made it clear that he did not approve of the intentions of Pushchin and Ryleev, who were strongly interested in his participation in the uprising, that he did not want bloodshed and considered the uprising senseless and impossible. Moreover, he repented that he had not prevented it with due determination. Later, he tried to claim that although he was one of the most active conspirators, deep down he did not share their convictions, but he remained in a secret society in order to follow dangerous plans, especially Pestel, and be able to prevent them, in which his ally was S. Muravyov-Apostol. As for the uprising in St. Petersburg, he, Trubetskoy, only expressed his passive consent to the position of dictator, since he understood that the true leaders - Ryleyev and Obolensky - did not need him, but only his name and rank, and did not interfere in their orders. Thus, Trubetskoy tried to shift all responsibility for December 14 onto his comrades, while assuring the investigation of his complete sincerity and repentance, not only in direct appeals to the Committee, but also using correspondence with his wife for this. At the same time, his characterization of his own behavior is not without truth: he did indeed "answer in detail" questions about his role in the events, but in the sense of justification. And although he submitted a list of members of the society to the Committee on December 27, in principle he did not seek to testify against other persons, unless this was required by his chosen defensive tactics. Many examples can be cited when Trubetskoy testified in defense of his comrades, especially those with little or no involvement.

Trubetskoy, a memoirist, skillfully manipulates facts, creating the appearance of accuracy and detail of the story, which can be misleading. His main opponent during the investigation was Ryleev, with whom Trubetskoy had a confrontation on May 6. Trubetskoy described it with characteristic half-truthfulness; the executed Ryleev could no longer convict him, and Trubetskoy explains the reasons for the contradiction in their testimony by the excessive frankness of Kondraty Fedorovich.

Trubetskoy's memoirs contain a lot of accurate and valuable information, but we must not forget for a moment about his desire to justify himself both before his comrades and before posterity. During the investigation, he showed cowardice; just as cowardly he could not tell the truth about himself.

M.A. devoted many pages in his famous notes to the imprisonment in the fortress. Bestuzhev. The author of a detailed study of the memoir heritage of the Bestuzhevs M.K. Azadovsky highly appreciated M. Bestuzhev, a memoirist, noting both the accuracy, reliability, and literary merits of his memoirs. www . decemb . hobby . en He reports that he was "tortured with question points in which we were taunted and baited each other like dogs," he says about himself that he was steadfast, tried not to give evidence that could be used to accuse his comrades; that the questions put to him were mainly directed against Ryleyev and the brothers Nikolai and Alexander.

Perhaps the most famous episode from the prison life of the Decembrists was the invention by the Bestuzhev brothers of the alphabet, with which they tapped over the wall, and which subsequently served more than one generation of Russian prisoners.

Judging by the memoirs of Mikhail Alexandrovich, the way he discovered to knock over the wall helped the brothers coordinate their testimony: “Question points were usually brought to us by Lilienanker and asked:“ How many sheets do you need for answers? ”I announced the number of sheets for reasons, and he retired behind a writing set "Then this period of time was enough to tell my brother briefly the essence of the question and my answer. For his part, he did the same. And sometimes we received both simultaneous question points, and how we laughed then, telling each other gossip invented by our friends - inquisitors" Edelman O.V. Memoirs of the Decembrists about the investigation as historical source www . decemb . hobby . en . The same, but more briefly and specifically, is contained in his story by M.I. Semevsky: "They will bring papers, how many sheets of paper, I already let him know what the paper is, how to answer, and we agreed."38

Nikolai Alexandrovich was interrogated more. In the period of interest to us, i.e. from the beginning of April, he was summoned to the Committee on April 26, May 6, 9 and 15, and on May 10 and 16 he had face-to-face confrontations with Kakhovsky. Whether he consulted with his brother about the content of his answers is difficult to verify, since M. Bestuzhev was not asked questions of a similar content. But judging by all the stories of M. Bestuzhev, the relationship between the brothers was strongly influenced by a significant difference in age, Nikolai Alexandrovich always behaved like an elder, and hardly needed the advice of his younger brother. We also note that from the very beginning of the investigation, N. and M. Bestuzhev chose different lines of behavior. Nikolai Alexandrovich, unlike Mikhail, from the first interrogation tried in every possible way to emphasize the loyal nature of the Northern Society, his testimony is more lengthy; after the beginning of April, his tactics had not changed much, as might have happened if he had decided to adopt the behavior of his brother. And although N. Bestuzhev himself claimed that, having unraveled the tricks of the Committee, he and his brother “took their own measures,”39 this is not evident from his investigative file.

M.A. Bestuzhev was undoubtedly a very truthful and conscientious person. And, unlike Trubetskoy, he had nothing to hide about the investigation, he could be proud of his behavior in those difficult circumstances. However, we clearly see that his notes misrepresent the course of events. This is explained, apparently, by the fact that Mikhail Alexandrovich, like his brothers, and Ryleev, was a writer of the era of romanticism. He romanticizes his past, emphasizes the heroic confrontation of the shackled rebel against the punishing wrong authorities. Of course, in addition to book influences, there was also a natural desire for a person to justify the correctness of his life path, in this case- the rightness of the case that brought the Decembrist to Siberia; consciousness that he is a historical person, and his image should correspond to such a role; finally, also a rather natural idealization of his own youth. All this taken together turns the notes of M.A. Bestuzhev more than literary work than in the monument of the memoir genre.

I.D. Yakushkin and A.E. Rosen are among the few memoirists who avoided repeating the story of false testimony, but emphasized the partiality of the investigation. The memoirs of both are distinguished by their thoroughness, the preservation of the sequence of events, and fairly accurate indications of the dates.

I.D. Yakushkin, as noted by S.Ya. Streich, deservedly enjoyed "the reputation of the most truthful man of his time." I.A. Mironova also noted the thoroughness, truthfulness and reliability of his notes, although both researchers pointed to a number of factual inaccuracies and errors in the author's memory. Comparing the notes with the investigation file of the Decembrist, one can see that he accurately describes the course of the investigation. His story about the first interrogation almost completely coincides with the record made by Levashov. Then, as the Decembrist recalled, he was summoned to the Investigative Committee in the first days of February, and he wrote the answers to the points sent after this "for ten days." And in fact, Yakushkin was in the Committee on February 7, and the answers were signed by him on the thirteenth. In the notes, he sets out the content of the questions received: they concerned his summons to regicide in 1817 in Moscow and the subsequent withdrawal from the secret society. Yakushkin told how he refused to give any names, but having already sent written testimony, he decided that the chosen tactics did not give him the opportunity to testify in favor of his comrades, and the next day he wrote to the Committee and repeated the answers to previous questions, naming those names , which were already known to the investigation, as well as the deceased Passek and Chaadaev, who went abroad. The materials of the Yakushkin case confirm all this, it can only be noted that he was asked much more questions, there are 22 written points. The Decembrist conscientiously described his behavior, strictly evaluating it as "a series of transactions with himself" and "prison depravity"; I must say that this respectable severity of self-esteem does not allow the reader to imagine the internal state of Ivan Dmitrievich in the fortress, all his drama, read in the lines of testimony.

An exceptionally conscientious and punctual memoirist was A.E. Rosen. He was not one of those who went through numerous and extensive interrogations. In addition to the first interrogation by General V.V. Levashov, he was brought to the Investigative Committee only once, after which they sent written points, and left him alone almost until the end of the investigation, only once calling for a confrontation. Rosen not only sets out the content of the questions and answers with exhaustive completeness, but also accurately names the dates: that Levashov had him on December 22 (the record of the interrogation was read at the Committee meeting the next day), and that the Committee was summoned on January 8. Such accuracy makes us treat with great confidence all other information reported by Rosen.

Truthful and sincere notes of A.P. Belyaeva and A.S. Gangeblova, but unlike Rosen, they do not give any dates, and from this the text does not allow us to trace the sequence and number of interrogations, the events are confused and layered on top of each other. The memoirs of these two Decembrists differ from all others in that they do not hide, do not avoid talking about the testimony of other Decembrists against them: Belyaev tells how he and his brother, A.P. Arbuzov and D.I. Zavalishin suffered from the reckless frankness of V.A. Divova; Gangeblov - about the testimony against him P.N. Svistunova and M.D. Lappa (the name of the last Gangeblov encrypted, calling him Zeta).

Of the Decembrists - members of the Southern Society, detailed notes on the investigation were left by N.I. Laurer and N.V. Basargin.

N.I. Lorer, talking about the investigation, does not say much, omits and combines events. For example, describing his arrest, he says that on December 24 in Tulchin, General A.I. Chernyshev threatened him with a confrontation with the scammer Mayboroda, Lorer asked him to give him time to think, and then revealed "everything that concerns me" to the Chief of Staff of the 2nd Army, General P.D. Kiselev, and then A.I. Chernyshev, who gave him written questions. After reading the answers, Kiselev told the Decembrist: "You confess to nothing," after which he was released home, and the next day they took him to St. Petersburg. In fact, this story was more dramatic: on December 24, Laurer wrote responses in which he denied his belonging to society; On December 25, he was confronted with Mayboroda, whose testimony he rejected, but then asked for time to think, after which he admitted that he was a member of a secret society, but had long wanted to leave it, because he felt too "soft-hearted" for such cases, and wrote new lengthy answers, in which he still continued to deny most of Mayboroda's testimony, and on the same day he received additional questions and was sent to Petersburg, probably on December 2648. Describing the further course of the investigation, Lorer is silent about the two letters he wrote to the Committee, in which he justified himself, wrote that he had long since retired from society and asked for forgiveness; about the confrontation he had with G.A. Kanchiyalov. As a result, his behavior looks more persistent than it was in reality.

N.V. Basargin is more accurate in the story about the beginning of the investigation, but his notes and Lorer are brought together by one circumstance: both are trying to pass over in silence the unseemly role that P.I. played during the investigation. Pestel. Decisively denying his belonging to secret societies during interrogations in Tulchin, in St. Petersburg, he immediately began to give extensive testimony, in which he did not spare any of his comrades. The only thing that he tried to hide for a long time was his own participation in the plans for regicide. Moreover, he did not just try to divert the accusation from himself, but resolutely shifted it to others.

Thus, we see that the memories of the Decembrists about the investigation in many cases do not quite adequately reflect the events that really took place. The reasons for this lie not only in natural errors of memory (the notes were written many years after the events) and the limited awareness of the Decembrists about the course of the investigation as a whole, forcing them to invent the missing links, but also in the circumstances of their Siberian exile. The exiles were faced with the need to live for many years together, in a close, closed and largely isolated from the outside world collective. We know that they made a number of conscious efforts to ensure peace and harmony among themselves (for example, they created an artel to conduct a common economy and redistribute funds in favor of the poor, banned gambling in their environment, etc.). In addition, silences and certain distortions were made psychologically inevitable when discussing the situation of the investigation, which was extremely painful for most of the Decembrists. The peculiar "tradition" that arose as a result was reflected in memoirs, which must be taken into account in the further study of both the memoirs of the Decembrists and the circumstances of the investigation in their case.

4. Judgment

The Supreme Criminal Court was created by the manifesto of June 1, 1826 and worked from June 3 to July 12, 1826. In total, 68 people took part in sentencing. The composition of the court included members who were at that time in St. State Council(17 people), senators (35), members Holy Synod(3) - these categories were called "estates" - as well as persons specially appointed by the emperor (there were 13 of them). Samover N.V. and others. "On the question of the struggle of opinions at the meetings of the Supreme Criminal Court over the Decembrists (1826)". "Russia and Reforms", issue 4, compiled by N.V. Samover. - Moscow, 1997.

The court was formed in accordance with the tradition that developed in Russia back in the 18th century, when the largest political processes were subject to the conduct of special courts composed of the most prominent dignitaries of the empire, appointed by the monarch. Actually, legal qualifications from these "judges" were not required. They assessed the actions of the defendants on the basis of information prepared for them on existing legislation and precedents, as well as their own ideas about the degree of danger of the crime and adequate punishment. Then the verdict went to the highest confirmation, which usually meant some mitigation of punishment in general, and especially for secondary defendants.

At the time of the activity of the Supreme Criminal Court, the systematization and codification of the current legislation of Russia had not yet been completed. Formally, the Council Code of 1649 continued to operate, according to which almost all the defendants were subject to the death penalty and the question was only about the method of execution. The Peter's laws in force (Military Regulations, Naval Regulations, etc.) were distinguished by the same severity. In addition, Peter's legislation introduced such a specific punishment as political death - the complete deprivation of a person's legal status ("defamed" could not only be killed). Since the current criminal law was based on delimiting the degrees of loss of legal status, in the second half of the 18th century. a measure was introduced that was intermediate in relation to political death - the deprivation of the rights of the state, which also provided for the termination of property and family relations, but without "defamation". The main difference between political death and the deprivation of the rights of a state, which also implies the loss of estate status, remained elements of shameful punishment (erecting to the gallows, positioning the head on the chopping block). Both of these measures (political death and deprivation of the rights of a state) originally implied a reference to hard labor, and to early XIX in. and a link to an eternal settlement in Siberia. These penalties were not clearly delineated in legislation; it was not clearly defined whether they were punishments in their own right or preceded others. In most cases they were used as constituent parts complex complex measures of punishment, the design of which was entirely left to the discretion of the court. Therefore, it is no coincidence that in the course of the work of the Supreme Criminal Court a large number of options for punishments proposed by individual judges arose, which made the final calculations and the adoption of a final decision very difficult. This forced the organizers of the court to resort to the so-called "rating" voting, that is, to make a decision not by an absolute majority of votes, but by a majority in favor of a particular measure or measures close in content.

As for the legal training of members of the court, it still remained low. Most of the dignitaries got acquainted with legal norms already in the process of service. The formation of the legal consciousness of these people falls on late 18th in. - for the period of domination of "casual" thinking, aimed at resolving a specific, isolated case. The transition to the modern type of legal thinking was just beginning. All this created great difficulties in determining punishments. a large number defendants whose degrees of guilt varied considerably and whose deeds often did not fit any of the known precedents.

How did the court work? After listening to the Report of the Investigative Commission and the certificates prepared by it on the composition of the crimes of each, the court on June 7 elected the Audit Commission of nine people, which was supposed to familiarize the prisoners with their testimony and obtain confirmation of their authenticity. The commission, dividing into three sections, completed its task very quickly; it managed to interview 122 defendants in a day and a half. The prisoners were summoned one by one from the casemates, each was presented with the materials of his case and offered to answer three standard questions: "Did he sign the testimony, given to him in the Investigative Commission? Was it voluntarily signed? Was he given confrontations?" certifying the absence of claims to the investigation. Since the survey was carried out at a fast pace, the verification procedure was purely formal. Members of the commission hurried the defendants without explaining anything to them. As a result, for the majority of respondents, the meaning of what was happening remained unclear.

After the completion of the work of the Audit Commission, on June 10, the court elected the Discharge Commission, also consisting of nine members, among which M. M. Speransky played a leading role. The commission worked hard from 11 to 27 June. During this time, she completed the most difficult part of the court's work - she reviewed the materials of the investigation confirmed by the defendants and, on their basis, compiled "brief extracts about significant circumstances relating to each person, and revealing the type of crime and the degree of guilt of each." Then the Discharge Commission systematized the offenses charged to the accused, divided the "guilts" into groups ("categories"), and preliminarily distributed the conspirators put on trial among them. After that, it was the turn of the general composition of the Supreme Criminal Court to get involved in active work, which was to consider the proposals of the Discharge Commission and make a final decision. As a result of the roll-call vote, the system of ranks proposed by Speransky was approved (eleven degrees of guilt and a group of five defendants placed outside the ranks); In the same order, a measure of punishment was assigned for each of the categories:

- "Out of ranks" - quartering

I category - the death penalty (cutting off the head)

II category - political death, i.e. put your head on the chopping block, then a link to eternal hard labor

III category - eternal hard labor

IV category - hard labor for 15 years, settlement

V category - hard labor for 10 years, settlement

VI category - hard labor for 6 years, settlement

VII category - hard labor for 4 years, settlement

X category - deprivation of ranks, nobility and entry into soldiers with length of service

XI category - deprivation of ranks and entry into soldiers with seniority

The defendants were finally divided into groups (moreover, in a number of cases the court did not agree with the opinion of the Discharge Commission). On July 5, the judges signed a "decisive protocol", that is, a verdict, and elected a special commission of three people (including Speransky) to draw up a most submissive report. Finally, on July 12, after the confirmation of the verdict by Nicholas I, the final session of the Supreme Criminal Court took place. The defendants were summoned to the general meeting of the court and the verdict was announced to them - each category separately. Thus, the convicts only once saw all their judges in person, and none of them even had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the verdict in full.

As already noted, the court divided all those arrested into 11 categories according to the degree of guilt. The five most dangerous criminals - Pavel Pestel, Kondraty Ryleev, Sergei Muravyov-Apostol, Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin and Pyotr Kakhovsky - were carried out "out of ranks", they were sentenced to a terrible, painful punishment - execution by quartering. 31 Decembrists of the first category were sentenced to beheading, 17 of the second - to political death, etc. Nicholas I, by decree of July 10, 1826, commuted the sentence to almost all categories. The “out of rank” five was quartered by hanging.

An extract from the protocol of the Supreme Commander read: “Consistent with the high-monastic mercy shown in this case .... The Supreme Criminal Court, according to the highest authority granted to it, sentenced: instead of the painful death penalty by quartering, Pavel Pestel, Kondraty Ryleev, Sergei Muravyov-Apostol, Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin and to Pyotr Kakhovsky by a certain court verdict, hang these criminals for their grave atrocities. The quotation is given by Nechkina M.V. Decembrists. M., Nauka 1984.

So, all the varied and lengthy work of the Supreme Criminal Court took place in secret, and for a long time the ideas of the Decembrists about their trial went back to just a few isolated episodes - confirmation of testimony in the Audit Commission, and then an unexpected call "to the Committee", a meeting with comrades and listening to maxims. No wonder these episodes are described in memoirs with the greatest detail.

The claims of the Decembrists to the court, expressed in different time are reduced to a small set of theses. The first group consists of claims to the form of the process. Many were outraged by the fact that the prisoners were not informed about the beginning of the trial, and then they were tried "without seeing", "without trial", in violation of the current norms of Russian legal proceedings. Knowing that, according to the law, the criminal should have been announced the beginning of the trial and called for the so-called confirmatory interrogation, some Decembrists subsequently emphasized that they were deprived of the opportunity to justify themselves, bring additions and explanations. The audit commission, as some noted, was reluctant to accept additional testimony, which the court then generally ignored, refused to accept claims to the investigation, did not allow a close enough examination of the investigative materials, even such an essential element of the judicial procedure as confirmation of the identity of the defendants was missed.

Deprived of the opportunity to utter at least a word in their defense and having a vague idea of ​​​​how the Discharge Commission acted, the Decembrists naturally came to the conclusion that the court completely trusted the materials of the investigation, which did not reflect the true state of affairs due to bias and pressure on the defendants, and especially the indictment -- Report of the Commission of Inquiry http://www.ruthenia.ru/document/532174.html - 31 .

The second group of claims concerns the verdict itself. The memoirists criticized the arbitrary choice of defendants (in particular, the strange condescension towards some leaders of secret societies, who were not even put on trial and received mild punishments out of court, and cruelty towards others, less involved, but who ended up in hard labor by court order) , distortion of the goals of society (emphasis made in the final documents of the court on the topic of regicide and rebellion, while ignoring such noble goals as the abolition of serfdom), "illegal" conviction not for actions, but for conversations, like a deliberately confusing system of discharges http://www.ruthenia.ru/document/532174.html - 35, negligence in the wording of the offenses and conviction for something other than what they were actually guilty of, as well as the severity of the sentence http://www.ruthenia.ru/document/532174.html - 38 especially the use of the death penalty.

Finally, the third group of accusations refers to the general political discrediting of the court. The haste, crumpledness of the process was due to the fact that the authorities wanted to end this case by the already appointed date of the coronation. The court, according to some, was an obedient tool in the hands of the monarch (or sought to please him) and only approved the sentence proposed by the authorities or predetermined by gross procedural violations. http://www.ruthenia.ru/document/532174.html - 43. According to others, the matter was in the judges themselves, who were distinguished by a special hardness of heart. In this regard, the desire of some Decembrists to emphasize the negative human and business qualities of judges or, conversely, to note the impartiality or sympathy for the defendants on the part of those members of the court who were sympathetic to the memoirists is characteristic. Some attribute to the court itself a desire for secrecy. A lot of sarcastic remarks are devoted to the pomposity and senselessness of the action taking place. http://www.ruthenia.ru/document/532174.html - 47 .

In this way, overall picture the court as presented by the defendants fits perfectly into the paradigm of "victims - executioners"; everything is discredited: the chosen form of the process, the system of punishments, business and moral qualities judges. The strong polemical beginning inherent in the Decembrist memoirs, however, does not allow, however, to accept the accusations made in them on faith. http://www.ruthenia.ru/document/532174.html - 48. Criticism of the court was completely subordinated to another task - the condemnation of the entire political regime, against which the Decembrists opposed and which decided their fate according to its cruel and imperfect laws. To solve this problem, the shortcomings of the process - real or imaginary - turned out to be very useful: they substantiated the critical attitude of the Decembrists to the existing order in Russia, justified retroactively, if not the uprising, then at least the existence of secret anti-government societies, and made it possible to somewhat gloss over unjustified and not entirely decent "martyrs" hopes for pardon and cooperation with the authorities.

Literature

1. Nechkina M.V. Decembrists. M., Nauka 1984.

2. Samover N.V. and others. On the question of the struggle of opinions at the meetings of the Supreme Criminal Court over the Decembrists (1826). Russia and reforms, issue 4, compiled by N.V. Samover. - Moscow, 1997.

3. On the history of the denunciation of Captain A.I. Maiboroda www. oldsgu. en

4. Eidelman N. Doomed detachment. M., ed. Soviet writer, 1987

5. Fedorov V.A. We are proud of our fate... (Investigation and trial of the Decembrists). M., 1988

6. Edelman O.V. Kamensk Administration of the Southern Society under secret supervision www. decemb. hobby. en

7. Edelman O.V. Memoirs of the Decembrists about the investigation as a historical source www. decemb. hobby. en

Similar Documents

Characteristics of the socio-economic situation in Russia during the time of the Decembrists, who were fighters against serfdom and autocracy. Formation of the worldview of the Decembrists. Union of Salvation and Union of Prosperity. Investigation and "trial" of the Decembrists.

abstract, added 10/27/2010


The first open political speech in the history of Russia. Formation of the worldview of the Decembrists and the first secret societies. "Northern" and "Southern" societies of the Decembrists. Decembrist uprising in 1825. Investigation and trial. Program provisions of the Decembrists.

test, added 05/08/2016


The study of the origin of the organizational social movement and the prerequisites for the Decembrist movement. Descriptions of the creation of secret southern and northern societies, the dynastic crisis, the uprising of the Chernigov regiment, the trial, investigation and release of the Decembrists.

term paper, added 07/02/2011


The reasons, driving forces and the nature of the movement of noble revolutionaries in Russia. The first organizations are the Southern and Northern Societies. Uprising December 14, 1825 Uprisings in the south. Investigation and trial of the Decembrists. Reasons for the defeat and the significance of the Decembrists.

abstract, added 05/16/2008


The origins of the formation of the worldview of the Decembrists, high level their education. The impact of the defeat of the uprising on December 14, 1825 on the revolutionary transformations in Russia. The books that were in the Decembrist penal servitude are the most famous libraries.

abstract, added 12/08/2014


The era of the reign of Emperor Nicholas I in national history. Ascension to the throne and the beginning of the reign: reprisal against the Decembrists. "Code of testimonies of the Decembrists" with their projects of reforms in Russia. Activities of E.F. Kankrin. Crimean War.

abstract, added 06/12/2009


Secret organizations of the Decembrists. "Russian Truth" by P. Pestel and "Constitution" by N. Muravyov. The uprising on December 14 in St. Petersburg, the performance of the Chernigov regiment. Reprisal against the Decembrists. The meaning of the uprising. Formation public thought in Russia.

abstract, added 11/21/2008


History of the Nerchinsk political penal servitude in the second half of the 19th century. The stay of the Decembrists in the region is the first and most striking episode in history. The contribution of the Decembrists to the development of the region. "Convict Academy". Educational work, ethnographic research.

abstract, added 10/29/2008


Historical aspects of the reign of Russian tsars and the Decembrist uprising. Political and economic situation during the reign of Alexander I. Uprising on the Senate Square. The conclusion of the Decembrists in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Pushkin about the Decembrists.

abstract, added 04.12.2010


The history of the word "Decembrists". Decembrists move to Transbaikalia. Features of their stay in Chita. The transition of the Decembrists from the Chita prison to the Petrovsky plant. Characteristics of their relationship with local residents and influence on the life of Transbaikalians.

The uprising of the Chernigov regiment.

On the eve of the speech of the Decembrists on Senate Square, on December 13, 1825, arrests began among members of the Southern Society. On this day, on the denunciation of Captain A.I. Maiboroda, Colonel Pestel and A.P. Yushnevsky were arrested. Adjutant General A.I. Chernyshev was sent to Tulchin for investigation, by order of the Chief of the General Staff I.I. Many other members of this organization were soon arrested. That is why the performance of the Southern Society from the very beginning was doomed to failure.

The most active members of the Southern Society, in whose hands most of the organizational threads were, were the leaders of the Vasilkovskaya council - Sergei Muravyov-Apostol and Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin.

On December 29, 1825, the uprising of the Chernigov regiment began, stationed in the area of ​​​​the city of Vasilkov, 30 kilometers from Kiev. The uprising broke out in the village of Trilesy, where one of the companies of the Chernigov regiment was located, where Muravyov-Apostol arrived, fleeing from arrest. The regiment commander, Colonel Gebel, managed to arrest him, but with the help of guard soldiers, Muravyov-Apostol was released, and Gebel was wounded. It was at this moment that Muravyov-Apostol decided to start an uprising. From vil. Trilesy, the insurgent company arrived in Vasilkov, where the headquarters of the regiment and its main forces were located. The companies located in Vasilkovo joined the rebels.

During the week, the soldiers of the Chernihiv regiment made raids in the regions of Ukraine, hoping for other military units to join them, in which members of secret societies served. However, the military command managed to isolate the regiment from the rest of the units, at the same time pulling large forces into the area of ​​the uprising, the overall command of which was entrusted to Konstantin Pavlovich.

About with. Kovalevka The Chernigov regiment met a detachment of General Geisman, sent to quell the uprising. S. Muravyov-Apostol was sure that this detachment would go over to the side of the rebels, but his illusions collapsed with the first volleys of buckshot. Muraviev was wounded in the head and captured. His brother Ippolit, who had just arrived from St. Petersburg with the news of an unsuccessful performance on Senate Square, shot himself on the battlefield. There were no dead or wounded on the part of the government detachment. 869 soldiers and five officers of the rebel regiment were arrested, including Bestuzhev-Ryumin.

After the defeat of the speeches in St. Petersburg and Ukraine, meetings of the commission of inquiry began, which worked until June 17, 1826. In total, 579 people were involved in the Decembrist case - this was exactly the number of people who fell into the “Alphabet of members of a malicious society that opened on December 14, 1825.” - list of members of secret societies. Nicholas I himself acted as an investigator, personally interrogating those arrested.

At the end of May 1826, the investigation into the Decembrists' case was completed. The final decision of the Commission of Inquiry was written by D.N. Bludov. This report, titled "Report of the Commission of Inquiry" was published in Russian and French. In drafting this document, first of all, ideological and political considerations were taken into account. Thus, this document was intended to convince the public opinion of Russia and Europe of the accidental appearance of secret societies in Russia, the isolation of the Decembrists from Russian reality.

The meetings of the Supreme Criminal Court, at which, according to 11 categories - according to the degree of guilt - the Decembrists were sentenced, began at the end of June 1826, and already on July 13, 1826, Pavel Pestel, Kondraty were executed in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Ryleev, Sergei Muraviev-Apostol, Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin and Pyotr Kakhovsky.

On the night of July 13, 1826, a gallows was built on the crownwork of the Peter and Paul Fortress. In the early foggy morning, five Decembrists were led out to be executed. On the chest of those sentenced to hanging hung boards with the inscription: "Regicide."

The execution procedure was not without complications. Three Decembrists fell off the ropes. Here is what St. Petersburg Governor-General Golenishchev-Kutuzov wrote about this in his report: “The execution ended with due silence and order, both from the troops who were in the ranks and from the spectators, who were few. Due to the inexperience of our executioners and the inability to arrange the gallows at the first time, three, namely: Ryleev, Kakhovsky and Muravyov, broke, but were soon hanged again and received a well-deserved death.

All the other Decembrists were taken out into the courtyard of the fortress and placed in two squares: in one - belonging to the guards regiments, in the other - all the rest. All sentences were accompanied by demotion, deprivation of ranks, rights and privileges of the nobility: swords were broken over the convicts, epaulettes and uniforms were torn off and thrown into the fire of blazing fires. The sailors-Decembrists were taken to Kronstadt and performed the rite of demolition over them on the flagship of Admiral Kroun, throwing their uniforms and epaulettes into the water. “It can be said that they tried to destroy the first manifestation of liberalism with all four elements - fire, water, air and earth,” the Decembrist V.I. Shteingel wrote in his memoirs.

Over 120 Decembrists were demoted to the ranks, exiled to hard labor or to a settlement in Siberia, the soldiers were sent to the active Caucasian army; the entire Chernigov regiment was also sent there.

The surviving Decembrists were amnestied only after the death of Nicholas I, in 1856.

The Decembrists were arrested until mid-April 1826. A total of 316 people were arrested. In total, more than 500 people were involved in the Decembrists' case (many of them were investigated in absentia). 121 people appeared before the Supreme Criminal Court. In addition, forty members of secret societies were tried in Mogilev, Bialystok and Warsaw.

Usually the Committee interrogated the accused first orally, and then the same questions were sent to the casemate, where the prisoner answered them in writing.

The course of the investigation was tirelessly monitored by the tsar himself, who personally interrogated in the early days of many leaders of the Northern Society. The fear he experienced on December 14, the fear that the investigation might miss one of the rebels, forced Nicholas I to stoop to the role of a police investigator. Pleasing the emperor, the members of the Committee in every way sought repentance from the Decembrists and sought to extort recognition by threats and false promises.

As a result, those arrested, not feeling any public support behind the walls of the fortress and frightened by the fear of torture, often lost heart and slandered themselves and their comrades.

Although the government tried to clarify the question of the sources of the “freethinking” of the members of the secret society, perhaps the main task of the Committee was to present all the Decembrists as regicides. The entire course of the investigation was subordinated to this goal, about which N. I. Lorer, the closest assistant to P. Pestel, wrote: “The Investigative Committee was biased from beginning to end. Our accusation was illegal, the process and the very questions were rude, deceitful and deceitful.

The behavior of the Decembrists during the investigation was different. Many of them did not show revolutionary fortitude, lost ground under their feet, repented, wept, betrayed their comrades. But there were also cases of personal heroism, refusal to testify and extradite the conspirators. Lunin, Andreevich - the second, Pyotr Borisov, Usovsky, Yu. Lyublinsky, Yakushkin were among the persistent and behaving with dignity. After interrogations, "state criminals" were sent to the Peter and Paul Fortress, in most cases with the tsar's notes, which indicated the conditions under which this prisoner should be kept. The Decembrist Yakushkin was sent with the following royal note: deal with him strictly and do not otherwise contain, as a villain.

When P. Pestel was arrested, he told his comrade Sergei Volkonsky: “Don’t worry, I won’t reveal anything, even if they tear me to shreds.” But, having learned that the investigators were well aware of the affairs and plans of the secret society, P. Pestel lost heart and even turned to General Levashov with letters of repentance. But then he regained his composure and to the end held himself with dignity, despite the weakened strength.

Two points especially aggravated the guilt of P. Pestel: Russkaya Pravda and plans for regicide. That is why in the notes of Nicholas I he is called "a villain in all the power of the word, without the slightest shadow of remorse."

P. Pestel first answered all questions with complete denial. “Not belonging to the society mentioned here and not knowing anything about its existence, all the less can I say what its true goal is striving for and what measures it envisaged to achieve it,” he answered, for example, when asked about the goal of a secret society. Later, betrayed by many, he was forced to give detailed answers.

The Decembrist Lunin was steadfast during interrogations. “I was not accepted by anyone as a member of a secret society, but I myself joined it,” he proudly answered the investigators. “I consider it contrary to my conscience to open their names (Decembrists), because I should have discovered Brothers and friends.”

But at the same time, many investigative cases of the Decembrists contain numerous repentant appeals to the tsar and members of the commission, tearful letters from repentant "criminals", and oaths to earn forgiveness. Why didn't so many members of the secret society stand up? The answer seems clear. There was no revolutionary class behind the participants in the uprising of December 14 imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Outside the prison walls, they felt no support, and many lost heart. There have also been cases of suicide in the prison. So, the Decembrist Bulatov smashed his head against the wall of the prison cell. Chaining "in iron" was a form of physical torture (other forms, apparently, were not used), but moral torture was no less severe - intimidation, reassurance, influence on the family, threats of the death penalty, and so on.

The tsarist authorities were interested in widely informing the noble society about the supposedly “deep repentance” of the prisoners, recognizing the fallacy of the speech and praising the mercy of the tsarist government. For this purpose, for example, one document was widely distributed through the police and the provincial administration, which was a combination of three letters - Ryleev's dying letter to his wife, the Decembrist Obolensky's letter to his father, and Yakubovich's penitential letter, also to his father. All three letters were distributed by the government in an official way. This is clearly evidenced by a special "file" of the St. Petersburg civil governor's office, in which these letters of repentance are neatly filed with official reports on the investigation and trial, excerpts from Senate statements and other documents.

In essence, there was no trial of the Decembrists. The parody of the trial took place behind closed doors, in deep secrecy. The summoned Decembrists were hastily offered to testify their signatures under the testimony during the investigation, after which they read a pre-prepared verdict and called the next "discharge". “Have we been judged? the Decembrists asked later. “And we didn’t know that it was a trial.”

Five Decembrists were placed "out of the ranks" and sentenced to be quartered. But Nicholas I replaced the quartering with hanging.

An extract from the protocol of the Supreme Criminal Court dated July 11, 1826 read: “Consistent with the high-monarchal mercy shown in this case ... The Supreme Criminal Court, according to the highest authority presented to it, sentenced: instead of the painful death penalty by quartering, Pavel Pestel, Kondraty Ryleev, Sergey Muravyov-Apostol , Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin and Pyotr Kakhovsky, by the verdict of a certain court, hang these criminals for their grave atrocities.

The execution took place on July 13 at the crown of the Peter and Paul Fortress. On the chest of those sentenced to hanging hung boards with the inscription: "Regicide".

The head of the kronwerk later said: “When the benches were taken from under the feet, the ropes broke and three criminals (Ryleev, Kakhovsky and Muravyov) collapsed into the pit, breaking through the boards laid over it with the weight of their bodies and shackles ... However, the operation was repeated this time done well."

All other imprisoned Decembrists were taken to the courtyard of the fortress. All sentences were accompanied by demotion, deprivation of ranks and nobility: swords were broken over the convicts, epaulettes and uniforms were torn off them and thrown into the fire of blazing bonfires.

Over 120 Decembrists were exiled for various periods to Siberia, to hard labor or to a settlement. Demoted to the ranks were exiled to the army in the Caucasus. There were Decembrists who visited both Siberia and the Caucasus (Lorer, Odoevsky and others): after serving a certain term of punishment in Siberia, they were identified as “mercy” as privates in the Caucasian army, where military operations were carried out, under bullets.

To the number of those executed should be added the Decembrist soldiers, flogged to death, some of whom were driven through the ranks twelve times, that is, they received twelve thousand gauntlets. Less active soldiers were stripped of their insignia and exiled to the Caucasus. The entire penal Chernihiv regiment was also sent there. Documents were found in the Siberian archives showing that some soldiers were exiled to Siberia, and the authorities took all measures to ensure that they did not encounter the exiled Decembrists there.

Shipping to Siberia began in July 1826. Hard labor was served at first mainly in the Nerchinsk mines. Many of the Decembrists were visited here by their wives. They did not take advantage of the permission of Nicholas I to remarry and abandoned their free and well-to-do noble life for the sake of their Decembrist husbands.

As the wives of exiled convicts, they were deprived of civil rights and noble privileges. E. I. Trubetskaya, M. N. Volkonskaya, and A. G. Muravyova were the first to arrive at the Nerchinsk mines at the beginning of 1827. After them came A. I. Davydova, A. V. Entaltseva, E. P. Naryshkina, A. V. Rozen, N. D. Fonvizina, M. K. Yushnevskaya, and also Polina Gobl (P. E. Annenkova) and C. Le-Dantyu (K. P. Levashova). The selfless deed of the wives of the Decembrists was of great social importance.

In 1856, after the death of Nicholas I, in connection with the coronation of the new emperor Alexander II, a manifesto was issued on the amnesty of the Decembrists and permission for them to return from Siberia. Only forty people remained among the living Decembrists. About a hundred people have already died in hard labor and in exile.