V. A. Tvardovskaya “Nikolai Morozov at the end of the road: science against violence” Date: July 19, 2009 Publisher: "Peacemaking in Russia: Church, politicians, thinkers", M., Nauka, 2003. OCR: Adamenko Vitaly ( [email protected])
IN. A. Tvardovskaya
NIKOLAI MOROZOV AT THE END OF THE ROAD:
SCIENCE AGAINST VIOLENCE
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov has firmly entered our literature as a “revolutionary and scientist” or “revolutionary scientist.” A former Narodnaya Volya, a Shlisselburg prisoner, who spent a total of 28 years in captivity, he was always characterized as an unbending fighter, whose revolutionary will could not be broken even by prison. The attention of those who wrote about Morozov, as a rule, was focused on his participation in the revolutionary movement and his prison ordeals. The life of the former Narodnaya Volya member upon his release from prison remained little known: people were more interested in his scientific activities of that time. But even in special works devoted to Morozov’s scientific hobbies and discoveries, he was invariably identified as a revolutionary; a good example is the book “Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov - a learned encyclopedist” (M., 1982). Meanwhile, Morozov in the 1870s and early 1880s. and Morozov in the 20th century. - completely different personalities in worldview and social position. In the last period of his life, Nikolai Alexandrovich called himself an “evolutionist.” It seems that the self-change that occurred in the former Narodnaya Volya, a preacher of terror, is of considerable interest, since it happened naturally and organically, without external coercion, and was the result of the deep and serious work of the scientist’s thought. But in order to understand the results of this work, it is worth turning to the beginning of his life’s journey, which was in many ways typical of the common youth of post-reform Russia. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov was born on July 7 (June 25), 1854 in the family estate of his father Borok, Yaroslavl province. He was the son of a wealthy landowner Pyotr Alekseevich Shchepochkin and his peasant serf Anna Vasilievna Morozova. Their marriage was not legalized. Anna Vasilievna, having received her freedom, was assigned to the class of bourgeois. In official documents - right up to the October Revolution - Nikolai 404 Alexandrovich was listed as “the illegitimate son of a nobleman,” a tradesman in the city of Mologa. He received his mother's surname and her class affiliation. Nikolai found himself in the ranks of the revolutionaries without finishing the 5th grade of the gymnasium. And, although he entered the gymnasium (in the 2nd grade) quite late (he received home education until the age of 14), it is hardly possible to recognize his choice of path as mature. The young man, who was barely 20 years old, did not have any serious life experience. Vague dissatisfaction with the surrounding world was more connected with the order in the gymnasium, where classicism reduced to almost nothing the teaching of natural science, which Morozov was fond of in the spirit of the times. He recalled how, as a sign of protest against the dominance of dead languages, after exams he and his classmates burned textbooks in Latin and Greek. High school student Morozov read Russian literature with its sympathy for all the humiliated and insulted - he himself felt the same in terms of social status. He inherited his love for Russian classics - Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol - from his mother, who stood out among the provincial nobility for her erudition and education. In his youth, Nekrasov became Morozov’s favorite poet. “Go to battle for the honor of your homeland, // For convictions, for love. // ...Go and die blamelessly. // You will not die in vain: // The cause is solid, // When blood flows underneath it.” Young Morozov read these Nekrasov lines as a call addressed to him personally. He was also interested in the works of Schiller with their anti-tyrant motives. During this period of the formation of personality, its impulses towards goodness and justice, he met people who entered into a struggle with the existing order for the common good. Admired by his new comrades, in love with the owner of the safe house, Olympiada Alekseeva, Nikolai Morozov decided to follow the same path with them. This decision was not made without some self-inflicted violence. If one part of his soul was already rushing uncontrollably towards a new life, with its storms and adversities, then the other found it painfully difficult to tear himself away from his favorite sciences. The high school student Morozov was passionately interested in natural science, geology, mineralogy, and botany. By the 5th grade, he had not only become acquainted with the works of Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, but also studied C. Darwin, M. Faraday, K. Focht, E. Haeckel. In 1871/72 became a free listener 405 Telecom of Moscow University. His finds in the quarries of the Moscow region were transferred to the Museum of Mineralogy and Zoology of Moscow University, whose professors had no doubt about the scientific future of the gifted high school student. But precisely because pursuing science seemed to him the happiest option for human destiny, Morozov doubted his right to engage in it when his comrades were devoting their strength to the struggle for the liberation of the people. The entry into the revolutionary movement of a high school student who had not completed his course was not something extraordinary for that time, representing a special sign of Russian post-reform life. It was depicted by F. M. Dostoevsky, bringing out in his last novel the socialist high school student Kolya Krasotkin, indignant at the injustice of the world around him, dreaming of remaking humanity “according to a new state.” Kolya Morozov, indulging in dreams of universal equality and happiness, had an equally unclear idea of exactly how society should be structured for this purpose. But, sharing the convictions of his new comrades, he no longer doubted that the path to it lay only through revolution. A powerful wave of movement among the common youth picked up Morozov and carried him to the village. Participation in “going to the people” revolutionized him even more. Like his comrades in the Chaikovsky circle, he witnessed that the authorities responded to any attempts to get closer to the people with repression. Not only propagandists were arrested, but also those who went to the village to get to know the peasantry better, to help them, working nearby as a village clerk, doctor, teacher, and agronomist. Later, in poetry, he depicted “how the alarm was raised in confusion // Servants of darkness, shackles and chains // And with the cover of thorn branches // Covered the road to the people.” Morozov’s further development as a revolutionary was facilitated by his stay in Switzerland: in 1874 he was sent by the “Tchaikovites” to the editorial office of the newspaper “Rabotnik,” which was published in the Bakuninist spirit. Here, among emigrant revolutionaries, Nikolai Alexandrovich met adherents of various trends in populism. So different in their understanding of the path of the upcoming transformations, their means and forces, the Bakuninists, Lavrists, Jacobins (Tkachev’s supporters) equally did not think of the transition to a new social system differently than 406 with the help of revolutionary violence committed by the people or an intellectual minority - by conspiracy. Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev made a strong impression on the young Morozov: the originality of his views, their novelty and sharp dissimilarity with many popular ideas. Tkachev at that time continued to develop his ideas about the relativity of morality, expressed in his journalism in the 60s. Considering himself a follower of K. Marx, Tkachev argued to the eagerly listening Morozov that “it is not moral doctrines, not critical thought that makes history.” Its soul, the “nerve of social life,” is made up of “economic interests” 1 . In Geneva, Nikolai Alexandrovich joined the local section of the International - Bakuninist orientation. With enthusiasm he sings “Carmagnola” with everyone at its meetings: “We want freedom for all people! // Enough with poverty, violence and enmity! // We want equality of people! // Into the ditch of all priests, into the stable of all gods!” And, like other internationalist revolutionaries, he does not notice the inconsistency and contradictory nature of the revolutionary anthem. His thought does not stop at the fact that protest against violence is accompanied by a call for violence. His sense of justice is not hurt by the fact that the slogan of equality and freedom of “all people” does not apply to everyone: in the new society, some are destined for a place in the ditch. Upon returning to Russia in March 1875, Morozov was arrested at the border. The three years spent in prison, as well as the trial of 193 participants in the “going to the people”, in which he was tried, continued his revolutionary development. And although in prison Nikolai Alexandrovich is enthusiastically engaged in self-education, improving in foreign languages, composing poetry, reading serious scientific literature, the main result of these three prison years is the comprehension of the “science of hatred.” “The long duel between the government and the revolutionary party,” as G. V. Plekhanov defined the process of 193, did not end in favor of the government. The authorities, as always, could only oppose revolutionary and socialist ideas with violence. Ruined lives, broken destinies of comrades, their passions - 1 Tkachev P. N. Selected essays on socio-political topics in 5 volumes. M, 1933. T. 3. P. 217. The article was first published in the magazine "Delo". 1875. N 9, 12. 407 Denmark in captivity filled Morozov with hatred of the autocracy. Already in prison, he felt new - militant - moods among his like-minded people, who longed to avenge their comrades, to fight the authorities tooth and nail for “human rights.” Morozov himself fully shared these aspirations and upon his release - in February 1878 - he found himself among the supporters of the new course of struggle - those who were increasingly aware of the need to win civil rights. General discontent began to boil in the country. The sharp deterioration in the life of the lower working classes, associated with the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878, caused strikes in St. Petersburg. Rumors about the redistribution of land and additions to allotments were widely spread among the peasantry. Morozov and his comrades, who again went to the people - to the Saratov province, heard the echo of the first terrorist acts - attempts on local authorities and spies in Kyiv, Kharkov, Odessa, where the southern Executive Committee began to operate. The seal that sealed the proclamations he issued depicted a crossed pistol, dagger and ax. The acquittal of V. I. Zasulich, who shot the St. Petersburg mayor Trepov, by a jury made a huge impression on the revolutionary environment and on society: it, in its own way, convinced of the effectiveness of the terror that had begun. Morozov, who with all his soul was eager to get into the thick of city events, did not stay long in the village. In August 1878, he appeared in St. Petersburg and was immediately accepted into the Land and Freedom organization, which aimed to prepare a people's revolution. Terror was recognized as one of the ways to disorganize the existing system. Morozov (together with S. M. Kravchinsky and D. A. Klemenets) is on the editorial board of the newspaper "Land and Freedom". Convinced that it is worth speaking to the authorities only from a position of strength, and that the existing social structure can only be transformed by force, Nikolai Alexandrovich tries to promote terror in “Land and Freedom” as the main form of revolutionary action, but encounters resistance from many influential Land Volunteers. It intensified with the arrival of G.V. Plekhanov to the editorial office. Plekhanov contrasted the “terrorist enthusiasm” of Morozov and his multiplying supporters with the Bakuninist ideas of a peasant revolution, which rejected political tasks as independent. The dispute within the revolutionary organization, for all its severity and adherence to principles, did not proceed 408 only about the strategy of struggle, but also about the most appropriate forms of violence in relation to the existing government. In the context of the growing revolutionary crisis, the apolitical, semi-anarchist program could no longer succeed. Since the disagreements between Plekhanov and Morozov made it difficult to publish the newspaper, a chronicle addition was created to it - “Listok “Land and Freedom””, of which Morozov was made editor. Here he was more independent, although in a certain sense he was rather limited by the Leaflet’s goal as a chronicle of current events in the movement. If "Land and Freedom" wrote about terrorist attacks with approval and satisfaction, without making general conclusions about the role and place of terror in the ongoing struggle, then "Leaflet" truly became an apology for terror. Morozov promoted a view of terror not only as a weapon of revenge and self-defense: “Listok” asserted the ability of terror to disorganize power and the possibility of the agitational influence of this form of struggle on the people. The pathos of "The Leaf" lies in the moral justification of terror. According to Morozov, by fulfilling the functions of revenge and self-defense, terror already allows revolutionaries to rise to that “moral height that is necessary for a figure of freedom in order to captivate the masses” 2 . Summarizing the possibilities of this form of revolutionary violence, Morozov puts forward his programmatic thesis, asserting terror as “one of the main means of fighting despotism”: “Political murder is the implementation of revolution in the present” 3. "Land and Freedom" glorifies the first terrorists as true heroes of their time, true fighters against autocratic tyranny. Bearing in mind the by no means unambiguous attitude towards terrorists in society, Morozov noted: “When passions subside, when things appear in their true light, these people will be bowed down to, they will be considered saints” 4 . “Listok” fully reflected that trait of the younger generation of post-reform Russia that F. M. Dostoevsky noticed: “the thirst for quick achievement.” It was not the patient work in the “native field” that the writer called for, but the readiness for self-sacrifice in the name of the oppressed people that attracted the re-2 Revolutionary journalism of the seventies. Rostov n/Donu, b. pp. 282-283. 3 Ibid. P. 283. 4 Ibid. pp. 283-284. 409 old youth. “It is difficult to live and fight for freedom, // But it is easy to die for it,” Morozov wrote in prison. “Coming up with arms in hand, attacks here and there, everywhere, the forcible liberation of comrades who had fallen into the hands of the government could not have been more in keeping with him (Morozov. - V.T.) ardent nature and long-standing dreams of “heroic deeds,” recalled V.N. Figner about her comrade in the struggle. The preacher of guerrilla warfare against the government, who had suffered from poor health in prison, made a strange impression even in a revolutionary environment that was accustomed to everything: thin and pale, but covered with weapons, he resembled “a young tree that has grown far from fresh air” 5 . “Sparrow”, “Sparrow” - underground nicknames of Morozov. Amorous, affectionate, faithful in friendship, he was valued by his comrades for his kindness and responsiveness. Would he be able to raise his hand against a person while implementing his program settings? V.I. Zasulich admitted in court that it was not easy for her to do this. It was also difficult for Morozov’s closest friend S.M. Kravchinsky: several times, under the most favorable conditions for the assassination attempt on the chief of gendarmes N.V. Mezentsev, he was unable to begin carrying out the “political murder” planned by the landowners. Finally, on August 2, 1878, he forced himself to carry out this action entrusted to him by the organization, overcoming strong internal resistance. In the mentioned prison poems of Morozov, where he admits that it is easier for him to die for freedom than to fight for it, the inner world of this revolutionary appears differently than in his journalism. Morozov's poetry shows that he was no stranger to the questions that arose before many of those who did not accept the existing order. In Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov,” published at the turn of the 1870s-1880s, Alyosha puts them in front of Ivan—a “business socialist,” as the author defines it: “Does every person really have the right to decide, looking at other people, which of the they deserve to live and who is more worthy? 6 In the “List of Land and Freedom,” the revolutionary Morozov calls for terror “without fear and doubt,” not only asserting its inevitability 5 Figner V. N."Land and Freedom" // Russian State Archive of Literature and Art. F. 1185 (V.N. Figner). Op. 1. D. 147; Lyubatovich O. WITH. Distant and recent // Past. 1906. N 5. P. 219-220. 6 Dostoevsky F. M. Full collected works: V 30 volumes. T. 14. L., 1976. P. 131. 410 fear and necessity, but also morally justifying “political murders.” The poet Morozov does not hide how this worries him, using Dostoevsky’s expression, “blood according to conscience.” And it turns out that it is difficult for him to raise his hand against a person: “It is difficult to live without sometimes trembling, // Raising your hand against the enemy, // So that your strength is not consumed by melancholy... So that in the one who rebelled for love, // Right up to the door of the cold coffin // Mighty anger would not cease, // And the blood would boil with vengeance.” Feelings of hatred and malice, enmity and revenge, interpreted in the underground press of the populists as holy and right, organically inherent in a fighter for the good of the people, in their poetry, with its characteristic revelations and insights, are sometimes recognized as precisely unnatural, destructive for the human person. Morozov’s comrade in the struggle and in prison, Sergei Silych Sinegub, accuses the oppressors of the people who threw him in prison of “killing the feeling of forgiveness in the heart // And poisoning love with malice!”... “You killed everything that I was.” rich... // Give me my heart back! // It’s hard for me to exist for malice!” admits the poet Sinegub. The norms of universal morality learned from childhood prevented one from committing violence with a calm soul, which was theoretically justified as necessary and inevitable - all human nature resisted this. “Only you remained, childhood influences, // You sank to the bottom of your soul,” Morozov realized in prison what was hindering him in his revolutionary activities. “You once told me,” he wrote to his mother from prison, “that whenever I want to do something concerning another person, I would first imagine that this same thing was done to me, and if I think so if an act is bad towards oneself, then it is not good on my part either" 7. The simple moral lessons of Anna Vasilyevna, a Russian peasant woman from serfdom, as we see, were not forgotten: they were not applied in the thick of the struggle to enemies, but remained in the subconscious, “at the bottom of the soul.” The doubts generated by the contradiction between revolutionary duty and innate morality were reflected in their own way only by Morozov’s poetry: they were not reflected either in journalism or in program documents. In the poems of this consistent supporter of terror one can sometimes hear a strange lack of confidence. Morozov N. A. Letters from the Shlisselburg Fortress. St. Petersburg, 1910. P. 71. 411 confidence in the legitimacy of the chosen path. Here sounds the voice of a man breaking himself in the name of ideas that he recognizes as the only true ones, suppressing his nature, trying to overcome his initial rejection of violence. “I’ll sharpen an ax, // I’ll train myself to handle heavy weapons, // I’ll kill pity in my heart, so that my hand // Make fearful to insensitive judges,” 8, as if an adept of terror conjures himself, preparing for bloodshed, which he considers inevitable. . And with determination he suppresses all hesitation in himself, drives away doubts, joining the ranks of those who expressed their readiness to fight the authorities in the most brutal way, with the most modern weapons. Morozov advocated political terror not only in the Leaflet, which he edited, but also among his comrades everywhere. However, at the center of the disputes among the Land Volyas was the question not of terror, but of political struggle. The Land and Freedom program, as already mentioned, provided for terror as a means of disorganizing power. But she did not set the task of winning political freedoms as an independent one. Those who set this task began to consider terror as a means of political struggle. Morozov, naturally, found himself among its pioneers. He was among its first few supporters at their Lipetsk congress in June 1879. He actively, but unsuccessfully campaigned with his like-minded people at the Voronezh Congress of Land Volunteers for the inclusion of political goals in the program. Here their main opponent was G.V. Plekhanov. These disagreements split Land and Freedom. In August 1879, after the division of the organization, Nikolai Alexandrovich became one of the founders of Narodnaya Volya and a member of its central governing body - the Executive Committee.* * *
Together with L. A. Tikhomirov, Morozov was appointed editor of the newspaper "Narodnaya Volya" - a propaganda and theoretical organ at the same time. The newspaper focused on popular 8 These poems, reprinted in all collections of revolutionary populist poetry, were attributed to an “unknown author,” but belong to N. A. Morozov ( Tvardovskaya V. A. Unknown about the poem “After the execution on November 4th” // Russian literature. 1984. N 2. S. 166-169). 412 tions "in all segments of the population ideas democratic political revolution" 9 . The achievement of socialist goals was made directly dependent on the achievement of civil liberties. The path of a coup d'etat was seen as the most reliable, although the likelihood of a popular revolution was not denied. Self-liquidation of the autocracy under the influence of struggle, one of the means of which was terror, was also allowed. A peaceful, non-violent path of transformation, it would seem, was also not excluded. "People's Will" put forward an ultimatum: the convening of a Constituent Assembly in the country on the basis of universal suffrage, and then it would stop the struggle, engaging only in propaganda and agitation. The Narodnaya Volya members did not believe in the impact of this ultimatum on the government, in its ability to make concessions. And, it must be said, the authorities did everything to convince them that only a violent method of transformation was possible. The slogan of the Constituent Assembly, to one degree or another, found sympathy among representatives of a variety of political movements, peculiarly echoing the demands of the legislative bodies under the autocrat of varying degrees of competence, right up to the purely ritual Zemsky Sobor. The task of involving society in governance was ripe, but the authorities did not want to recognize it, being hostile to any projects of public representation as a threat to the existence of the autocracy. Not only with socialist revolutionaries, but also with political movements that did not aim to eliminate the autocratic monarchy, its supreme power did not want to enter into dialogue or make any compromise. Convinced that only by force could civil rights that already existed in European countries be wrested from the autocracy, the Narodnaya Volya members launched a struggle. It was outlined in their program as multifaceted, carried out in different directions. This provided for propaganda among all segments of the population, the organization of local groups and circles - among workers, students, and the military, and the establishment of a free press in the country and not abroad. Terror was not given a decisive role in the program of the EC "Narodnaya Volya". Morozov continued to see terror as the main weapon of revolutionaries, believing it to be quite sufficient for the fight for political freedom. In a coup through the seizure of power by revolutionaries 9 Literature of the People's Will party. M., 1930. P. 50-51. 413 he didn't believe it. And he considered his goal - the convening of a Constituent Assembly, where the people would express their will regarding the future structure of the country - to be erroneous. The people, in his opinion, due to their darkness and downtroddenness, would not be able to express their own decision about the fate of the country. Morozov saw only one opportunity to prepare the people for a social revolution - through education and free propaganda, the right to which revolutionary terror must win. Nikolai Aleksandrovich argued that terror should have only this strictly limited goal in mind 10. Violence in the form of terror was supposed, according to Morozov, to ensure the implementation "actual freedom of thought, speech and actual security of the individual from violence - these are necessary conditions for the widespread propaganda of socialist ideas." We are thus talking about actual freedoms, established not by legislation, but by proxy. Morozov sees terror as a kind of regulator of the political regime in the country : increases with the tightening of the government course and weakens with the allowance of some concessions. Violence “in the manner of William Tell” - the hero of the drama of the same name by his beloved F. Schiller, appears to Morozov as the most perfect way of political transformation. "Tellism", according to him, promises victory without unnecessary bloodshed is the most economical and expedient and “the fairest of all forms of revolution. The elusiveness of terrorists, the inevitability of their attacks on those in power create the supposedly special power of this type of violence, designed to shake the foundations, intimidate, and bring power to capitulation." 11 "Tellism" was a serious deviation from the program of the Executive Committee of Narodnaya Volya. Morozov, the editor of its organ, not only were they not allowed to develop their views in the party press, but they were also not allowed to propagate them among young people. Morozov was sent on indefinite leave abroad. It seems that it would still be inaccurate to define him as an ideological “heretic” in the Narodnaya Volya 12. "B" tellism" Morozov had no heresy, i.e., ideas, 10 Letter from N. A. Morozov to P. N. Tkachev May 8, 1880. Draft // GARF. F. 1762 (P. L. Lavrov). Op. 4. D. 604. L. 64; letter from him to an unknown person May 9, 1880 Draft // Ibid. L. 57; letter from him to P. L. Lavrov May 28, 1880 // Ibid. D. 317. L 3.11 Morozov N. A. Terrorist fight. London [Geneva], 1880. pp. 9-10. 12 Kan S. G. Ideological “heretics” of “Narodnaya Volya” // Individual political terror in Russia XIX -- beginning of the 20th century M, 1996. P. 24 et seq. 414 that conflict with the dominant creed of the Narodnaya Volya. “Tellism” did not contradict the program of the Executive Committee of Narodnaya Volya; it only carried one of its main points to the extreme. Morozov exaggerated the significance of the means of struggle recognized by the party, elevated it to a “superlative degree,” but it was not he who put forward it. Terrorism was completely combined with conspiratorialism, which Morozov, an opponent of the seizure of power, did not accept. And it is no coincidence that the Narodnaya Volya members, having removed Morozov from the IK, did not openly and publicly - in their newspaper - oppose his extreme terrorism. True, at the trial of the First March members, A.I. Zhelyabov stated that “Narodnaya Volya” had a negative attitude towards Morozov’s position (expressed in his brochure “The Terrorist Struggle”), 13 but the Narodolists never made any other official statements regarding Morozov’s “tellism.” Meanwhile, they quite consistently opposed dissent in their midst. The newspaper Narodnaya Volya, for example, very aggressively argued for the destructiveness of adherence to apoliticalism for revolutionaries. And people here treated passions for extreme forms of revolutionary violence quite leniently. Business relations were maintained with Morozov, who had been removed to Switzerland, and soon, after numerous arrests that followed the explosion in the Winter Palace on February 5, 1880, when the organization became insufficient, he was called back. The explosion occurred immediately after Morozov's departure. Newspapers reported about his victims: the tsar survived, but more than 50 soldiers of the Finnish Regiment, the palace guard, were killed and wounded. In the brochure “The Terrorist Struggle,” published abroad, but written in Russia, Morozov also argued such an advantage of terror as the ability to use this form of struggle to get by with a minimum of bloodshed. Terror, he said, struck precisely those at whom it was directed - representatives of the authorities. The brochure was printed after the assassination attempt on the Tsar in the Winter Palace, but Nikolai Alexandrovich did not correct anything in the text. While preparing the assassination attempt in the royal palace itself, the revolutionaries could not help but know in advance that the first victims of this action would be the soldiers and security officers. The guard room was located above the basement, from where Stepan Khalturin, who entered the palace as a cabinetmaker, prepared the explosion. Tsars-13 Revolutionary populism of the 70s of the XIX century. M., 1965. T. II. P. 254. 415 The dining room, located on the floor above, was less vulnerable to explosion. The EC program promised immunity to everyone who remained neutral in the party's struggle with the government. The soldiers of the Finnish Regiment, apparently, belonged to “consciously and actively helping the government,” that is, to the enemies of “People's Will”: they swore allegiance to the Tsar and the Fatherland. Morozov's pamphlet "The Terrorist Struggle" brings together all the arguments in favor of terror into "one fist." If the author has not yet managed to fully understand the Narodnaya Volya terrorist experience, then the Narodnaya Volya experience could already refute a lot in his apology for terror. Terror really frightened the authorities, undermined its prestige, and made it waver. But in his own way he terrified society, just as all violence, cruel and merciless, terrifies. Even those people from the common intelligentsia who, based on the experience of Europe, recognized revolutions as inevitable concomitants of the development of society, were afraid of this bloodshed without revolution. It was by no means small, as Morozov promised. Each attempt was fraught with risk to the lives of many people, including “neutrals”, those to whom the Narodnaya Volya promised immunity did not participate in the revolutionary struggle. And some terrorist actions, such as on February 5, 1880 or March 1, 1881, were accompanied by victims of people not involved in the struggle. Each terrorist attempt resulted in mass arrests, and here too there were many accidental victims. A chain reaction of violence was born and grew. Member of the People's Will Executive Committee V.N. Figner, reflecting on the struggle in which she participated after the Shlisselburg imprisonment, spoke quite definitely about its impact on society. “Like any struggle based not on the basis of ideas, but on the basis of force, it was accompanied by violence. And violence, whether it is committed over thought, over action or over human life, never helps to soften morals. It causes bitterness, develops brutal instincts, excites evil impulses and encourages treachery. Humanity and generosity are incompatible with it. And in this sense, the government and the party competed in the corruption of the environment" 14 . 14 Figner V. N. Captured work. // Figner V. N. Full collection op. in 7 volumes. M, 1932. T. 1. P. 251-252. 416 According to the observation of V.N. Figner, “society, not seeing a way out of the existing situation, partly sympathized with the violence of the party, partly looked at them as an inevitable evil, but even in this case applauded the courage or art of the fighter.” This is perhaps true only for the initial stage of the terrorist struggle. In a certain sense, terror undermined confidence in the party, which wrote on its banner the slogans of equality, fraternity, individual freedom and the common good and tried to establish them in life through bloodshed. In this sense, the experience of Narodnaya Volya terror once again proves that the goal is not indifferent to the means by which they strive to achieve it. Unlike S.G. Nechaev, the revolutionaries of the 1870-1880s. the principle “the end justifies the means” was accepted with a reservation, which, it would seem, reduced it to nothing. It was possible to be guided by this principle “except in cases where the means used could undermine the authority of the organization” 15. But by using terror, the Narodnaya Volya members did not want to notice that they were thereby causing irreparable moral damage to their party, hindering its desire to unite all those dissatisfied with the regime in a common attack on the autocracy. L.N. Tolstoy's terror in his own way made him think about the role of violence: he gave up work on a widely conceived novel about the Decembrists. A. A. Fet, who knew about the plan of this novel, after the assassination attempt on Tsar A. K. Solovyov on April 2, 1879, was especially alarmed by the fate of this work: “I am horrified by the thought that the current regicides might think that you approve and give them a blessing. ..attempt to penetrate the people by force and violence...". Answering that he left his “Decembrists,” Tolstoy explained that even if he wrote this novel, its spirit “would be unbearable for those who shoot at people for the good of humanity” 16. "Tellism" did not justify itself in the struggle for political freedoms and the socialist ideal. But terrorist illusions turned out to be very resilient, not being verifiable by experience, existing as if autonomously from it. In any case, Morozov left for Switzerland full of faith in terror and the hope of convincing his fellow fighters of the advantages of this form of revolutionary violence. 15 Archive of “Land and Freedom” and “Narodnaya Volya”. M., 1932. P. 65. 16 Tolstoy L. N. Correspondence with Russian writers. M., 1962. P. 399. 417 However, his plans to publish a “terrorist organ” promoting “tellism”, as well as a collection of speeches in defense of terror, did not meet with support in the emigration. Morozov faced more decisive criticism of such tactics of struggle here than in the Narodnaya Volya environment at home. P. L. Lavrov put forward serious arguments against political murders. According to him, “terrorism must constantly amaze the public’s imagination, moving towards ever more spectacular manifestations, but here very soon you will reach the wall, that is, to the impossibility of going any longer for lack of a means, or to such outrageous actions that general disgust will take away all Terrorists have power." Lavrov drew attention to the danger of terror for the revolutionary movement itself: he “promotes to the first places people with energy, but very often people who very poorly understand the ideas that cause terrorism, and these people, who were appointed natural leaders at the moment of victory, will are terribly harmful to the movement." All this forced Lavrov to admit “the terrorist program is extremely harmful for socialists and the successes along this path are completely random, in no way protecting against the danger of greater failures and greater harm in the near and more distant future” 17. P. A. Kropotkin, with whom Morozov was in close contact in Clarens, also did not approve of Morozov’s views on the current tasks of the revolutionaries. G. V. Plekhanov took a firm anti-terrorist position. However, all these revolutionaries - with their rich experience and authority in the movement - were inconsistent in their own way. Rejecting terror, they supported “People's Will”, which applied it. They supported it as the only serious revolutionary force that entered into combat with the autocracy. They supported, not wanting to notice that much of their fair criticism of terror as a form of struggle could be attributed to revolutionary activity in general. Meanwhile, exhausted by the arrests of February-March 1880, Narodnaya Volya called on Morozov to return to its thinned ranks. Apparently, disagreements with him no longer seemed so serious. Terror, despite its programmatic rationale, increasingly came to the fore. With the successful assassination attempt 17 Letter from P. L. Lavrov to N. A. Morozov, May 29-30, 1880 // GARF. F. 1762. Op. 3. D. 79. L. 5-6. 418 Hopes were pinned on the tsar, silently suggesting the uselessness of other forms of activity. The dictatorship of Count M. T. Loris-Melikov, established after the explosion in the Winter Palace, raised certain hopes in society for the possibility of reforms “from above.” As Lavrov predicted in his dispute with Morozov, terror with the “easing” of power in the eyes of society loses all justification and can no longer enjoy any sympathy. The revolutionaries immediately sensed this new public mood, which was reflected in the fact that the assistance to their organization from all the “dissatisfied” sharply decreased. The coffers of Narodnaya Volya have become depleted, which for the time being was replenished quite successfully through public donations from various segments of the population. But Loris-Melikov’s first, even very vague, promises to take into account public interests, his call to society to support the government in its desire to stabilize the life of the country, met with widespread sympathy. In various circles of the population they preferred a peaceful outcome of events - without dynamite explosions, shots and gallows. Having decided to return to Russia to continue the struggle, Morozov, like other Narodnaya Volya members, did not believe in transformations “from above”, preferring revolutionary actions to their expectations. But he was arrested while crossing the border - just as he was when returning from his first emigration. However, this time, his brochure “The Terrorist Struggle” became serious material evidence of his anti-government activities during the investigation and trial. Witness testimony about his participation in the preparation of the assassination attempt on Alexander II on the Moscow-Kursk railway was also taken into account. Tried in the trial of the “20” Narodnaya Volya members (in February 1882), 28-year-old Morozov was sentenced to indefinite hard labor. By the will of the emperor, they were replaced with life imprisonment. In March 1882, Morozov and his co-processors were transferred from the Trubetskoy bastion of the Peter and Paul Fortress to its Alekseevsky ravelin. With the opening of the new, newly built “sovereign prison” in Shlisselburg, Nikolai Alexandrovich was moved there to remain there for life. He was 30 years old. “The clock of life has stopped,” as V.N. Figner, who was serving a sentence in the same Shlisselburg fortress, said. The time has come to look back at the events that took part 419 whom he became, to comprehend them, which was not always possible in the heat of the struggle. For the Shlisselburg prisoner this turned out to be possible.* * *
Reflection became an important part of life in prison, along with academic studies and reading. Serious internal work led to a change not only in political views, but also in the worldview and attitude. In his memoirs, Nikolai Alexandrovich does not dwell particularly on these changes. However, the shifts that took place in his consciousness can be discerned from letters to his relatives: correspondence was allowed in 1897. There is nothing in them about revolutionary activity; one could write about her only in the spirit of repentance, since the letters were subject to prison censorship. Nikolai Alexandrovich recalls in letters from the casemate about his childhood on the Borok estate and talks about his scientific works. Apparently, he did not lose contact with science, even after becoming a revolutionary. The dilemma “science or revolution” was resolved, it would seem, in favor of the revolution, but Morozov could not completely abandon science, just as many participants in the populist movement, whose vocation was it, and not the revolution, could not - P. A. Kropotkin , N.I. Kibalchich, A.I. Ulyanov and others. A passion for science lived in Morozov, as if confirming that his purpose was not in revolutionary activity. His passion for science did not leave him even in the midst of the struggle, to which he intended to devote himself entirely. During the period of “going among the people,” he collected plants, insects, and minerals. During the digging under the Moscow-Kursk railway with the aim of assassinating the Tsar, he managed to notice interesting fossils. In exile, busy organizing the propaganda of terror, he found time to listen to lectures at the University of Geneva and meet with scientists - geographer E. Reclus, astronomer C. Flammarion. By the time of his arrest, Morozov was aware of the main discoveries in the field of natural science and exact sciences and was quite fluent in their issues. In the first years in prison, he received books only of theological content, but for him, familiar with astronomy, geography, and natural science, religious literature provided enormous 420 material for reflection and rational development. It was in prison that he began the work he completed in freedom - “The History of Human Culture in Natural Scientific Light.” It was published after the October Revolution under the title “Christ” (i.e. “initiated into the secrets of the sciences” - Greek), caused great controversy and received different assessments. Religious literature did not change Nikolai Alexandrovich’s materialistic, atheistic views, but made him think about the principles of universal morality, coinciding with the commandments of Christ, as social guidelines that help humanity move forward. Gradually he began to receive books on physics, mathematics, natural science and some of the simplest equipment for experiments. Not all modern scientific publications, including periodicals, were available to the prisoner: Morozov, in letters to his family, talks about the numerous difficulties that arose in his studies, when he was sometimes forced to rely only on “the stock of material accumulated in his head over previous years ". And yet, in these extraordinary conditions for scientific work, he managed to accomplish an amazing amount. Morozov was one of the first to develop a theory about the complex structure of the atom, explained the phenomena of isotopy and radioactivity, and substantiated the theory of synthesis and interconvertibility of atoms. Having preceded a number of discoveries in the 20th century, the Shlisselburg prisoner was one of the founders of modern atomism 18 . The range of Morozov's scientific activities in prison is wide: he works in the field of natural science, mathematics, chemistry, physics, mineralogy, geology, astronomy, political economy, history and a number of other sciences. Released from prison by the revolution of 1905, Morozov released 26 volumes of manuscripts. Not everything in them was of equal value, due to the scientist’s prison isolation, but much turned out to be a genuine contribution to science 19 . In his many years of immersion in science, Morozov became more and more convinced of its capabilities, and more and more clearly saw in it the main support of humanity on the path to progress. More and more inclined - 18 Kurchatov I. IN. About the monograph by N. A. Morozov “Periodic systems of the structure of matter” // Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences (hereinafter: Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences). F. 543 (N. A. Morozova). Op. 3. D. 355; Volfkovich S. AND. A brief outline of the scientific, revolutionary and social activities of N. A. Morozov // Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov. 1854-1946. M., 1981. P.16. 19 Volfkovich S. AND. Decree. op. P. 16. 421 I come to the thought: everything that the socialist revolutionaries wanted to achieve through violence and revolution can be achieved more accurately, more firmly, more painlessly with the help of science, the dissemination of knowledge, and the improvement of education. Already from Morozov's letters from the conclusion it is clear that he was increasingly affirmed in the recognition of science as a decisive condition for civilization and progress. Belief in the limitless possibilities of science and associated technical and industrial progress for the development of mankind becomes limitless, displacing thoughts about any acceleration of this development by force - with the help of coups and revolutions. Morozov's poem "The Prisoner of Shlisselburg", written while in prison, is typical. Its hero reflects on what is finally capable of liberating the peoples who spend their lives “in suffering and darkness.” Before the Prisoner there pass pictures of past history, when “the God of Darkness, Enmity and Persecution rushed over the slave land,” and “a submissive crowd // People were bending everywhere // Over the land wet with the blood of the dead // Before the power of roaring guns.” These pictures of bloody violence accompany the Prisoner, as if flipping through the pages of world history. And yet, both in the centuries of slavery and in the era of the “oppression of the golden calf,” human thought did not fade away, helping to ensure that a new star, the “Great Lamp of Science,” would shine “above the world of suffering and torment.” A lever has appeared in the hands of man that can transform the world. With the triumph of science, a new era begins for the peoples: “And people heard the long-standing call, // And the old torment ended. // The free impulse of art was powerful // In the bright light of science.” The concept of progress expressed in the poem, carried out through science, with the help of science and the technical revolution caused by it, is very symptomatic of the former terrorist. He began to believe in science as the most powerful force transforming the face of the earth. Immersed in scientific discoveries, Morozov paints pictures of the near future: “The ships took off into the azure heights, // Bathing in the open air, // The deserts of the earth turned into gardens, // And the stormy sea turned into a friend.” At the same time, he sees freedom everywhere in the future, approved by the power of science, the freedom that his generation dreamed of, striving to wrest it through revolutionary violence. 422 The features of a new worldview are also manifested in the behavior of Morozov the prisoner. Prison taught me tolerance, taught me to compromise as a necessary condition for survival. Nikolai Alexandrovich did not conflict with his jailers: he managed to establish loyal relationships with them, without ingratiating himself or humiliating himself. Not without success, he proved himself to be a peacemaker in conflicts among prisoners, as well as between prisoners and prison authorities. An episode from the life of a prisoner is also characteristic, in which his new position in life is also revealed. We are talking about a visit to the Shlisselburg fortress by Princess Maria Mikhailovna Dondukova-Korsakova. Being deeply religious, she dedicated her life to all those who suffer, trying to at least somehow alleviate their lot. The princess had everything - nobility, wealth, beauty in her youth, but she chose precisely this fate - to be needed by those who especially needed human warmth, compassion and help. Crossing the Neva to the fortress in any weather in a boat, 77-year-old Maria Mikhailovna visited prisoners for several months in 1904. She asked about their needs, tried to somehow make their prison life easier, to mentally encourage them. With great difficulty she obtained permission for these visits, but after the murder of the Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve by the Socialist-Revolutionary E.S. Sazonov, they were prohibited. The People's Will met Dondukova-Korsakova in different ways. As V.N. Figner explained, when she appeared in Shlisselburg, “two irreconcilable worldviews collided.” The princess, in the words of the Narodnaya Volya, is “a herald of peace, an enemy of violence, retreating in horror before bloodshed, whether it be on a street barricade or in a single-handed fight between a terrorist and an enemy, whether it will finally be on the scaffold. And we are rebels- revolutionaries who do not hesitate to raise the sword - we, who found moral justification for ourselves in the fact that we throw our heads to the executioner..." 20. Vera Nikolaevna had no doubt that M. M. Dondukova-Korsakova appeared in the fortress with the aim of “catching souls.” Paying tribute to her kindness, V.N. Figner perceived the princess as a “religious enthusiast, thirsty for the feat of proselytism,” a fan who believed in the possibility of faith. Figner V. N. Captured work // Figner V. N. Full collection op. M., 1932. T. 2. P. 266-267. 423 to bring the Narodnaya Volya members into the fold of Orthodoxy. Vera Nikolaevna admitted that during her visits she felt awkward and was wary. G. A. Lopatin generally refused to visit the princess. Morozov’s attitude towards this personality was completely different. When meeting with her, he felt gratitude and trust, mutual sympathy. At that time, he had no information about Dondukova-Korsakova’s extensive and difficult social activities. Having already been released, he learns about her dedicated work in the hospital for syphilitics, which she founded in the Pskov province, and much more. Nikolai Alexandrovich noticed the deep religiosity of the princess, who amazed him with her religious tolerance. Maria Mikhailovna told him that “she does not consider herself to have the right to convert people of other faiths or non-believers to Christianity, since if they exist, then, obviously, they are just as needed by God as Christians.” A Shlisselburg prisoner wrote to his relatives about the old princess as “the heroine of selflessness and the embodiment of selfless love for one’s neighbor” 21 . In ancient times, he said, she would have been a saint. It is clear that the former Narodnaya Volya’s concepts of heroism, feat, service to society, and the ideal of man became in many ways different than at the time of his revolutionary activity. Apparently, by the time he was released in 1905, the inner world of the revolutionary Morozov had changed no less strongly than his ideas about the world around him. It is not possible to trace how these changes occurred in the worldview of the Narodnaya Volya member, or to reconstruct the picture of his conversion to the “new faith” in any consistent manner. Whether the turn to new ideas was a sudden insight, like the discoveries that happened during his scientific studies, or whether gradually accumulating shifts in views on the past and future contributed to the transition from quantity to a different quality is unclear. Nikolai Alexandrovich himself, as already mentioned, does not dwell on the changes that happened to him, either in his articles or in his memoirs. You can only talk about them 21 Morozov N. A. Letters from the Shlisselburg Fortress. pp. 239-240, 253. Dondukova-Korsakova left such a deep mark in Morozov’s memory that after her death in 1909 he wrote an essay about her, where he characterizes her even more vividly than in letters from prison as an example of a noble and selfless service to society // Morozov N. A. Princess Maria Mikhailovna Dondukova-Korsakova // Ariyan N. P. The first women's calendar for 1910. St. Petersburg, 1910. 424 guess from what was directly or indirectly reflected in his correspondence and his poems from the period of imprisonment. But Morozov, who was released from prison in October 1905, was a different person than the one who entered, as he put it, into the “stone coffin.” Not all contemporaries and later researchers understood this. In Soviet literature, after Shlisselburg, he appears as a staunch revolutionary who remained true to his convictions. When I wrote about him long ago, the Shlisselburg period of his life interested me primarily from the point of view of the capabilities of the human personality not only to survive in the most difficult conditions, but also to demonstrate the ability for intense mental activity, which enriched science. Least of all did I try to find out changes in his views, and the topic of the book, dedicated to Morozov’s participation in the populist movement of the 1870-1880s, did not prompt me to do so: Morozov in the 20th century. remained out of my sight. Now I have discovered a new Morozov, previously unknown to both me and our literature - a thinker convinced of the advantages of the evolutionary path to progress, who proved not only the “uncivility”, but also the “economic unprofitability” of all violence. Let's talk about all this in order. Finding himself free after a 28-year imprisonment, Morozov relatively quickly restored his health, which had been undermined in prison, and, as if trying to make up for the lost years, he completely surrendered to the whirlwind of life that arose and grew all around him. The released prisoner, the hero of Narodnaya Volya, was in great demand: he was invited to give public lectures, speak with his memoirs at literary evenings, and was invited by populists and liberals to their meetings. Nikolai Alexandrovich never returned to revolutionary activities and did not provide assistance to any of the existing revolutionary groups and organizations. Meanwhile, the revolutionary struggle in the country was in full swing, and the terror did not stop. Morozov's pamphlet "The Terrorist Struggle" was republished [Geneva, 1900] - there was clearly a lack of new arguments in favor of "tellism". Created in 1902, the party of socialist revolutionaries (SRs), which considered itself the successor 425 The leader of “Narodnaya Volya”, made political assassinations one of the main means of struggle. The Social Revolutionaries received the support of a number of former Narodnaya Volya members: A.V. Yakimova, P.S. Ivanovskaya-Voloshenko and other former comrades-in-arms of Morozov joined their military organization. He himself avoided contact with terrorists. He becomes close to the People's Freedom Party (Cadets), and then joins it, thereby defining his political position as a liberal-constitutionalist. However, as we will see, many things distinguished him from the cadets. With all this, Morozov was far from abandoning his revolutionary past, condemning it, and considering it a delusion. He simply believed that a different time was coming, requiring other forms of development of society, but everything that happened, in his opinion, was completely natural and explainable. Moreover, he believed that in Russia the revolutionary struggle had not yet exhausted itself as a means of social change. Later, during the days of the February Revolution, he will say that it was inevitable: “The Romanovs did everything to make it happen” 22. The idea of the incompleteness of the revolutionary struggle in the country comes through in many of Morozov’s memoirs about his Narodnaya Volya past. He willingly talks about it in public speeches and in periodicals. Nikolai Alexandrovich remembers his comrades, writing essays about V. Figner, A. Franzjoli, A. Aronchik, D. Clements. He is proud of them, admires their fearlessness, readiness for self-sacrifice, and asceticism in everyday life. His memoirs about his activities in populist circles and in “Narodnaya Volya”, about his stay in exile and in Shlisselburg were later included in the book “Tales of My Life” 23. He was destined to write it again in prison. For publishing a book of his prison poems, he was convicted and spent a year in the Dvina Fortress. The new test that befell Morozov further aroused public sympathy for him and, accordingly, further undermined the authority of the authorities. Among the readers of his memoirs who came into contact with him were L.N. Tolstoy and V.G. Korolenko, M. Gorky and I.E. Repin, V.Ya. Bryusov and E.V. Tarle, A.N. Bach and G.N. Potanin. 22 Morozov N. A. Revolution and evolution. Pg., 1917. P. 3. 23 Published for the first time in 1928 (GIZ, M; L.), “Tales of My Life” were reprinted several times. The last edition was published in 1965. 426 Repin paints four portraits of Morozov, perceiving the former Narodnaya Volya member as an “angel of kindness” 24 . Morozov's main theme, whether in lectures or in print, is science, its secrets, its power and its growing role in the new century. As soon as he left prison, he began preparing for printing the manuscripts taken out of prison. For the work “Periodic systems of the structure of matter: The theory of the formation of chemical elements” (Moscow, 1907), Morozov, on the proposal of D.I. Mendeleev, was awarded honoris causa (without defending a dissertation) the degree of Doctor of Science. Nikolai Aleksandrovich, who worked at the invitation of P.F. Lesgaft at the Higher Free School, was soon approved by the Ministry of Education as a professor of analytical chemistry. In Russian science, this is an unprecedented case of such a statement for someone who does not have a secondary education and, therefore, the right to teach at a gymnasium. Avidly comprehending what was new in those areas that he himself mastered as a natural scientist, chemist, physicist, and mathematician, Morozov was one of the first to grasp the trend toward the convergence of sciences and guessed the unpredictable prospects for studying the atom. Morozov writes a lot about the structure of matter, about “the depths of the heavens and the depths of the earth,” about the successes of astronomy and physical and mathematical sciences. His special hobby is aeronautics. In numerous articles on this topic, he writes about the grandiose prospects that open up in connection with the conquest of the sky. The new century, which the scientist entered back in Shlisselburg, seems to him to be a century of unlimited possibilities in the field of science and production. After a long-term isolation, separation from the discoveries of modern times, he was shocked in his own way by the achievements of scientific thought at the turn of the century. From now on, the entire course of world civilization was conceived by the encyclopedist scientist under the banner of science, under its leadership. A similar view of science, as capable of renewing social and cultural life and transforming human relations, was very characteristic of many liberals at the turn of the century and at the beginning of the 20th century. He was professed, in particular, by Prof. D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, editor of Vestnik Evropy, with whom Nikolai Alexandrovich developed a certain rapprochement 25. 24 Repin I. E. Letters. M., 1952. S. 207, 366-367. 25 Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D. N. Memories. Pg., 1923. P. 116. 427 Morozov apparently believed that science itself is capable of influencing society, renewing it, regardless of the socio-political conditions in which it develops or in whose hands it is. In the traditions of Russian democratic thought there was recognition of the priority of the moral principle in public life. So Mikhailovsky called on those who believed in the omnipotence of science to “be imbued with the consciousness that science is only one of the factors of life, undoubtedly, highly important,” but warned against hopes that “enlightenment in itself, without any outside help , will lead everything to the best end" 26. The underestimation of the role of morality as an independent factor of social development is felt in Morozov’s perception of some events of modern history. Thus, in the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902), the sympathies of the Shlisselburg prisoner were on the side of the British Empire, which was ousting the Transvaal and Orange Free State republics, founded by the Dutch, from South Africa. Nikolai Alexandrovich believed that in the interests of civilization in South Africa, the new “progressive and enterprising” English race should dominate, and not the “patriarchal and rather ignorant race of ancient Dutch settlers” 27. Here Morozov diverged from most of Russian society, which demonstrated sympathy for the Boers. In Russia, many then, expressing solidarity with them, sang: “Transvaal, Transvaal, my country, // You are all burning in fire...”. A characteristic feature of Morozov’s scientific and popular science publications after his release from prison was the frequent use of the term "evolution". Morozov writes about “the evolution of matter in nature,” “the evolution of elements in the celestial bodies,” “the evolution of aeronautics,” “the evolution of celestial bodies from a geophysical point of view.” The same term appears in his speeches on the socio-political problems of our time to designate the basic patterns of modern civilization. We are talking about Morozov's articles in the liberal newspaper "Russian Vedomosti" during the First World War: in 1915, Morozov became a correspondent for this newspaper. As a delegate of the All-Russian-26 Mikhailovsky N. TO. Op. St. Petersburg, 1897. T. VIII. pp. 239-242. 27 Morozov N. A. Letters from the Shlisselburg Fortress. pp. 90-91. 428 of the Zemstvo Union for Helping the Sick and Wounded, Nikolai Alexandrovich flies an airplane to the front lines, talks about what he saw and shares his thoughts on the place and role of wars in the development of mankind 28 . Morozov more than once stipulates that he writes not so much about modern war, but “about general sociological issues associated with it,” which he tries to solve “scientifically and impartially.” One feels that these problems have occupied him for a long time, and the war only gave impetus to generalizations and helped to make more definite conclusions from many years of observations. Nikolai Alexandrovich does not hide his disgust for war - a bloody massacre, which, according to his definition, is “mass psychosis.” He shows how war teaches people to sometimes unjustified cruelty, developing animal instincts. War in Morozov’s perception is an abnormal, unnatural state for a person. A typical example of such unnaturalness is his meeting with a female aviator dropping bombs. He sincerely admits the fear he felt when he came under artillery fire, as well as the fear of being captured. Paying attention to how weapons of extermination are being improved in the new century, Morozov has no illusions that this in itself will make war impossible. Morozov's articles in the liberal Russkie Vedomosti are close in tone and terminology to M. Gorky's "Untimely Thoughts" about the war in the Social Democratic newspaper Novaya Zhizn. Gorky writes about the “bloody nightmare” of war, the brutality and madness of the warring parties, and the harmful influence of war on the spiritual life of society. "Art arouses the thirst for blood, murder, destruction; science, raped by militarism, obediently serves the mass destruction of people." “This war is the suicide of Europe!” exclaims Gorky, calling for an end to the global carnage 29 . Morozov, in his book “At War,” which is essentially anti-militaristic, has a different conclusion - to continue the war with Germany to a victorious end. Here he, diverging from Gorky, is closer to G.V. Plekhanov. 28 Articles by N. A. Morozov in "Russian Gazette" compiled the book "At War. Stories and Reflections." Pg., 1916 (hereinafter -- Morozov N. A. At war). 29 Gorky M. Untimely thoughts. Notes on revolution and culture. M., 1990. pp. 84-85. 429 The war split Social Democracy into “defeatists” and “defencists.” V.I. Lenin, denouncing the unjust, aggressive nature of the war for both belligerents, called for turning the imperialist war into a civil war. In contrast to Lenin, who argued that the proletariat has no fatherland, Plekhanov, citing K. Marx, argued for the right of every people to protection from attack. A German victory, according to Plekhanov, would delay the revolution in Europe and Russia 30 . Having disagreed with the majority of Social Democrats (not only the Bolsheviks, but also some of the Mensheviks turned out to be against him), Georgy Valentinovich’s attitude towards the war turned out to be in many ways close to some of his long-time ideological opponents. Similarities with his position were evident in the anarchist P. A. Kropotkin and the “newly minted” cadet Morozov, with whom Plekhanov showed complete incompatibility at the time of the crisis in “Land and Freedom”, and then in emigration. Views on this war, which burst into the fate of each of his former comrades, strangely converge and diverge, reflecting the complex and contradictory perception of it by his contemporaries. Kropotkin and Morozov, who were quite anti-militarist, considered Russia’s participation in the 1914 war necessary and inevitable. Both opposed defeatist sentiments - for victory over Germany, which was assigned the main, leading role in arming Europe and in starting the war. For Kropotkin, as for Plekhanov, the victory of Germany is a threat to the European revolution. He, like Plekhanov and V.I. Lenin, connects the causes of the war with the bourgeoisie’s desire for new markets, for new territorial conquests, with the very existence of capitalism 31 . For Morozov, growing and strengthening German militarism is the main threat to European civilization and European democratic freedoms. He talks about the possibility of German aggression to interrupt the “great evolutionary role of European capital” and the development of European countries towards socialism 32. 30 See more details: Tyutyukin S. IN. G. V. Plekhanov. The fate of a Russian Marxist. M., 1997. pp. 301-323. 31 P. A. Kropotkin about the war. M., 1916. S. 3, 12, 27; Kropotkin P. A. War and capitalism. B.m. . S. 3; It's him. The end of war is the beginning of eternal peace and general disarmament. Pg., . pp. 21-24, 19. 32 Morozov N. A. At war. pp. 33, 111-112; It's him. Militarism and socialism. // Morozov N. A. How to stop the rising cost of living. M., 1916. P. 116-117. 430 Morozov, unlike V.I. Lenin and G.V. Plekhanov, refuses to see the main reason for the war in the desire of the bourgeoisie of the warring countries for new markets, for the redivision of the world. He proves that capitalists cannot be interested in war, since they themselves suffer from it: causing a fall in finances, a narrowing of sales markets, the war first of all ruins them. Morozov sees the reasons for the outbreak of wars in the psychophysical nature of humanity, which is based on social egoism. Prevailing in human nature, it causes a continuous struggle for existence, competition and rivalry, which lead to wars. But, recognizing the universal nature of competition and struggle in all social spheres, Morozov, in fact, comes to the same socio-economic and political causes of wars that he denies. How else can competition and the struggle for the existence of capitalists, reaching their culmination, be expressed, if not in wars? Morozov persistently emphasizes that the mental factor is “the basis of all forms of social life,” that it is not the economic system that determines the psyche, but, on the contrary, the psyche of the masses underlies the state and socio-economic structure 33. Based on Darwin, Morozov proves that selfishness in human nature through natural selection weakens over time, being replaced by altruistic motives. He assigns an important role in this process to wars, in which the carriers of egoism are gradually destroyed. In his view, wars are a natural factor of evolution, contributing to the improvement of the people left behind 34. Darwin, in his theory of natural selection, justified the improvement of the species during the struggle for existence by the survival of the strongest and most viable individuals. Nikolai Alexandrovich avoids the question of why, after a war that exterminates part of humanity, its representatives most suitable for improvement should remain. Isn’t it more logical to consider that war does not distinguish between the bearers of egoism and altruism participating in it? 33 Morozov N. A. At war. pp. 121-123. 34 Morozov N. A. War as one of the factors in the psychological and social evolution of mankind (Experience in natural scientific explanation of wars) // Russian Vedomosti. 1915, February 6 and 10. 431 Morozov considers the evolutionary function of wars to be complete - it has already “exterminated and weakened primary animal egoism.” In the 20th century wars “inflict only useless wounds on humanity, arousing destructive passions.” Representatives of altruism, according to his observation, already far outnumber the carriers of egoistic energy. Purely ideological educational methods can be applied to the latter at this stage of development. Enlarged unions of states - a kind of United States of Europe 35 - can become a barrier to wars. Nikolai Aleksandrovich was not the first to try to give a natural scientific explanation for socio-political aspirations, including wars. Before him, this was done even more fully and justifiably by P. A. Kropotkin, who in turn relied on the works of a number of Russian thinkers of the 60-70s, who had already posed such a problem (N. D. Nozhin, A. N. Beketov, N.K. Mikhailovsky and others). They read Charles Darwin differently, not traditionally, seeing in his teaching not only the idea of the struggle for existence, but also an indication of the beginnings of mutual assistance in living organisms, and took this into account. It can hardly be assumed that Morozov, who was so seriously involved in issues of sociology and biology, and tried to keep abreast of the latest research, did not become acquainted with the work of P. A. Kropotkin “Mutual Aid as a Factor of Evolution” (St. Petersburg, 1907). The very name of the author, a former Chaikovite, an ally of Narodnaya Volya, with whom he was personally acquainted, meant a lot to Morozov. Nikolai Alexandrovich was one of the first to contact Kropotkin after his release: he asked about the opportunity to give lectures on scientific topics in London. Pyotr Alekseevich responded quickly and with enthusiasm. “I got so close to you in my thoughts while you were in captivity, you became such a dear and sweet brother to me that I cannot write to you coldly,” he answered Morozov, noting that he wanted to tell him a lot, but reluctantly writes to Russia so as not to harm his recipients 36 . Although Morozov nowhere in his works, for obvious reasons, does not refer to Kropotkin, a revolutionary emigrant, in the very formulation of the problem “war as a factor of social 35 Morozov N. A. At war. pp. 123-124, 147-149, 142. 36 Letter from P. A. Kropotkin to N. A. Morozov (1908) // Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences. F. 543. Op. 4. D. 941. 432 evolution" there is a polemic with him, who considered mutual assistance to be the determining factor of social development. Based on Charles Darwin and the naturalist’s own research, as well as turning to the history of humanity, which he considered part of nature, Kropotkin argued that human nature characterized by the same instincts that dominate the animal world. These are the instincts of mutual assistance and solidarity that helped humanity survive and develop. It was these, unlike Morozov, that he considered dominant. Suppressed by social and state oppression, the instincts of mutual assistance that underlie morality are all more clearly, according to Kropotkin's observation, they are revealed and in the future will determine the development of mankind - without wars and revolutions.As can be seen, each of the scientists in his natural science explanation of the psychophysical nature of man allowed a certain one-sidedness, taking into account predominantly one sign of this nature as the main Moreover, having focused on the natural-organic, psychophysical factors of human development, which were almost not taken into account by modern socio-political science, both Morozov and Kropotkin, in turn, did not sufficiently take into account the socio-economic factors of progress. However, it is symptomatic that, each arguing “by contradiction”, following different paths, they come to similar conclusions about the development of humanity in the future. In contrast to Kropotkin, Morozov, who proceeded from the egoistic nature of man, in fact, already believes it to be completely transformed for the further predominance of altruistic motives in it. His main conclusion about war is that it becomes only an evil, devoid of meaning, and is therefore doomed to disappear. The war “released the germs of new generous feelings in the human soul, which can carry out the further evolution of humanity without streams of human blood and a whole ocean of suffering” 37. This conclusion is very close to Kropotkin’s confidence in the widespread dissemination of the principles of solidarity and mutual assistance, in which he saw “the best deposit of a sublime further evolution” 38. 37 Morozov N. A. At war. P. 149; It's him. When will the wars stop? (Natural scientific explanation of war) // Bulletin of Literature and Life. 1915. N 13-14. pp. 747-748. 38 Kropotkin P. A. Mutual assistance as a factor of evolution. M., 1918. P. 15-17. 433 A supporter of “evolutionary socialism,” Morozov nevertheless believed that the anti-autocratic revolution in Russia was inevitable and necessary, and warmly welcomed the fall of tsarism in February 1917. He emphasized that, by bringing the country to famine with its policies during the war, the reigning dynasty brought the revolutionary revolution closer . But “the revolution has died down,” and Russia must find peace and confidence by becoming a democratic republic and basing its development “on a privately owned and capitalist foundation” 39 . This understanding of the prospects for the post-revolutionary future was close to liberal democracy in the broadest sense - from P. N. Milyukov to V. G. Korolenko. But unlike the Cadets and their leader, Morozov rejected the monarchical principle of the post-revolutionary structure. Republicanism, as well as commitment to socialism - the ideal of social organization, brought him closer to the left, radical - populist part of the democratic intelligentsia. However, the social ideal in Morozov’s understanding was not at all a practical program for building a new society. It was perceived as a certain final goal, to which it would be necessary to go a long way through the comprehensive development of science and technology, all the productive forces of the country, which is possible only on the basis of capitalism. Morozov becomes a member of the “Free Association for the Development and Dissemination of Positive Sciences,” founded in March 1917. The organization, besides him, included I. P. Pavlov, A. N. Krylov, A. E. Fersman, V. G. Korolenko , M. Gorky, other prominent scientists, writers and public figures. The Association's goal was to promote knowledge and culture to the people. “The sciences... could play a great role in the ennoblement of instincts,” said one of the initiators of the creation of this organization, M. Gorky. The people, in his conviction, need books that would tell “how great the positive role of industry is in the process of cultural development” 40 . Members of the Association saw the creation of scientific and fiction literature specifically intended for the people as one of the “first tasks of the moment.” Nikolai Alexandrovich was close to the idea of good- 39 MorozovON THE. Revolution and evolution. pp. 3-5, 5-6. 40 BitterM. Untimely thoughts. pp. 119, 122-123, 293. 434 the creative influence of science on the softening of morals, so relevant in the revolutionary era. But the members of the Association failed to develop any broadly planned work: the unstable situation in the country and special difficulties for educational activities among the masses excited by the revolutionary events interfered. After the October Revolution, the Association was liquidated. The country was still reveling in the almost bloodless victory of the February Revolution, and was just preparing to take advantage of its fruits, when V.I. Lenin, who returned from emigration, issued a call to the masses for a speedy transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the socialist one. As the historian rightly noted, in Lenin’s “April Theses” “there was something that radically changed Marxist ideas about the revolution and filled the hearts of some with hope and joy, and of others with a premonition of an imminent and, alas, inevitable catastrophe” 41. Among those who understood that socialist slogans in a tense revolutionary situation would lead to civil war and disaster was Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov. At this historical moment, he, a former Narodnaya Volya member, seemed to change places with the leader of Bolshevism, who accused the Narodnaya Volya members of wanting to “jump out of capitalism,” to “leap over” it. Now Morozov, at one time a member of the party whose goal was to merge the political revolution with the social one, proved to the Bolsheviks, who considered themselves Marxists, the unnaturalness and danger of the transition to socialism in a country that had not survived capitalism. Not only the Mensheviks, but also some of the Bolsheviks did not initially support Lenin’s idea of “growing” the democratic revolution into a socialist one. G. V. Plekhanov actively opposed such a “deepening” of the revolution, defining it as “an insane and extremely harmful attempt to sow anarchist unrest on earth” 42. Longtime ideological opponents - Plekhanov and Morozov - again discovered the similarity of their positions on the fundamental problem of Russian reality and yet remained ideological opponents. Plekhanov refuted Lenin, relying on Marx, referring to his teaching. Morozov tried to prove the inconsistency of the idea of a socialist revolution in 41 Tyutyukin S. IN. Decree. op. P. 329. 42 Ibid. pp. 330 et seq. 435 peasant Russia in dispute with the basic tenets of Marxism. Morozov’s acquaintance with Marxism most likely occurred in emigration. Not without the influence of P. L. Lavrov and G. V. Plekhanov, he tried to attract K. Marx to the publication of the Social Revolutionary Library. In December 1880, Nikolai Alexandrovich visited K. Marx in London, asking what works he would recommend for the “Library”. Among the works given to him by Marx was the “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” which Morozov began to translate. It is hardly worth taking seriously the statement of the former Narodnaya Volya member that at that time he was an adherent of Marxism. This statement, repeated in his memoirs of his meeting with Marx, does not stand up to criticism when compared with the views and actions of the emigrant revolutionary, who saw in Marx, first of all, an ally of “Narodnaya Volya” 43. In prison, Nikolai Alexandrovich became acquainted with the views of Marx’s Russian students. In the winter of 1895/96, one of the gendarmes handed over the journal of legal Marxists “New Word”, in which V.I. Lenin also collaborated, to the bookbinding workshop of the Shlisselburg fortress, where the prisoners worked. Legal Marxists are a movement in Russian liberal thought that accepted the idea of the natural historical development of society, rejecting the concept of class struggle as an eternal law. For a long time, the autocracy was tolerant of legal Marxism, bearing in mind its criticism of Narodnaya Volya. “The impression from the magazine was, one might say, deeply stunning,” says V.N. Figner, “the content hit the most dear ideas and beliefs. Immediately, different camps emerged among us: some triumphed, others felt wounded” 44. It is unlikely that Nikolai Alexandrovich was shocked by the criticism of populism at that time: he changed his mind a lot in prison, a lot 43 Morozov N. A. Karl Marx and “People's Will” in the early 80s // Hard labor and exile, 1933. No. 3. Morozov’s memoirs about Marx were repeatedly republished in Politizdat collections (see, for example: Russian contemporaries about K. Marx and F. Engels. M., 1969). Based on these memoirs, some authors have expressed a view of Morozov as a supporter of Marxism. (Vnuchkov B. WITH. Prisoner of Shlisselburg. Yaroslavl, 1969. S. 49, 189; Zhdanov S. M. M. O. Morozov is one of the first followers and propagandists of Marxism in the 70-80s of the 19th century. // Problems of Philosophy, 1969. Issue 13. 44 Figner V. N. Captured work. pp. 185-186. 436 reconsidered. In his letters from Shlisselburg there are clear traces of a departure from the egalitarian socialism that was part of the populist worldview. However, he was never a supporter of the principle of community. But Morozov no longer shares the view of an equal division of responsibilities in the future society - of the combination of physical and mental labor necessary for each of its members 45 . P. A. Kropotkin, in the program of the “Chaikovites”, substantiated the necessity of such a division primarily from a moral point of view, as a manifestation of true equality, and in the 20th century. continued to profess this idea. As V.N. Figner recalls, Morozov was among those who did not feel offended by reading the Marxist subverters of populism. According to the testimony of M. V. Novorussky, his companion on walks in Shlisselburg, Nikolai Alexandrovich, together with such prisoners of the fortress as M. P. Shebalin, I. D. Lukashevich and Mikhail Vasilyevich himself, already welcomed capitalist production not only “as a force , organizing workers and composing revolutionary cadres,” but also as “creating industrial wealth countries" 46. Upon his release, N. A. Morozov had the opportunity to become more fully acquainted with the works of Russian Marxists and learn about the criticism of Marxism in Western social democracy. One of the first attempts to revise Marxism by Russian revolutionary thought belonged to the former Narodnaya Volya member N. S. Rusanov. In the early 80s. joining his efforts with Narodnaya Volya, he considered himself a Marxist, but soon moved away from Marxism. Already a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, which declared itself the successor of Narodnaya Volya, he questioned a number of basic tenets of Marxism 47 . N. A. Morozov not only repeated his Russian and Western predecessors in criticizing Marxism, but also expressed a number of his own observations and conclusions about the weak and vulnerable sides of Marx’s teachings. His attitude towards Marxism is clearly manifested in 1917, when, as already mentioned, V.I. Lenin threw out the slogan of socialist revolution to the masses. Morozov just as organically accepts the idea of the natural historical development of society in the teaching of 45 Morozov N. A. Letters from the Shlisselburg Fortress. P. 213. 46 Novorussky M. IN. In the Shlisselburg fortress // Bygone 1906. N 12. P. 220-221. 47 See more details: Tvardovskaya V. A., Itenberg B.S. Russians and Karl Marx: choice or fate? M., 1999. pp. 171-181. 437 K. Marx, how ardently he rejects the conclusion about the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism. The main idea of his speeches between April and October 1917 was that capitalism itself is capable of solving the social problems facing its classes. With the advent of capitalism, according to Morozov, the need for revolution as the midwife of history disappears; society can and should develop only in an evolutionary way. “All of us revolutionaries will inevitably turn into evolutionists” 48. Morozov proves this by refuting Marx’s conclusion about the inevitability of the proletarian revolution. According to Marx, the emerging contradiction between the new, socialist productive forces growing under capitalism and the old, capitalist relations of production can only be resolved by the revolutionary violence of the working class. Nikolai Alexandrovich refuses to see the proletariat as the gravedigger of capitalism: this is a class that is in its own way interested in the development of the bourgeois system, since the development of capitalist production is associated with the growth of its own well-being. The proletariat is not threatened by absolute impoverishment, the Russian scientist argued, following K. Kautsky and E. Bernstein. But if the criticism of this thesis of Marxism by Western Social Democrats was based primarily on the experience of the development of Europe in the 90s and 900s, which did not confirm it, then Morozov also turns to political economy for arguments. The impoverishment of the masses is disastrous for capitalism itself, he argues, since the sale of products can only be ensured by growing demand, and demand is determined by a growing standard of living 49 . Morozov equally confidently refutes the initial position of Marxism about surplus value. In contrast to K. Marx, he argues that the surplus value - the unpaid part of the worker's labor - is not all expropriated from the working people by the capitalist in his own favor, but a significant part goes "to the construction of generally necessary structures that make life easier and better not only for the propertied classes." . Swamps transformed into flowering meadows, telegraphs, railways - steamships, etc. are “crystallized surplus value,” argues Morozov 50 . 48 Morozov N. A. Revolution and evolution. P. 7. 49 Morozov N. A. Evolutionary sociology, land and labor. Pg., 1917. S. 21-22. 50 Ibid. P. 21. 438 Recognizing the merit of Marxism in establishing the transformative role of capitalism in relation to the feudal stage of development, Morozov believed that this theory bypassed the question of the creative potential of this system. Morozov's speeches in the press after the February Revolution focused on revealing opportunities and justifying the “great evolutionary role of capital.” Arguing that a war-ravaged, impoverished peasant country is not ready for socialism, the scientist explains that only the comprehensive development of capitalist production can prepare Russia for a new stage of social life. Capitalism encourages science, creates the conditions for continuous and accelerated industrial progress and thereby for that comprehensive transformation of “human life, which in two centuries made the entire earth’s surface unrecognizable” 51 . This transformation also concerns the spiritual life of society. Only with the development of civilization and the growth of culture will the “genes of solidarity” in society become stronger and the “genes of egocentrism” weakened. And only in the course of such evolution will humanity come to true collectivism. It is impossible to free yourself from the class system and establish universal brotherhood with the help of decrees, Morozov convinced, developing in his own way the thought of F. M. Dostoevsky: “if there are brothers, there will be brotherhood.” Proving that universal equality can be achieved “only through evolutionary, and not revolutionary, paths,” Morozov, in essence, gives a rebuke to the egalitarian socialism that was an integral part of populism. Subjected to Marxist criticism as utopian, populist ideas unexpectedly came to life in their own way in the Bolshevik plan for “growing” the democratic revolution into a socialist one. Morozov argues in a completely Marxist way that there are no conditions for building socialism in a war-ravaged country: there is no powerful developed industry, no viable agriculture. To expropriate available resources and distribute them “fairly” is to create insurmountable difficulties for future generations. For normal socio-economic development, savings and surpluses are needed, and not property equality, imposed by force. 51 Ibid. pp. 18-19; It's him. Science and freedom. Pg., 1917. P. 7. 439 Nikolai Alexandrovich uses a typical example to show the thoughtlessness and irresponsibility of socialist agitators. With knowledge of the matter, the scientist examines the brochure of agronomist A. Grigoriev “All the land for the working people” (1917) with its call to “take away and divide everything equally.” According to the calculations of a socialist agronomist, if all the arable land available in the country is taken away by evicting landowners and monks to Siberia, then there will be 200 dessiatines per peasant. Morozov, dwelling on the criticism of the agronomist's arithmetic calculations, focuses on the immorality of the proposed violent measure, recalling, in particular, that the monks themselves cultivate their lands, because they are the same peasants. But violence, he said, is not only "uncivil" - it "results in economic disadvantage." After all, to cultivate the expropriated land, the peasant will already need machines, and, given the general state of technology in the country, he will not be able to fully and effectively use it 52. It would seem that it was V.I. Lenin, who always opposed the social utopias of the populists, who should have raised his voice in defense of real socio-economic and political transformations, as opposed to such projects of “universal equalization.” However, orienting the masses towards the “deepening” of the revolution, the Bolsheviks on the eve of October did not oppose even the most fantastic plans of the utopian socialists. Meanwhile, according to Morozov’s observations, the socialist brochures, which became widespread after the February Revolution, “in fact arouse in the people not social, but antisocial feelings of hostility,” as well as popular popular caricatures of the bourgeoisie, published “without the slightest idea of the historical role of social classes." Morozov persistently repeated that a “bright future” can only be achieved through “a peaceful transformation of economic inter-class relations on the basis of justice not only for one class, but also for every living human soul in one’s country” 53 . In the heated post-revolutionary situation, saturated with class hatred, such calls met with much less understanding and sympathy than the Bolshevik 52 Morozov N. A. Evolutionary sociology, land and labor. pp. 27 et seq. 53 Morozov N. A. Revolution and evolution. P. 9. 440 slogans of the revolution developing into a socialist one. These latter could be countered not by reasoning about why revolution is worse than evolution, but by specific measures of the Provisional Government, primarily by resolving issues about land and peace, but they did not follow. Therefore, the convening of the State Conference, presented in the press as an all-Russian forum with the participation of the country's largest state and political figures, did not bring reassurance. The State Meeting, which opened on August 12, 1917 in Moscow at the Bolshoi Theater, was attended by representatives of the largest political parties and movements - from monarchists and cadets to the Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. In addition to the ministers of the Provisional Government, there were generals L. G. Kornilov (supreme commander in chief) and M. V. Alekseev, ataman A. M. Kaledin. The head of the Provisional Government, A. F. Kerensky, invited “historical”, in his words, figures of the liberation movement to participate in the State Conference: Prince P. A. Kropotkin, E. K. Breshkovskaya, G. A. Lopatin, G. V. Plekhanov and N.A. Morozova. G. V. Plekhanov and P. A. Kropotkin, who spoke at the State Conference, so different in their political views, were unanimous in their desire to stop the growing civil strife in the country. The ideologist of anarchism and the leader of social democracy argued for the need, first of all, to strengthen the gains of the February Revolution. Both Kropotkin and Plekhanov called for prudence and tolerance of those who, in their own journalism, acted as irreconcilable enemies. The capitalists were shown the need to meet the workers halfway - the costs of raising their living standards would have to be recouped by increasing labor productivity. The workers were persuaded not to present impossible demands to the entrepreneurs and not to resort to violence. The government was called for broad social reforms 54 . All this was close to the position of N. A. Morozov, who had already expressed much of what Plekhanov and Kropotkin talked about in the press. Nikolai Alexandrovich, like Plekhanov, convinced that the proletariat could not survive without the bourgeoisie at present. Morozov argued that it is not industrialists and traders who are to blame for speculation: it is a sign of a general malaise 54 Speech 1917, August 15-17. 441 economy. He explained that the idea of the profitability of transferring tools into the hands of workers is incorrect, since they are not economically prepared. Elected directors will not be as interested in the success of the business as the owner of the enterprise himself - the capitalist. Now it is important to raise production, which was undermined by the war, and this can only be done by increasing labor productivity and multiplying working hours. What is needed is a gradual, well-prepared nationalization of production, and not forced expropriation 55 . Coinciding with Plekhanov and Kropotkin in understanding the tasks of the current moment, Morozov understood the prospects for the country’s development in a completely different way than these revolutionaries. His former comrades, who became ideological opponents, did not have class peace in mind, but a temporary truce. For Plekhanov and Kropotkin, the contradictions between labor and capital remained solvable only by revolution, which was only postponed due to its unpreparedness and the military situation in the country. They called for a temporary agreement with the bourgeoisie, possible due to its disinterest in restoring the autocracy. But in the eyes of both Plekhanov and Kropotkin, the bourgeoisie remained a class hostile to the proletariat and historically doomed. Morozov, as already mentioned, understands the relationship between labor and capital in a completely different way - as interdependent and mutually beneficial. He calls on the opposing classes to realize their great evolutionary role. The economic foundation can only be transformed “carefully, humanely, replacing it stone by stone.” This cannot be achieved with the help of a revolution, that is, a “quick violent coup”. Morozov believes that with the establishment of a democratic republic, “the long period of our revolutionary attempts” should naturally end 56. The scientist’s logical reasoning, apparently, did not quite coincide with his direct perception of the current situation. And therefore, along with evidence of the advent of a non-revolutionary era, involuntary presentiments are expressed that after the first blow of the earthquake (i.e., the February Revolution) “more blows will follow” 57 55 Morozov N. A. How to stop the rising cost of living. pp. 56-61; It's him. Evolutionary sociology, land and labor. pp. 24-25. 56 Morozov N. A. Revolution and evolution. P. 7. 57 Ibid. S. 3. 442 These premonitions were fueled by impressions of reality: Nikolai Alexandrovich was a participant in many of its important events. In September, Morozov became a member of the Council of the Republic, conceived as a kind of “pre-parliament” of the Democratic Conference. At this meeting of representatives of political parties, cooperative unions, various societies, at the height of party passions, only E.D. Kuskova called for “suppressing discord, uniting to save the homeland,” but her call was drowned in the thick of “party polemics sharpened to the point of rudeness” 58 . This was due to the lack of familiarity with democracy and the inability to compromise - a consequence of the undeveloped civil society in the country. The Bolsheviks, led by L. D. Trotsky, openly refused any agreements and left the meetings, reading out their declaration. However, the remaining liberal democratic parties and groups could not agree on anything and did not propose a specific program for overcoming the crisis, which threatened new upheavals 59 . Morozov’s position turned out to be equally vague and vague. While advocating for strengthening the gains of the February Revolution, he never proposed specific means of such strengthening. It was impossible to preserve democratic freedoms without backing them up with the socio-economic liberation of the people. At one time, their ally N.K. Mikhailovsky warned the Narodnaya Volya about this. Both in Otechestvennye zapiski and in the newspaper Narodnaya Volya, when N. A. Morozov worked in its editorial office, he, citing historical experience, argued that “political freedom, sometimes bought at the cost of an entire ocean of blood, fell from an insignificant push from Bonaparte or another power-hungry person,” if it “at its inception was not complicated by significant assistance to the people, who therefore, coolly, and sometimes sympathetically, watched as the goddess of freedom staggered and fell from her pedestal” 60. This warning was not heeded by Morozov and his liberal associates. Arguably and logically proved with the help of science the unnecessaryness of revolutionary violence, 58 Gessen I. IN. In two centuries. Life report // Archive of the Russian Revolution. Berlin. 1937. (M., 1993). T. XXII. P. 376. 59 Rudneva S. E. Democratic meeting September 1917. History of the forum. M., 2000. S. 247-248. 60 N. M. [Mikhailovsky N. TO.] Literary notes // Domestic notes. 1880. N 9. P. 133; Wed: Literature of the party "People's Will". P. 29. 443 Morozov, like his party comrades, did not propose specific measures to prevent it, did not pay due attention to solving such a formidable agrarian issue in a peasant country. Morozov spoke out not only against the expropriation of landowners' property, but also against the distribution of state-owned lands into allotments, which was provided for by many liberal and populist programs. He spoke only about strengthening state control over land holdings, programming the “gradual municipalization of the land” 61. But the principle of gradualism, so convincingly applied in discussions about building socialism in post-revolutionary Russia, was clearly not suitable for the land issue, which required urgent resolution. Failure to understand this is a serious flaw in Morozov’s “evolutionary sociology,” who missed the most pressing and pressing problem of “land and labor” in his scientific analysis. Other participants in the Democratic Conference also missed it. None of the leaders of the liberal democratic parties put forward a program that corresponded to the aspirations of the peasantry - the Bolsheviks did this. That is why the mass of the people, who initially trusted the Provisional Government and expected radical changes from it, by the fall of 1917 had already “wavered” away from the capitalists to the side revolutionary workers" 62. Neither Morozov nor such public figures who tried to stop the outbreak of a fratricidal war in the country as M. Gorky, G. V. Plekhanov, P. A. Kropotkin, V. G. Korolenko could not prevent such a development of events , and many, many others who raised their voices against the impending revolutionary violence. It became inevitable due to the passivity of the Provisional Government, which did not dare to reform, the weakness and disunity of the democratic forces, the intractability of the bourgeoisie, the intransigence of the vanguard of the working class, excited by the Bolshevik agitation. Behind the Bolsheviks, who promised land and peace, the peasantry went in. I. V. Gessen, editor of the cadet newspaper "Rech", recalling his impression of complete hopelessness and futility from participating in the Democratic Conference, talks about a meeting in the Mariinsky Palace, where it took place, with N. A Morozov: 61 Morozov N. A. Evolutionary sociology, land and labor. pp. 27, 31-33. 62 Lenin V. AND. Full collection op. T. 31. P. 325. 444 “Well, Nikolai Alexandrovich, was it worth serving twenty years in Shlisselburg to wait for such a day?” According to Gessen, the interlocutor was even frightened by such a question: “Oh, what are you, what are you doing. Don’t sin. In about two years, we will be happy to remember this time with you.” The answer of the former Shlisselburg resident infuriated Gessen: “I want to hit him out of anger or hug him closely, in case I become infected with this childish faith, and I vainly torment my imagination to imagine what this terrorist was like twenty years ago, when the heavy gates closed behind him.” Shlisselburg casemate" 63. It is not clear why Morozov’s optimism struck and irritated Gessen so much. Indeed, until recently, Gessen himself just as inexplicably hoped for better times: he had just returned from Crimea, where back in August he bought a plot of land by the sea and was going to build a house. But he regularly received newspapers and telegrams from the St. Petersburg agency and still believed in good changes. Morozov also believed in them, although, as already mentioned, not without doubts. His natural optimism was multiplied by the optimism of a man who had overcome enormous trials of fate. Even the October Revolution did not at first deprive him of hope and faith; he finally lost them with the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly. The slogan of convening the Constituent Assembly, put forward by Narodnaya Volya, was supported by the Bolsheviks right up to the seizure of power. The People's Volunteer Morozov was his opponent; Morozov, a member of the Cadet Party, participated in the elections to the Constituent Assembly. He could still understand, if he did not accept the overthrow of the Provisional Government - an inactive and ineffectual government, the violent dispersal of the representatives of the people elected by him, convinced that the peaceful development of the revolution was no longer in sight - a dictatorship had been established in the country. In his Autobiography, written in 1926, having briefly mentioned his participation in the Moscow State Conference, the Council of the Republic and the Constituent Assembly (these facts were generally omitted from the essays about Morozov by his Soviet biographers), Nikolai Alexandrovich admits that all this time “he was in an anxious mood ". “I already foresaw the inevitability of civil war, the disasters of famine and devastation as its results, and therefore consciously took a reconciling position among the parties warring among themselves, but I soon became convinced that this was completely useless. Hesse I. IN. Decree. op. P. 378. 445 useful and that it will be as difficult for our political parties to prevent the spontaneous onslaught of the popular masses from excesses as it is to stop a hurricane by simply waving their hands" 64 .* * *
After the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, Nikolai Alexandrovich decisively and irrevocably left politics, completely devoting himself to science. His words in the Autobiography about his forced withdrawal from science in 1917, caused by political demands, are not entirely accurate: scientific work slowed down, was interrupted, but did not stop - it was a vital need for him. He came to all political meetings with a stack of books. Also, at one time, with a bag of books and manuscripts, he went for a walk in Shlisselburg: his fellow prisoners nicknamed him “Marsupial.” In Soviet Russia, science became a reliable refuge from disappointing politics. Morozov continued to believe in science and its transformative power. It was science that was supposed not only to contribute to the rise of the economy destroyed by war and revolution, but also to ennoble morals, embittered by fratricidal massacres. Darkness and ignorance in the understanding of the scientist are incompatible with democratic freedoms. Educating the people and disseminating scientific knowledge, in his opinion, contributes to the civil maturity of society and the establishment in it of the principles of freedom and individual rights. Proving the inextricable connection between freedom and science in the revolutionary year, Morozov continued to think the same way during the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat 65. Seeing that events did not take the development that he had hoped for, realizing that the country was facing protracted devastation, threatening to intensify the class and political struggle, Nikolai Alexandrovich did not leave Russia. Rich and varied opportunities to engage in science abroad, where his name was quite well known, were rejected: he devoted all his energy to organizing science in his native country. P. A. Kropotkin, who arrived home in June 1917, did not leave Russia during these difficult years. Pyotr Alekseevich continued 64 Morozov N. A. Autobiography // Figures of the USSR and the revolutionary movement in Russia. Encyclopedic Dictionary Pomegranate. M., 1989. P. 317. 65 Morozov N. A. Science and Freedom; the same // Nature. 1917. N 5-6. pp. 670-675. 446 pressed on the work begun abroad on “Ethics”, in which his doctrine of the instincts of solidarity and mutual assistance as the basis of morality was to be found in a comprehensive manner. Considering this work to be relevant, the scientist was still distracted every now and then by solving political problems. Kropotkin, unlike Morozov, actively tried to influence the policies of the Soviet government. He raised his voice against the Red Terror, calling on the Bolsheviks not to distort the communist ideal with hostility and revenge, and not to encourage destructive instincts. Kropotkin wrote to V.I. Lenin about the need to develop the “constructive” energy of the masses and to promote the cooperative movement 66. Morozov turned to V.I. Lenin only on problems of science, without touching on politics. Nikolai Alexandrovich declared his readiness to serve the cause of public education. He offered to donate his experience and knowledge to Russian aviation: “With the greatest zeal I would undertake,” he wrote to the leader, “to recreate scientific aeronautics and organize scientific flights.” He repeatedly sent Lenin the works of the Institute. P.F. Lesgaft, whose director he became, reporting on the plans of the institute and its needs. From these same letters of his it is clear that Lenin willingly responded to the scientist’s proposals 67 . On the initiative of the leader, by resolution of the Council of People's Commissars, the Borok estate was transferred to Morozov for lifelong use - for services to the revolution and science. No longer trying to interfere in political life, Nikolai Alexandrovich in the first post-revolutionary years still made attempts to intercede for some of his arrested acquaintances, using personal connections, in particular his acquaintance with F. E. Dzerzhinsky. The scientist’s archive contains a letter from the chairman of the Cheka, responding to his petition about the arrested member of the Cadet Party N. A. de Roberti, an economist and publicist. Informing Morozov, in response to his petition, that the case of N.A. de Roberti was considered by him personally, Dzerzhinsky wrote that the arrested person “cannot be released at this time.” He assured Nikolai Alexandrovich that the conditions of de Roberti’s imprisonment were not 66 Pirumova N. Letters and meetings // Motherland. 1989. N 1. P. 27-30. 67 Letter from N.A. Morozov to V.I. Lenin [July 1919]. Draft // Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences. F. 543; Same. Aug 11 and 1 Feb. 1921 // Literary heritage. M., 1971. T. 80. P. 280, 269; same, 29 Jan. 1921 // Letters from workers to V.I. Lenin. M., 1969. S. 280-281. 447 heavy. “Our opponents have not given up all sorts of conspiracies; on the contrary, they now want to take advantage of the difficult situation of the republic and are intensifying their activity. And therefore we must be on the alert and must isolate many,” the country’s chief security officer explained to Morozov the meaning of his decision. At the same time, Dzerzhinsky expressed his readiness to assist in the publication of Morozov’s work “Christ” and expressed a desire to be useful to him in any way he could. “I am firmly convinced that Soviet Russia will be able to overcome all difficulties and wait for the collapse of world capitalism,” he wrote to Morozov 68 . One can imagine with what feeling the scientist, convinced of the “great evolutionary role of capitalism,” read these lines. But Nikolai Alexandrovich did not enter into a dispute with the authorities. His position would be more accurately defined not even as neutrality, but rather as complete detachment, alienation from politics. Without protesting against mass repressions in the 1930s, he never spoke out in support of them. The signature of N. A. Morozov, an honorary member of the USSR Academy of Sciences since 1934, is not found on the collective letters of scientists and cultural figures demanding the execution of “enemies of the people” and tougher punitive measures. During the years of Soviet power, Nikolai Alexandrovich lived only by science. The principle of comprehensive research that the scientist adhered to contributed to his advancement in a variety of fields from astronomy to geology and geophysics and nuclear physics. It is at the Institute, named after. P.F. Lesgaft, headed by Morozov, began the development of problems related to space exploration. In 1931, Morozov transferred most of Bork to the Academy of Sciences. The Upper Volga Base of the Academy of Sciences was created here - the basis of the future Institute of Biology of Inland Waters of the Academy of Sciences. Academician S.I. Volfkovich, who corresponded with Nikolai Alexandrovich and was aware of his scientific plans and discoveries, testified that even in the 91st year of his life Nikolai Alexandrovich “was more passionate and courageous than many of us at 40-50 years younger than him" 69. The passion and courage of the young Morozov - a revolutionary and a mature - public figure, at the end of his life's journey were reflected only in science, becoming 68 Letter from F. E. Dzerzhinsky to N. A. Morozov August 14 b. // Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences. F. 543. Op. 4. D. 546. 69 Volfkovich S. AND. Decree. op. P. 20. 448 our raison d'être, a refuge from the revolutionary And political storms, the main hope for the future. The Soviet government, awarding honorary academician N.A. Morozov with the Orders of Lenin and the Red Banner of Labor in connection with anniversaries, emphasized that it was paying tribute not only to his scientific, but also to his revolutionary merits. The image of a revolutionary scientist was supposed to become a symbol of the connection between science and revolution, the continuity of the revolutionary tradition. This image had little in common with a real person, but was supported in every possible way - the era needed its symbols, myths, and legends. N. A. Morozov died at the age of 92 in 1946 in Borka, in the house where he was born. His long life included events - public and personal - that would be enough for several human lives. He was a contemporary of three Russian emperors and three Russian revolutions. In fact, Morozov seemed to live several lives, completely different in content and aspirations. There is a deep meaning in the fact that a person came to the renunciation of revolutionary violence fully armed with revolutionary experience and extensive scientific knowledge. In justifying the possibility of evolutionary development of mankind - without social upheavals and wars, Morozov followed his own path, trying to rely not only on socio-political, but also on natural sciences. He was not always quite convincing in his reasoning, but his conclusions and observations are of interest due to their coincidence with the emerging and ever-increasing peacemaking tendencies in public thought. For Nikolai Alexandrovich, who turned from a revolutionary into an “evolutionist,” the unnecessaryness of violent means for social change became so obvious that he believed in the possibility of convincing a society that was in a state of revolutionary ferment of this. The lessons of Morozov’s fate suggest that it is not enough to become an opponent of violence in a world where it is still full-fledged: it is important to find real ways to avoid it. It is not enough to be convinced of the advantage of peaceful, evolutionary development; we must look for specific means of resisting violence and preventing it. The searches in this direction by Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov, with all their incompleteness and seeming ineffectiveness, should not be forgotten.The life of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov was full of bright, contradictory, fateful and incredible events. Due to his encyclopedic knowledge, creative potential and enormous capacity for work, N.A. Morozov is an exceptional phenomenon. Whatever he was: a terrorist, a freemason, an inventor, a pilot, an encyclopedist, a writer and poet, a sniper... He didn’t waste time in Dvinsk either: while imprisoned in the fortress, N.A. Morozov wrote memoirs and learned Hebrew.
I dreamed of becoming a scientist, but became a terrorist
According to one version, 15-year-old Nikolai Morozov was expelled from the 2nd Moscow Gymnasium in 1869 due to poor studies, and a little later - in 1971 and 1872 - he was a volunteer student at the Faculty of Medicine of Moscow University. According to another, he was expelled from the gymnasium without the right to enter higher educational institutions in Russia for his democratic views - his home education affected him. Thus, by denying him the right to education, the tsarist government itself pushed him onto the revolutionary path.
The next decade of his life was stormy: in 1874 he became a “populist” and participated in “going to the people”, conducting propaganda among the peasants. He became one of the leaders of the Land and Freedom organization, and in 1879 he joined the executive committee of Narodnaya Volya, where the revolver, dagger and dynamite were considered the main means of political struggle. Morozov was an ardent radical and proposed constantly using terror as a regulator of political life. In 1880, in London, he met with Karl Marx and was closely acquainted with Nikolai Kibalchich, Sofia Perovskaya, and Andrei Zhelyabov, executed for the murder of Emperor Alexander II.
He was arrested in 1881 (even before the assassination of the emperor) and in 1882 he was sentenced to life imprisonment - his participation in one of the seven attempts on Alexander II’s life was proven, when Narodnaya Volya members dug under the railway. He spent three years in solitary confinement in the Alekseevsky ravelin of the Peter and Paul Fortress. It was only in 1887 that he was given paper for the first time, and the following year ink. In 1984, he was transferred to the Shlisselburg fortress, where he remained for 21 years.
“I was not sitting in a fortress, I was sitting in the Universe”
In the cold solitary confinement of the Shlisselburg convict prison, Morozov did more than just serve his sentence. He studied science daily and made several discoveries of world significance. He recalled: “Some calculations had to be done for several days in a row and written in numbers and transformations on twenty pages of paper, and then reduced to one page. And at the end of such tedious operations my head was ready to burst, and it was impossible to quit in the middle and rest, so as not to lose the connection between the beginning of the calculations and their end.”
During his imprisonment, he learned eleven foreign languages from a self-instruction manual, and after his release under the amnesty of 1905, he managed to take out of prison 26 volumes of manuscripts on various sciences - chemistry, physics, mathematics, astronomy, aviation, political economy, history, mathematics, biology, etc. At large he was actively involved in scientific and pedagogical activities. At the suggestion of D.I. Mendeleev, in 1906, for his work “Periodic systems of the structure of matter,” Morozov was awarded the degree of Doctor of Chemistry without defending a dissertation. Later, academician Igor Kurchatov noted: “Modern physics has fully confirmed the statement about the complex structure of atoms, developed at one time by N.A. Morozov.”
He teaches at the St. Petersburg Higher Free School of P.F. Lesgaft - teacher, anatomist and doctor, creator of the scientific system of physical education. He was elected a member of the Russian, French and British Astronomical Societies and the Russian Physico-Chemical Society, and he was elected chairman of the Russian Society of World Science Amateurs. Academician Sergei Ivanovich Vavilov spoke of Morozov this way: “This scientific enthusiasm, completely disinterested, passionate love for scientific research should remain an example and model for every scientist, young or old.”
Last arrest
The last time Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov was arrested in Crimea was in 1912 (he was 58 years old) and, by decision of the Moscow Court Chamber, was imprisoned in the Dvina Fortress. The reason for the arrest was the publication of a collection of poems, “Star Songs,” in which revolutionary sentiments and anti-religious views prevailed. Nikolai Alexandrovich later recalled: “I took advantage of this opportunity to learn the Hebrew language for the expedient development of the Old Testament Bible, and there I wrote four volumes of “Tales of My Life,” which I brought to the founding of “Narodnaya Volya,” since my period of imprisonment ended at this point "
Liberation followed in 1913 under an amnesty in honor of the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty. Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy was very interested in the memoirs written by Morozov in Dvinsk: “...I read it with the greatest interest and pleasure. I am very sorry that there is no continuation...Talentedly written. It was interesting to look into the soul of the revolutionaries. This Morozov is very instructive for me.”
“The aspiration of the spirit knows no bounds,
The boundless horizon is wide.
On the powerful wings of a white bird
Let’s make our childhood dream come true!”
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov stood at the origins of aeronautics and astronautics. Having received the rank of pilot, he was chairman of the scientific flight commission and lectured at an aviation school. He himself took to the air in the first balloons more than a hundred times, and each flight was associated with risk. He suffered accidents more than once, miraculously remaining alive, and witnessed the death of many Russian aviators. He did a lot for flight safety. For example, he created the world's first high-altitude hermetic aviation suit - the prototype of a modern space suit, and also invented a life-saving equatorial belt, which makes it possible to automatically turn the upper part of a balloon into a parachute, thereby ensuring a smooth descent of the gondola to the ground.
Twelfth foreign
In the Dvina Fortress, Nikolai Morozov mastered the twelfth foreign language - Hebrew. Thanks to his knowledge of languages, including ancient ones, he became familiar with sources on the history of mankind (the Bible, for example) in the original and interpreted the information contained in them in his own way. Having systematized the ancient texts, which probably describe the same events, I noticed that they are dated from different eras. This allowed Morozov to take a fresh look at the historical process and create his own concept of human development. Thus, they laid the foundations for revising traditional history.
Not everyone liked this idea, and in large scientific centers (MSU, in particular) there are still battles between “correctors” of chronology and scientists who adhere to traditional views. They are not very fond of Nikolai Alexandrovich, accusing him of falsification, lack of evidence, free interpretation and fiction: “In the field of “humanities” he can be called ... “an outstanding pseudoscientist.”
Biography facts
While in prison, N.A. Morozov himself cured himself of tuberculosis (the method also included physical exercises) - six months later, the doctors, to their amazement, discovered that the prisoner was not only alive, but also completely healthy.
N.A. Morozov is almost the only one who was not affected by Stalin’s repressions. In 1945, there were three honorary academicians of the USSR Academy of Sciences - microbiologist N.F. Gamaley, N.A. Morozov and I.V. Stalin. Awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1939) and two Orders of Lenin (1944, 1945). Until the end of his days, he remained a convinced revolutionary and wrote in all his questionnaires: a member of the Narodnaya Volya party.
In 1939, at the age of 85, he graduated from OSOAVIAKHIM sniper courses and three years later went to the Volkhov Front, where he participated in military operations.
From a letter from the Shlisselburg fortress dated August 8, 1899: “Sometimes a storm disrupts the nests of swallows, and then their chicks come to us to be raised, are fed on flies and spiders and placed in small cloth nests until their wings grow. And now a little orphan swallow named Chika is being raised... She loves to sleep on her chest, in her bosom, in her sleeve, or even just in her fist. Loves to be petted and spoken to and knows her name. Never before has there been such a sweet and affectionate bird..."
“The one whose echo is in others has not died”
There is still no consensus why N.A. Morozov was not affected by Stalin’s repressions. Leader's quirk? Dictator's whim? Or maybe the generalissimo was close to some of the impulses of the soul of a convinced revolutionary, because in all his questionnaires Morozov wrote: Member of the People's Will party?
ON THE. Morozov was friendly with the poet V.Ya. Bryusov, corresponded with V.I. Lenin, F.E. Dzerzhinsky, A.V. Lunacharsky, V.D. Bonch-Bruevich, Ya.E. Rudzutak, A.I. Rykov, N.I. Ezhov, L.P. Beria, I.V. Stalin. In 1945, there were three honorary academicians of the USSR Academy of Sciences - microbiologist N.F. Gamaley, N.A. Morozov and I.V. Stalin. At the end of his life, awards came: the Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1939) and two Orders of Lenin (1944, 1945). Died in 1946.
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov is a Russian revolutionary populist. Member of the Chaikovsky circle, Land and Freedom, and the executive committee of Narodnaya Volya. He was a participant in the assassination attempts on Alexander II.
In 1882 he was sentenced to eternal hard labor, and until 1905 he was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul and Shlisselburg fortresses. Mason. Honorary member of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
He is also known as a scientist who has left a large number of works in various fields of natural and social sciences. Also known as a writer and poet. Awarded the Order of Lenin (1945) and the Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1939).
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov was born in 1854 in the family estate of Borok. He received his education mainly at home, in 1869 he entered the 2nd Moscow Gymnasium (did not graduate), where, according to his own recollections, he studied poorly; in 1871-1872 he was a volunteer student at Moscow University.
In 1874, he joined the populist circle of the “Chaikovites,” participated in “going to the people,” and conducted propaganda among the peasants of the Moscow, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Voronezh and Kursk provinces.
In the same year, he went abroad, was a representative of the “Chaikovites” in Switzerland, collaborated with the newspaper “Rabotnik” and the magazine “Forward”, and became a member of the International. Upon returning to Russia in 1875, he was arrested. In 1878, he was tried in the trial of 193, was sentenced to a year and three months in prison and, taking into account the preliminary detention, was released at the end of the trial.
He continued his revolutionary activities, carried out propaganda in the Saratov province, and went underground to avoid arrest. He became one of the leaders of the “Land and Freedom” organization, and was the secretary of the editorial office of the “Land and Freedom” newspaper.
In 1879 he took part in the creation of “People's Will” and joined the Executive Committee. He participated in the preparation of a number of assassination attempts on Alexander II, and was a member of the editorial board of the newspaper Narodnaya Volya.
In January 1880, due to theoretical differences with the majority of the leadership of Narodnaya Volya, he withdrew from practical work and, together with his common-law wife Olga Lyubatovich, went abroad, where he published a brochure “The Terrorist Struggle” outlining his views.
If the Narodnaya Volya program considered terror as an exclusive method of struggle and subsequently provided for its abandonment, then Morozov proposed using terror constantly as a regulator of political life in Russia.
The theory developed by Morozov was called “tellism” (from William Tell). In December 1880, Morozov met in London with Karl Marx, who gave him several works for translation into Russian, including the Manifesto of the Communist Party.
In 1881, having learned about the assassination of the emperor and the subsequent arrests, Morozov returned to Russia, but was arrested at the border. In 1882, in the trial of 20, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Until 1884 he was kept in the Alekseevsky ravelin of the Peter and Paul Fortress, and from 1884 in Shlisselburg.
In November 1905, as a result of the revolution, N. A. Morozov was released after 25 years of imprisonment. After that, he devoted himself to science, began to prepare for publication his works written in prison, and published a number of books and articles on various topics.
At the beginning of 1907, in the church of the village of Kopan near Bork, Nikolai Alexandrovich married Ksenia Alekseevna Borislavskaya (1880-1948), a famous pianist, writer and translator. They lived a long life together, but they had no children.
In 1908 he joined the Polar Star Masonic Lodge.
On January 30 (February 12), 1910, N. A. Morozov was invited by S. V. Muratov on behalf of the Council of the Russian Society of Lovers of World Studies (ROLM) to the post of Chairman of the Council and remained its only chairman for the entire existence of the society (before its dissolution in 1932).
Members of the Council were then repressed and some of them were amnestied only half a century later. Morozov, despite his critical position, was only forced to leave for his Borok estate, where he continued scientific work, including at the astronomical observatory built for him by ROLM.
Morozov did not share Bolshevik views. For him, socialism was the ideal of social organization, but he perceived this ideal as a distant goal, the achievement of which is associated with the worldwide development of science, technology and education.
He considered capitalism to be the driving force behind the latter. He defended the position that a gradual, well-prepared nationalization of industry was needed, and not its forced expropriation. In his articles he proved the inconsistency of the socialist revolution in peasant Russia. On the issue of the socialist revolution he opposed Lenin.
Here his position was closer to Plekhanov’s. Morozov participated in the elections to the Constituent Assembly on the lists of the Kadet Party, being in the same ranks with V.I. Vernadsky.
On August 12, 1917, in Moscow at the Bolshoi Theater, on the initiative of the head of the Provisional Government A.F. Kerensky, a State Meeting was held, in which figures of the revolutionary movement were involved: Prince P.A. Kropotkin, E.K. Breshko-Breshkovskaya, G.A. Lopatin, G. V. Plekhanov and N. A. Morozov. In his speech at this meeting, Morozov argued that the proletariat cannot currently survive without the bourgeoisie.
On the eve of the October Revolution, N. A. Morozov took a conciliatory position, joining the Cadet Party, he was offered the post of Comrade Minister of Education, which he refused. N. A. Morozov was respected by all revolutionary parties as one of the few living Narodnaya Volya members.
According to Academician Igor Kurchatov, “modern physics has fully confirmed the statement about the complex structure of atoms and the interconvertibility of all chemical elements, discussed at one time by N. A. Morozov in the monograph “Periodic Systems of the Structure of Matter.”
N. A. Morozov from 1918 until the end of his life was the director of the Natural Science Institute. P. F. Lesgaft. Members of the Russian Society of Lovers of World Science, which he led, located in the building of the institute, began to develop a number of problems related to space exploration.
Morozov personally took part in this work, proposing, independently of the Americans, a high-altitude hermetic aviation suit - the prototype of a modern space suit. He also invented the equatorial rescue belt, which allows you to automatically turn the upper part of the balloon into a parachute and ensure a smooth descent of the gondola or cabin to the ground.
In 1939, on his initiative, a scientific center was created in the village of Borok, Yaroslavl region; now the Institute of Biology of Inland Waters and the Borok Geophysical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences work there.
In 1939, Morozov, at the age of 85, graduated from Osoaviakhim sniper courses and three years later he personally took part in hostilities on the Volkhov Front. In July 1944 he was awarded the Order of Lenin.
N. A. Morozov wrote many books and articles on astronomy, cosmogony, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, geophysics, meteorology, aeronautics, aviation, history, philosophy, political economy, linguistics, history of science, mostly of a popular and educational nature.
In the works on chemistry that attracted Mendeleev's attention, visionary statements about the complex composition of atoms and the possibility of transformation of elements and interesting observations about their classification, probably stimulated by the work of Lockyer, are combined with baseless speculative constructions. In the field of physics, N. A. Morozov tried to challenge the Theory of Relativity.
Finding himself in the Peter and Paul Fortress and having no other literature except the Bible, Morozov began to read “Apocalypse” and, by his own admission: ... from the very first chapter I suddenly began to recognize in the apocalyptic beasts a half-allegorical, and half-literally accurate and, moreover, extremely artistic depiction long ago thunderstorm pictures known to me, and besides them there is also a wonderful description of the constellations of the ancient sky and the planets in these constellations. After a few pages there was no longer any doubt for me that the true source of this ancient prophecy was one of those earthquakes that are not uncommon even now in the Greek Archipelago, and the accompanying thunderstorm and the ominous astrological arrangement of the planets according to the constellations, these ancient signs of God's wrath, accepted by the author, under the influence of religious enthusiasm, for a sign specially sent by God in response to his fervent prayers to indicate to him at least some hint when Jesus would finally come to earth.
Based on this idea as an obvious fact that did not need proof, Morozov tried to calculate the date of the event based on the supposed astronomical indications in the text and came to the conclusion that the text was written in 395 AD. e., 300 years later than its historical dating. For Morozov, however, this served as a sign that not his hypothesis was wrong, but the accepted chronology. Morozov, upon his release from prison, outlined his conclusions in the book “Revelation of Thunder and Storm” (1907).
Critics have pointed out that this dating contradicts the undoubted quotations and references to the "Apocalypse" in earlier Christian texts. To this, Morozov objected that since the dating of the “Apocalypse” is proven astronomically, then in this case we are dealing with either forgeries or incorrect dating of contradictory texts that could not have been written earlier than the 5th century.
At the same time, he firmly believed that his dating was based on accurate astronomical data; critics' indications that these “astronomical data” represented an arbitrary interpretation of a metaphorical text were ignored by him.
In further work, Morozov revised the dating of a number of ancient astronomical events (mainly solar and lunar eclipses) described in ancient and early medieval sources, as well as several horoscopes, images of which were discovered in archaeological sites.
He came to the conclusion that a significant part of the dating is unfounded, since it is based on extremely meager descriptions of eclipses (without indicating the date, time, exact location, or even specifying the type of eclipse). Morozov re-dated other ancient astronomical events, suggesting significantly later dates.
Analyzing the history of Chinese astronomy, Morozov concluded that ancient Chinese astronomical records are unreliable - lists of comet appearances have clear signs of being copied from each other and from European sources, lists of eclipses are unrealistic (there are more records of eclipses than could in principle be observed).
Ultimately, Morozov proposed the following concept of history: history began in the 1st century. n. e. (Stone Age), the 2nd century was the Bronze Age, the 3rd century was the Iron Age; then comes the era of a single “Latin-Hellenic-Syrian-Egyptian empire”, the rulers of which (starting with Aurelian) “were crowned with four crowns in four countries” and “at each coronation they received a special official nickname in the language of this country,” and in our multilingual sources we, according to Morozov, have four histories of the same empire, where the same kings appear under different names.
The confusion that arose as a result gave us what is considered the history of the ancient world; in general, all written history fits into 1700 years and those events that we consider to be at different times occurred in parallel, and ancient literature was created during the Renaissance, which in fact was the “era fantasy and apocryphation."
Morozov dates the crucifixion (“pillaring”) of Christ to 368, whom he identifies with one of the church fathers, Basil the Great. As for the cultures located outside the Mediterranean, their history is much shorter than is commonly believed; for example, India “does not really have any chronology of its own before the 16th century.” n. e."
Morozov's works were not taken seriously and received devastating reviews. After the revolution, however, criticism was greatly tempered by respect for Morozov's revolutionary merits. The term “New Chronology” itself was first used in a devastating review of Morozov’s book by historian N. M. Nikolsky.
Yuri Olesha left a testimony about the response of his contemporaries to “Christ” and other works of Morozov.
Morozov's ideas were forgotten for a long time and were perceived only as a curiosity in the history of thought, but since the late 1960s. his “Christ” was of interest to a circle of academic intellectuals (not humanists, mainly mathematicians, led by M. M. Postnikov), and his ideas were developed in the “New Chronology” by A. T. Fomenko and others (for more details, see History " New chronology").
Interest in the “New Chronology” contributed to the reissue of Morozov’s works and the publication of his works that remained unpublished (three additional volumes of “Christ” were published in 1997-2003).
Created by him in prison in the mid-1870s. the poems were published in the collection “From Behind Bars” (Geneva, 1877). After Morozov’s release, his collections of poems “From the Walls of Captivity” (1906) and “Star Songs” (1910) were published, which included works he created during more than 20 years of imprisonment. For the book “Star Songs,” which expressed revolutionary sentiments, he was sentenced to a year in prison and spent the entire year of 1911 in the Dvina Fortress.
In his poems, Morozov calls for the fight against autocracy, glorifies revolutionaries and calls for revenge for his fallen comrades; There is also a satirical element in his poems. In the 1900s he turned to scientific poetry, focusing, following the Russian symbolists, on the experience of the Belgian poet Rene Gil. Morozov's poems evoked a sharp assessment from Nikolai Gumilyov.
- Memory
* In the Leningrad region there is a village named after Morozov.
* The minor planet 1210 Morosovia and a crater on the Moon are named in honor of Morozov.
* Shlisselburg powder factories were renamed in 1922 to “Plant named after. Morozova".
* In Borka (Yaroslavl region) there is a house-museum of Morozov.
* Monument at the grave of Nikolai Alexandrovich - the work of sculptor G.I. Motovilov.
These lines are about a unique phenomenon in world science, whose name is Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov. This name is well known, deservedly known. On the far side of the Moon there is a crater with coordinates 5° north latitude, 127° east longitude - a crater named N.A. Morozova. In 1932, astronomers at the Pulkovo Observatory, having discovered a new small planet, named it Morozovia. And shortly before this, the USSR Academy of Sciences elected Nikolai Alexandrovich an honorary academician. In the Leningrad region there is the village of Morozovo, also named in his honor... The literature about Morozov is quite extensive. The first book about him was published by the Politkatorzhanin publishing house back in 1926. The author of this book was Vera Figner, a friend of N.A. Morozov on the revolutionary struggle. The last book about him was published this year - in the “Fiery Revolutionaries” series.
The works of Nikolai Alexandrovich himself were published repeatedly - scientific, literary, popular science... And yet I cannot get rid of the feeling that current generations, especially young people, know little, undeservedly little, about Morozov. And, as a rule, one-sided. Morozov - a revolutionary, a Schlisselburger - is better known than Morozov the scientist. And one is inseparable from the other. Morozov's brilliant insights and foresights are the result and consequence of his, Morozov's, one-of-a-kind, method of work. And this method is the result of his unique destiny, his life.
I was lucky enough to know Nikolai Alexandrovich, met with him several times in the last eight years of his life, and corresponded with him. His letters have been preserved. One of them is especially dear to me - received at the beginning of 1944 and still unpublished. Through the lines of this letter - businesslike and at the same time surprisingly soft, humane - almost the entire life of Nikolai Alexandrovich can be traced...
FROM A LETTER TO N.A. MOROZOVA S.I. VOLFKOVICH.
BOROK OF YAROSLAV REGION, JANUARY 14, 1944:
“Dear Semyon Isaakovich! First of all, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your kind letter dated November 19, 1943, which, unfortunately, took more than a month and a half to reach me... Otherwise, I would have answered you a long time ago. Don’t complain about me for being so late.It is quite obvious: these lines were written by a person who feels involved in our academic science, and above all in chemical science. And one more thing is obvious: the author of the letter is distinguished by the highest goodwill and clear mind.I sincerely thank you and the entire Chemical Department for your kind attitude towards me. I am glad that our comrades at the Academy are returning to Moscow and their research work is being resumed after a long break due to the war, which has caused so much irreparable harm in this regard.
Convey my heartfelt greetings to all the 4 academicians and 12 corresponding members elected in the Chemistry Department and my regret that I, being absent due to illness at the September session, could not, along with other comrades in the Academy, cast my vote for them..."
When these lines were written, Nikolai Alexandrovich was 90 years old. He still considered himself a chemist, a natural scientist, although he did not conduct work in the field of chemistry at that time. He never did the usual chemical experiments for all of us. Nevertheless, he had the right to consider himself among "comrades in the Chemical Department" he did a lot for chemistry. But more on that later.
The son of a landowner and a peasant woman, whose marriage relationship was not sanctified by the church, he bore his mother’s surname and conventional patronymic all his life. Morozov's father, a Russian nobleman Shchepochkin, who was distantly related (through the Naryshkins) to Peter I himself, was called, like the tsar, Peter Alekseevich.
Nikolai Alexandrovich's childhood was generally comfortable - in Borka, his father's estate in the Yaroslavl region, under the supervision of a loving mother, and later a French tutor. An ordinary childhood for an ordinary boy “from a good family.” Then there was a gymnasium in Moscow, where N.A. Morozov entered as a 15-year-old boy, and the first secret society was the “Society of Naturalists-Gymnasium Students.”
Pay attention to this title. Secret society - and natural history! These two concepts will intertwine in his fate.
As a high school student, he began to study sciences that were not taught in high schools of that time: astronomy, geology, botany, anatomy. And at the same time he was engrossed in Nekrasov, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov. I began to become interested in the history of the revolutionary movement in Europe and Russia. Nevertheless, Nikolai Alexandrovich’s transition to active revolutionary activity was unexpected for his loved ones, and that was the case. In 1874, he met some members of the circle of revolutionary populists “Chaikovsky” (S.M. Kravchinsky, L.E. Shishko and others). Their ideals, their revolutionary and educational activities captivated Morozov, and he embarked on the difficult but noble path of a fighter for the liberation of the working people.
He left the house, distributed his property and “went among the people.” He worked in the villages either as a blacksmith's assistant or as a timber sawyer and at the same time carried out the work of a revolutionary propagandist. The effectiveness of this work, to put it mildly, left much to be desired, and it is not surprising that the ardent young man, who longed for heroism for the sake of high ideals, “went among the people,” as well as the subsequent activity in Moscow in workers’ circles, which boiled down to joint reading of revolutionary literature and popularization of scientific knowledge was not satisfactory.
At the suggestion of comrades N.A. Morozov went to Geneva, where he edited the magazine "Rabotnik", which was illegally transported to Russia. At the same time, he continued to study natural science, sociology and history. However, work abroad seemed insufficient to him, and Nikolai Alexandrovich decided to return to Russia. He was arrested at the border. Tverskaya part in Moscow, and then the St. Petersburg house of preliminary detention. The first three years in prison. Later there will be another 26 years - 25 in a row and one more separately.
In prison he became an encyclopedist. Continuous work of thought, self-education, and scientific creativity helped him survive and survive. In the St. Petersburg pre-trial detention center, he studied foreign languages, algebra, descriptive and analytical geometry, spherical trigonometry and other branches of mathematics.
In January 1878, Morozov was released and soon became a member of “Land and Freedom,” which Vladimir Ilyich Lenin later certified as an excellent organization, “which should serve as a model for all of us”... N.A. Morozov was one of the editors of the magazine "Land and Freedom", kept all illegal documents, money and seals.
When, as a result of internal struggle, “Land and Freedom” split into “People’s Will” and “Black Redistribution”, N.A. Morozov became a member of the Executive Committee of the Narodnaya Volya party and in 1880 emigrated again to publish a magazine abroad called the Russian Social Revolutionary Library. During these years, he wrote “The History of the Russian Revolutionary Movement of the 70s” and the brochure “The Terrorist Struggle,” printed in 1880 in London.
But Morozov’s arrival in London in December 1880 was not connected with this brochure. The experience of the revolutionary struggle that accumulated day by day made him doubt the main thesis of the populists - the peasant community as the class basis of socialism. Under the influence of Capital, he even wrote an article “Through Capitalism to Socialism.” The article aroused objections from party comrades and was not published. Nevertheless, a trip to London with the aim of inviting Karl Marx to collaborate in the “Russian Social Revolutionary Library” is already natural for Morozov the revolutionary.
During this visit to London, Morozov met with Marx twice and received several of his works for translation into Russian, including the Manifesto of the Communist Party. According to the promise given to Morozov, Marx (together with Engels) wrote the preface to the Russian edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Returning to Geneva, Morozov began preparing a translation of the Manifesto, but he did not have to finish this work - G.V. did it for him. Plekhanov. And Morozov, who received an alarming letter from Sofia Perovskaya in January 1881, urgently left for Russia to help his comrades in the struggle.
On January 28, while crossing the border, Morozov was arrested and transported to the Warsaw Citadel. From his cellmate he learned about the execution of Alexander II by the Narodnaya Volya.
What follows is known: numerous arrests, trials, execution of Andrei Zhelyabov, Sofia Perovskaya, Nikolai. Kibalchich... Member of the Executive Committee of the Narodnaya Volya party Nikolai Morozov was subject to the “trial of 20” and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Alekseevsky ravelin of the Peter and Paul Fortress, solitary confinement in Shlisselburg. Scurvy. Hemoptysis. Extreme exhaustion. And - the continuous work of thought, the result of which was the famous 26 notebooks of Nikolai Morozov *.
* For more information about this period of life, see the essay by G. Faibusovich “26 notebooks of Morozov”, “Chemistry and Life”, 1971, No. 8.Vera Figner wrote in one of her letters to freedom:
“Once, about two years ago, on one occasion, Nikolai wrote to me in a note that he already had little strength left and that he was in a hurry to write down all his ideas... He works on them with amazing persistence and systematicity. There is something venerable and at the same time touching in this fate of a lonely prisoner, forever hovering in the sphere of abstract thought, in this joyless life fanatically devoting himself to the service of science and through it to humanity, in this tireless pursuit of truth, which, perhaps, will never go beyond four walls."The first scientific work of N.A. Morozov, who nevertheless came out "beyond the four walls" was his remarkable chemical research "Periodic systems of the structure of matter." In August 1901, this work was submitted for review (without attribution) to Professor D.P. Konovalov. Morozov asked to send the manuscript to N.N. Beketov, who was then chairman of the Russian Physico-Chemical Society. The police department, however, decided only to communicate with the more trustworthy D.P. Konovalov.
Konovalov gave the work a correctly negative review. He noted the author’s erudition as a chemist, but did not share his views on the periodicity of the structure of matter. And he concluded that it was inappropriate to print the manuscript. It was published only in 1907, a year and a half after the author’s release.
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov was released at the end of 1905, when the tsarist government, frightened by the growth of the revolutionary movement, declared an amnesty for the few surviving Shlisselburg residents. From then on, his life was primarily the life of a research scientist, propagandist and popularizer of scientific knowledge.
Morozov the scientist is unique in the breadth of his subjects and creative scope. Works on physics and chemistry occupied perhaps the most significant place in his work. However, we will give the floor to Nikolai Alexandrovich himself, continuing the publication of his letter written during the war:
"...The war caused irreparable harm to my work. As I already wrote to the presidium of the Chemical Department, in recent years I had to postpone the work I had already thought about how my theory, developed back in Shlisselburg imprisonment<...>about the complex structure of atoms and that their essential components are: the gas of celestial nebulae (which I called archonium there), and in addition to it helium, protohydrogen and positive and negative electrons, i.e. modern positrons and electrons, only what I called anode and cathode there - has now been confirmed by the experiments of the latest scientists who have isolated all these components, except for “archonium”, which is still awaiting methods for its isolation in its pure form.I will not analyze the astrophysical, historiographical and meteorological works of Nikolai Alexandrovich - I am not a specialist. But the figure of Morozov the chemist is very attractive to me personally, and I would be glad to interest the readers of Chemistry and Life in it.But the desire to find out the genesis of these components in the Universe carried me into the field of spectral analysis of celestial bodies and into elucidating the evolution of stellar systems in general.
In connection with this, my study “The Evolution of Matter in the Universe” * appeared, which was published as a separate publication only in German at the end of the tsarist regime, and other studies on astrophysics. And the revolution distracted me into the field of historiology<...>
*The original letter contains the German title of the work.This was the situation until recent years, when I wrote, in addition to the seven volumes of my research on the ancient and medieval history of Christian culture published before 1932 (named by me on the advice of the head of the then State Publishing House under the general title “Christ”), three more volumes: “On Assyro -Babylonian cuneiforms”, “Sensational discoveries of Europeans in the first half of the 19th century in Asia, India and Egypt from the point of view of exact sciences” and “New foundations of Russian Medieval history (checking all astronomical indications in Russian chronicles, and its unexpected results)”.All these studies, long prepared for publication, in the form of large volumes remained unpublished until recent years. And several years ago, I submitted four more of my studies to academic journals:
1. “Aberrations from the rotation of the observation base and their cosmological consequences,” where I mathematically proved that gravitational impulses propagate at the speed of light. This article was (in the spring of 1941) already typed in the “Astronomical Journal” and the typed proofs were signed by me for publication and sent to the printing house in June 1941, but the war prevented the publication of this academic book, and its finished type was lost somewhere , or scattered during the turmoil...When the invasion of our territory by fascist troops began in June 1941, I decided to continue my research in the Borkovsky shelter, the main one of which is now nearing completion, not without success, and constitutes a large volume: “Fundamentals of Theoretical Meteorology and Geophysics” with several hundred diagrams, showing patterns in changes in various weather components"<...>2. “The influence of celestial influences on the frequency of earthquakes.” In it I prove that, although earthquakes slowly mature from chemical processes and mechanical tensions and shifts of the upper geological strata, they break out at those hours when the moon, or the sun, or the center of revolution of the Milky Way approaches the meridian of the place of tension and thereby contributes to vertical discontinuity, and being near the horizon - their horizontal shift. I confirmed this with thousands of cases from the history of earthquakes in different countries, in which they were noted not only by day, but also by hour. This study, too, had already been typed in the Geological Journal of the Academy of Sciences, and the proofs were corrected by me and sent to the publishing house. But this book was not published because of the war.
3. The same thing happened with my article “The influence of the electric and magnetic fields of planets on the stability of their orbits.” Here I mathematically prove the inevitability of the formation of rings like Saturn’s on the equatorial part of the planet from the attachment of electrical charges like our thunderstorms to the molecules of its atmosphere and the subsequent rupture of these rings from the repulsion of the same charges with the formation of a satellite planet, after which its orbit should (albeit extremely slowly) expand for the same reason, and when its own magnetic field is formed from rotation, this orbit should move from circular to elliptical.
4. The same loss of the manuscript occurred due to the war with my research: “On the possibility of scientific prediction of weather”<...>
Morozov did not receive a systematic chemical education, but thanks to persistent work and amazing chemical (I emphasize, chemical) talent, he independently mastered the heights of this science and two or three years after his release he was able to teach and write books on general, physical, organic, inorganic and analytical chemistry . He taught courses in General and Inorganic Chemistry at the St. Petersburg Higher Free School. The scientific degree of Doctor of Science was awarded to N.A. Morozov without defending his dissertation at the suggestion of D.I. Mendeleev for the above-mentioned “Periodic systems of the structure of matter.” At the second Mendeleev Congress (1911), Morozov made a report “The past and future of the worlds from modern geophysical and astrophysical points of view.” It was in this report that the idea was first expressed that new stars arise as a result of the explosion of old stars, as a consequence of radioactive decomposition and the interaction of atoms.
A man of multilateral interests, N.A. Morozov made his first flight on an airplane on September 1, 1910. They say that this flight greatly alarmed the police. The secret police imagined that he had risen into the air to drop a bomb on Tsarskoe Selo... Although nothing happened, Nikolai Alexandrovich was still searched. In the photo published later, N.A. Morozov is photographed in an aviator suitHis 1908 work “Ozone and Peroxides” is original, in which Nikolai Aleksandrovich outlined his views on the mechanism of formation and decomposition of peroxide compounds. His judgments about the periodic system of hydrocarbons (carbohydrides) and about the allotropy of simple substances - carbon, phosphorus, sulfur, halogens are interesting... But Nikolai Aleksandrovich’s most important works in the field of chemistry are works on the structure of matter and the development of the periodic law.
In these works, he invariably developed the idea of the complexity of the structure of the atom and thereby substantiated the essence of the periodic law. Moreover, he even argued that the main task of the chemistry of the future will be the synthesis of elements. He anticipated the discovery of isotopes, the discovery of the electron and positron, and the discovery of induced radioactivity. In the article “Newly discovered transformations of radium emanation from the point of view of the evolutionary theory of atomic structure” (1908), he wrote:
"But helium in statu nascendi(at the time of formation. - Ed. ) together with the accompanying corpuscles (beta splashes of radioactive substances), it can act destructively on the atoms of those substances in which they are not particularly strong. The kinetic energy of corpuscles detached from a radium atom (considering it on an atomic scale) is extremely high.”These lines do not need comments.
Of course, Morozov’s ideas about the structure of the atom and the possibility of using atomic energy were very different from modern ones. He knew nothing about nuclei and nuclear forces, and had no idea of the movement of elementary particles. But what is striking and indisputable is the fact that more than 70 years ago Morozov confidently defended the complexity of the construction of the atom and the possibility of interconversion of elements.
And Morozov was one of those contemporaries of Mendeleev who accepted and understood the periodic law most fully and deeply. The group of noble chemically neutral elements he calculated is the result and consequence of this profound understanding.
Speaking about the chemical works of N.A. Morozov, one cannot ignore his essay on alchemy - “In Search of the Philosopher’s Stone.” Not only that, this essay resurrects and scientifically substantiates the long-standing dream of alchemists about the interconvertibility of elements on a qualitatively new level (nowadays this idea does not seem unscientific to anyone). This historical and research essay is written so fascinatingly that I personally, for example, considered and still consider it the best popular science book on the history of chemistry. And it’s not just a matter of tastes and affections. Many prominent chemists of my generation told me that they chose their current specialty under the influence of Morozov’s “alchemical” book they read in childhood. And it is a pity that this classic work of popular science literature is practically inaccessible to today’s schoolchildren. Several years ago, the publishing house "Nauka" was going to re-release "The Philosopher's Stone", providing it with a good modern commentary, but this intention, unfortunately, remained the intention.
Morozov's constant desire for clarity and simplicity sometimes gave rise to simplifications. Thus, Nikolai Aleksandrovich’s ideas about the structure of crystalline hydrates and complex compounds now seem to us to be overly simplified. But even in this form they were far ahead of their time.
And in his communication he was clear and simple, invariably friendly and attentive to people. Despite the exceptional hardships that befell him, until his last days he did not lose interest in people, nor did he lose his great ability to enjoy life. Meeting him was not only interesting, but always pleasant. It seems to me that he never stopped working.
There was such an episode. One day, at the end of the war, I came to visit Nikolai Alexandrovich at the Uzkoe sanatorium near Moscow, where he was recovering from pneumonia. When I appeared, his wife Ksenia Alekseevna, meeting me in the corridor, whispered that Nikolai Alexandrovich’s condition had worsened and his temperature had risen. Of course, I immediately turned back, but that was not the case: Nikolai Alexandrovich had already heard my voice, called Ksenia Alekseevna and asked her to let me see him.
He really did not feel well: rapid breathing, perspiration. He said that he does not sleep, he always thinks about the possibility of the decomposition of atoms at ultra-high temperatures and pressures... In the last years of his life, this idea did not leave him...
This is what the final part of the letter given here is about...
“...This is how my time passes here in daily theoretical scientific work and calculations (in winter, as far as the shortness of winter days allows, since the eyes get tired under kerosene lighting).In another letter I received from N.A. Morozov at the end of 1944, the idea of the decomposition and interconversion of atoms is repeated again, although in a different way:And someday the time will come to publish the results of my work. I console myself with the fact that “my goods will not deteriorate over time.” This means that it can wait for its publication, although it is sad to look at the piles of manuscripts lying on the closet, already finished and copied on a typewriter. Thank you again for your thoughtful letter and offer of assistance. Please convey my heartfelt greetings to the entire Chemistry Department, and in particular to A.N. Bach, my comrade not only in the Academy of Sciences, but also in his old activities in Narodnaya Volya. I'm very glad that he recovered.
Are you asking if I need anything from literature? I would be very glad if it were possible to obtain and send me by cash on delivery some reviews of what and by what methods has been done in recent years on the question of the decomposition of atoms? And has their synthesis been discovered under powerful pressures during modern powerful explosions? With the most cordial greetings!
Nikolay Morozov"
“... Immediately after the discovery of cyclotrons, I had a project for a new work, but in recent years I have been deeply immersed in geophysical considerations... But, undoubtedly, in a year or so the opportunity will come for me to take up cyclotron phenomena , and I will not fail to do this if other researchers do not draw the conclusions that appear to my imagination before I have time to free myself from my modern geophysical and meteorological works."I must admit that after reading these words of Nikolai Alexandrovich, I was stunned: at the 91st year of his life, he was more passionate and courageous than many of us who were half a century younger...
“Modern physics has fully confirmed the statement about the complex structure of atoms and the interconvertibility of all chemical elements, developed at one time by N.A. Morozov in the monograph “Periodic systems of the structure of matter.”These are the words of Igor Vasilievich Kurchatov.
Morozov, Nikolai Aleksandrovich (revolutionary) Prepared by Maxim Budylko, a student of the 8th “B” class of the NNOU Secondary School “Career” for a history lesson.
Content. 1 Biography 1. 1 Addresses in St. Petersburg - Petrograd - Leningrad 2 Assessment of activities 3 Works 4 Criticism 5 Memory 6 Bibliography
family of N. A. and K. A. Morozov, approximately 1910. (supra) At the beginning of 1907, in the church of the village of Kopan Near Bork, Nikolai Alexandrovich married Ksenia Alekseevna Borislavskaya (1880-1948) - a famous pianist, writer and translator. They lived a long life together, but they had no children. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov was born in 1854 in the family estate of Borok, Yaroslavl region. Father - Mongolian landowner, nobleman Pyotr Alekseevich Shchepochkin (1832-1886). Mother - Novgorod peasant woman, former serf P. A. Shchepochkina Anna Vasilievna Morozova (1834-1919).
Nikolai was educated mainly at home, but in 1869 he entered the 2nd Moscow Gymnasium, where, according to his own recollections, he studied poorly and was expelled. In 1871-1872 he was a volunteer student at Moscow University.
Revolutionary work. In 1874, he joined the populist circle of the “Chaikovites,” participated in “going to the people,” and conducted propaganda among the peasants of the Moscow, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Voronezh and Kursk provinces. In the same year, he went abroad, was a representative of the Chaikovites in Switzerland, collaborated with the newspaper Rabotnik and the magazine Forward, and became a member of the International. Upon returning to Russia in 1875, he was arrested. In 1878, he was convicted in the trial of 193 and, taking into account the preliminary detention, was released at the end of the trial. He continued his revolutionary activities, conducted propaganda in the Saratov province, and went underground to avoid arrest.
He became one of the leaders of the organization “Land and Freedom”, and was the secretary of the editorial office of the newspaper “Land and Freedom”. In 1879, he took part in the creation of Narodnaya Volya and joined its Executive Committee. He took part in the assassination attempt on Alexander 1. As a result, with interruptions, he spent about 30 years in prison.
Addresses in SP Addresses in St. Petersburg - Petrograd - Leningrad. September 1880 - 25.11.1880 - apartment building - Nevsky Prospekt, 122, apt. 20; 1906-1941 - house of A. A. Raevskaya - Torgovaya Street, 25.
Performance assessment. (about chemistry with physics) According to academician Igor Kurchatov, “modern physics has fully confirmed the statement about the complex structure of atoms and the interconvertibility of all chemical elements, discussed at one time by N. A. Morozov in the monograph “Periodic systems of the structure of matter.”
Problems of space exploration. A. Morozov from 1918 until the end of his life was the director of the Natural Science Institute. P. F. Lesgaft. Members of the Russian Society of Lovers of World Science, which he led, located in the building of the institute, began to develop a number of problems related to space exploration. Morozov personally took part in this work, proposing, independently of the Americans, a high-altitude hermetic aviation suit - the prototype of a modern space suit. He also invented the equatorial rescue belt, which allows you to automatically turn the upper part of the balloon into a parachute and ensure a smooth descent of the gondola or cabin to the ground.
works N. A. Morozov wrote many books and articles on astronomy, cosmogony, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, geophysics, meteorology, aeronautics, aviation, history, philosophy, political economy, linguistics, history of science, mainly of a popular and educational nature . In prison he was cured of tuberculosis and created a vaccine against smallpox, but it was not used due to shortcomings.
Kriteka Author of a number of books in which he tried to reconsider some problems of world history, in particular the history of Christianity - “Revelation of the Thunder and Storm” (1907), “Prophets” (1914), “Christ” (in 7 volumes, 1924-1932) . These works were sharply criticized by professional historians and representatives of other sciences even in pre-revolutionary times. In Soviet and post-Soviet times, both Morozov’s historical concept and his research methodology were recognized by experts as erroneous. However, at the end of the 20th century, Morozov’s ideas found their continuation in the so-called “new chronology” - a pseudoscientific theory of a radical revision of history, created by a group of authors under the leadership of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, mathematician A. T. Fomenko.
memory 1) A small planet (1210) Morozovia and a crater on the Moon were named in honor of Morozov. 2) In the Leningrad region there is a village named after Morozov. 3) Streets in Vladivostok and Ramenskoye are named after Nikolai Morozov. 4) Shlisselburg powder factories were renamed in 1922 to “Plant named after. Morozova". 5) In Borka (Yaroslavl region) there is a memorial house-museum of N. A. Morozov. 6) Monument at the grave of Nikolai Alexandrovich - the work of sculptor G. I. Motovilov. 7) I. E. Repin. Portrait of N. A. Morozov, 1910 8) The collection of the Yaroslavl Art Museum contains a picturesque portrait of N. A. Morozov, painted by the artist T. N. Glebova in the 1930s.
Bibliography Morozov N. A. Star Songs. M., "Scorpio", 1910. Morozov N. A. Stories of my life: Memoirs / Ed. and note. S. Ya. Streich. Afterword B.I. Kozmina. T. 2. - M.: b. And. , 1961. - 702 p. : p. (ed. 1965, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) Morozov N. A. “Letters from the Shlisselburg Fortress” Morozov N. A. “The Terrorist War” Morozov N. A. Travel in outer space Morozov N. A. On the border of the unknown. In world space. Scientific half-fantasies. Moscow, 1910. Morozov N. A. A new tool for objective research of ancient documents Morozov N. A. Christ. History of mankind in natural science coverage vol. 1 -7 - M. -L. : Gosizdat, 1924-1932; 2nd ed. - M.: Kraft+, 1998
Athens Founder of Athens and first Athenian king
Kitchen educational program - how to learn how to cook delicious food from scratch How to cook it correctly
Russian writers about the meaning of life “The Fault in Our Stars” John Green
What are the health benefits of cocoa?
Squash caviar (classic recipe)