home For kids Who defended the faith zasulich. Vera Zasulich: "Bloody Mary" or a just executioner? Participation in revolutionary movements and fatal acquaintance with Nechaev

Who defended the faith zasulich. Vera Zasulich: "Bloody Mary" or a just executioner? Participation in revolutionary movements and fatal acquaintance with Nechaev

Vera Zasulich was born in the village of Mikhailovka in the Gzhatsky district of the Smolensk province into an impoverished Polish noble family. Three years () her father, a retired officer, died; mother was forced to send Vera, as one of three sisters, to financially better off relatives (Makulich) in the village of Byakolovo near Gzhatsk. In 1864 she was transferred to a Moscow private boarding house. Upon graduation from the boarding school, she received a diploma as a home teacher (). For about a year she served as a clerk for the magistrate in Serpukhov (-). From the beginning of 1868 in St. Petersburg she got a job as a bookbinder and was engaged in self-education.

She took part in revolutionary circles. In May 1869 she was arrested and in -1871 was imprisoned in connection with the "Nechaev affair", then - in exile in the Novgorod province, then in Tver. She was again arrested for distributing forbidden literature and exiled to Soligalich, Kostroma province.

Interestingly, lawyer V.I. Zhukovsky, who refused to appear in the Zasulich case as a prosecutor, left - under pressure from the authorities dissatisfied with the outcome of the case - the prosecutor's career and later worked in the legal profession.

First emigration

At the insistence of her friends and not wanting to undergo a new arrest, the order for which was given after the acquittal, Zasulich emigrated to Switzerland, where G.V. Plekhanov, P. B. Axelrod, V. N. Ignatov and L. G. Deich created the first Marxist Social Democratic group "Emancipation of Labor".

In 1897-1898 she lived in Switzerland.

Return to Russia

In 1899 she came to Russia illegally with a Bulgarian passport in the name of Velika Dmitrieva. She used this name to publish her articles, established links with local social democratic groups in Russia. In St. Petersburg she met V. I. Lenin.

Social Democracy does not want to admit liberals to power, believing that the only revolutionary good class is the proletariat, and the rest are traitors.

In March 1917, she joined the group of right-wing Menshevik defencists "Unity", advocated with them the continuation of the war to a victorious end (these views were stated in the brochure "Loyalty to the Allies." Pg., 1917). In April, she signed an appeal to the citizens of Russia, calling to support the Provisional Government, which has become a coalition.

In July 1917, as the confrontation between the Bolsheviks and other political forces intensified, she took a firm position of support of the current government, was elected to the vowels of the Petrograd Provisional City Duma, on behalf of the "old revolutionaries" called for unification to protect against the "united armies of the enemy." Just before the October Revolution, she was nominated as a candidate for membership in the Constituent Assembly.

October revolution 1917 Zasulich considered a counter-revolutionary coup that interrupted the normal political development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and regarded the system of Soviet power created by the Bolsheviks as a mirror image of the tsarist regime. She argued that the new ruling minority simply "crushed the starving and degenerating gagged majority." Claiming that the Bolsheviks "are destroying capital, destroying large-scale industry," public performance(in the "Rabocheye Znamya" club on April 1, 1918). Lenin, criticizing her speeches, nevertheless admitted that Zasulich was "the most prominent revolutionary."

“It’s hard to live, not worth living,” she complained to her colleague in the populist circle L. G. Deutsch, feeling dissatisfaction with the life she had lived, punishing her with the mistakes she had made. Seriously ill, before last hour wrote memoirs published posthumously.

In the winter of 1919, a fire broke out in her room. She was sheltered by two sisters who lived in the same courtyard, but she developed pneumonia and died.

Literary activity

The first publicistic work - a speech dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Polish uprising of 1831, published in translation into Polish in the collection Biblioteka "Równosci" (Geneva,). Zasulich owns an essay on the history of the International Association of Workers, a book about J.-J. Rousseau (, second edition) and Voltaire (the first Russian biography of Voltaire "Voltaire. His life and literary activity", second edition), as well as literary-critical articles about D. I. Pisarev (), N. G. Chernyshevsky, S. M. Kravchinsky (Stepnyak), about the story of VA Sleptsov "Difficult time" (), the novel by PD Boborykin "Differently", and other writers and works. Entering the editorial office of the Iskra newspaper, she published an article about N. A. Dobrolyubov, obituaries about Gleb Uspensky and Mikhailovsky.

She was outwardly a purebred nihilist, dirty, unkempt, she always walked in rags, in tattered shoes, or even barefoot. But her soul was golden, pure and light, extremely sincere. Zasulich also had a good mind, not that very outstanding, but healthy, independent. She read a lot and the communication with her was very attractive.

Zasulich's acquittal in the case of the attempted assassination of General F.F. Trepov drew strong approval from the Russian liberal community and condemnation from conservative circles.

Zasulich's acquittal took place as if in some terrible nightmare, no one could understand how such a terrible mockery of the state high servants and such a brazen triumph of sedition could have taken place in the courtroom of the autocratic empire.

Memory

In memory of Vera Zasulich, streets were named in Perm, Yekaterinburg (until 1998, now Odinarka Street), Samara, Donetsk, Tbilisi (now Nino Chkheidze Street), Kaluga (now Grigorov Lane), Astrakhan (from 1924 to 1936, now Valeria Barsova St.), Omsk (now Ilyinskaya St.).

Essays

Essay on the history of the International Society of Workers. Geneva, 1889.
. (2nd ed.-1909).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Experience characterizing his social ideas. SPb., 1898.
Digest of articles. Vol. 1-2. SPb., 1907.
Revolutionaries from the bourgeois environment. Pb., 1921.
... Moscow, 1931.
Articles about Russian literature. Moscow, 1960.
... Moscow: Mysl, 1983 .-- 508 p.

Write a review on the article "Zasulich, Vera Ivanovna"

Notes (edit)

Footnotes

Literature

Lenin V.I. Full collection cit., 5th ed. (see Reference Volume Part 2).
Koni A.F. Collected works: In 8 volumes / (Under the general editorship of V. G. Bazanov, L. N. Smirnov, K. I. Chukovsky. Prepared text by M. M. Vydri, notes by M. Vydri and V. Guinev). T. 2:. - M .: Jurid. lit., 1967 .-- 501 p .: portr.
Stepnyak-Kravchinsky S.M., Works, vol. 1, M., 1958.
Dobrovolsky E.N. Another's Pain: The Story of Vera Zasulich. - M .: Politizdat, 1978. (Ardent revolutionaries). - 334 s, ill. Also. - M .: Politizdat, 1988 .-- 335 p .: ill.
Russian writers. 1800-1917: Biographical Dictionary/ Ch. ed. P. A. Nikolaev. T. 2: G-K. Moscow: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1992.S. 330-331.
Borisova T. / UFO 2015, 5 (135).
Smolyarchuk V.I./ Smolyarchuk V.I. Anatoly Fedorovich Horses. - M .: Nauka, 1981.
Ana Siljak. Angel of Vengeance: The Girl Assassin, the Governor of St. Petersburg, and Russia’s Revolutionary World ”, 2008 (a book in which the case of Vera Zasulich is re-examined in detail).,

An excerpt characterizing Zasulich, Vera Ivanovna

“Your Grace,” someone said.
Kutuzov raised his head and looked for a long time into the eyes of Count Tolstoy, who, with some little thing on a silver platter, stood in front of him. Kutuzov, it seemed, did not understand what they wanted from him.
Suddenly he seemed to remember: a faintly perceptible smile flashed on his plump face, and he, bowing low, respectfully, took the object lying on the platter. It was George 1st degree.

The next day the field marshal had dinner and a ball, which the emperor honored with his presence. Kutuzov was awarded the 1st degree Georgy; the sovereign showed him the highest honors; but the sovereign's displeasure against the field marshal was known to everyone. Decency was observed, and the sovereign showed the first example of this; but everyone knew that the old man was to blame and good for nothing. When at the ball Kutuzov, according to the old Catherine's habit, at the entrance of the sovereign into the ballroom, ordered the taken banners to be thrown down at his feet, the sovereign frowned unpleasantly and uttered the words in which some had heard: "old comedian."
The sovereign's displeasure against Kutuzov intensified in Vilna, especially because Kutuzov obviously did not want or could not understand the significance of the upcoming campaign.
When the next morning the sovereign said to the officers who had gathered at his place: “You have saved more than one Russia; you saved Europe, "- everyone already then understood that the war was not over.
Kutuzov alone did not want to understand this and openly expressed his opinion that a new war could not improve the situation and increase the glory of Russia, but could only worsen its position and reduce the highest degree of glory on which, in his opinion, Russia now stood. He tried to prove to the sovereign the impossibility of recruiting new troops; spoke about the plight of the population, about the possibility of failure, etc.
In such a mood, the field marshal, of course, seemed only to be a hindrance and a brake on the impending war.
To avoid clashes with the old man, a way out was found by itself, which was to, as in Austerlitz and at the beginning of the campaign under Barclay, remove the commander-in-chief from under him, without disturbing him, without announcing to him the ground of power on which he stood , and transfer it to the sovereign himself.
For this purpose, the headquarters was gradually reorganized, and all the essential force of Kutuzov's headquarters was destroyed and transferred to the sovereign. Tol, Konovnitsyn, Ermolov - received other appointments. Everyone loudly said that the field marshal had become very weak and upset with his health.
He had to be in poor health in order to transfer his place to the one who stood up for him. Indeed, his health was poor.
How natural, and simple, and gradually Kutuzov appeared from Turkey to the state chamber of Petersburg to collect the militia and then into the army, just when he was needed, just as naturally, gradually and simply now, when the role of Kutuzov was played, in his place a new, required figure appeared.
The war of 1812, in addition to its dear to the Russian heart of the national value, was supposed to have another - European.
The movement of peoples from west to east was to be followed by a movement of peoples from east to west, and for this a new war what was needed was a new leader who had other qualities and views than Kutuzov, and was driven by other motives.
Alexander the First was as necessary for the movement of peoples from east to west and for the restoration of the borders of peoples as Kutuzov was needed for the salvation and glory of Russia.
Kutuzov did not understand what Europe, balance, Napoleon meant. He could not understand this. The representative of the Russian people, after the enemy was destroyed, Russia was liberated and placed on the highest degree of its glory, the Russian person, like a Russian, had nothing more to do. The representative of the people's war had no choice but death. And he died.

Pierre, as for the most part happens, felt the full weight of the physical hardships and tensions experienced in captivity only when these tensions and hardships ended. After his release from captivity, he arrived in Oryol and on the third day of his arrival, while he was going to Kiev, fell ill and lay sick in Oryol for three months; he became, as the doctors said, a bilious fever. Despite the fact that doctors treated him, bled and gave him medicine, he still recovered.
Everything that was with Pierre from the time of his release to his illness left almost no impression on him. He remembered only the gray, gloomy, now rainy, now snowy weather, inner physical melancholy, pain in the legs, in the side; remembered the general impression of unhappiness, suffering of people; he remembered the disturbing curiosity of the officers and generals who questioned him, his efforts to find a carriage and horses, and, most importantly, he remembered his inability to think and feel at that time. On the day of his release, he saw the body of Petya Rostov. On the same day, he learned that Prince Andrei had been alive for more than a month after the Battle of Borodino and had only recently died in Yaroslavl, in the Rostovs' house. And on the same day, Denisov, who reported this news to Pierre, mentioned Helene's death between the conversation, suggesting that Pierre had known this for a long time. All this seemed to Pierre then only strange. He felt that he could not understand the meaning of all this news. Then he was in a hurry only as soon as possible, as soon as possible to leave these places where people were killing each other, to some quiet refuge and there to come to his senses, rest and think about all that strange and new that he had learned during this time. But as soon as he arrived in Oryol, he fell ill. Waking up from his illness, Pierre saw around him two people who had arrived from Moscow - Terenty and Vaska, and the eldest princess, who, living in Yelets, on Pierre's estate, and having learned about his release and illness, came to him to walk behind him.
During his recovery, Pierre only gradually weaned himself from the impressions of the last months that had become familiar to him and got used to the fact that no one would drive him anywhere tomorrow, that no one would take his warm bed and that he would probably have lunch, tea, and supper. But in a dream he saw himself for a long time in the same conditions of captivity. In the same way, little by little, Pierre understood the news that he learned after his release from captivity: the death of Prince Andrew, the death of his wife, the destruction of the French.
The joyful feeling of freedom - that complete, inalienable freedom inherent in man, the consciousness of which he first experienced at the first halt, when leaving Moscow, filled Pierre's soul during his recovery. He was surprised that this internal freedom, independent of external circumstances, now seemed to be furnished with surplus, with luxury, and external freedom. He was alone in a strange city, without acquaintances. Nobody demanded anything from him; he was not sent anywhere. He had everything he wanted; The thought of his wife, which had always tormented him before, was no longer there, since she was no longer there.
- Oh, how good! How glorious! - he said to himself when a cleanly set table with fragrant broth was moved to him, or when he lay down on a soft clean bed for the night, or when he remembered that his wife and the French were gone. - Oh, how good, how glorious! - And out of old habit, he asked himself the question: well, then what? What will i do? And immediately he answered himself: nothing. I will live. Oh, how glorious!
The very thing that he had suffered before, which he was constantly looking for, the purpose of life, now did not exist for him. It was no coincidence that this sought-for purpose in life did not exist for him only at the present moment, but he felt that it did not and could not be. And this lack of purpose gave him that complete, joyful consciousness of freedom, which at that time constituted his happiness.
He could not have a goal, because he now had faith - not faith in any rules, or words, or thoughts, but faith in a living, always felt God. Before he was looking for it for the purposes that he set for himself. This search for a goal was only a search for God; and suddenly he learned in his captivity, not by words, not by reasoning, but by direct feeling, what the nanny had told him for a long time: that God is here, here, everywhere. In captivity, he learned that God in Karataev is greater, infinite and incomprehensible than in the Architecton of the universe recognized by the Freemasons. He felt the feeling of a man who had found what he was looking for under his feet, while he strained his eyes, looking far away from himself. All his life he looked somewhere, over the heads of the people around him, and he had to not strain his eyes, but only look in front of him.
He did not know how to see before the great, incomprehensible and infinite in anything. He only felt that it must be somewhere, and looked for it. In everything close, understandable, he saw one limited, petty, everyday, meaningless. He armed himself with a mental telescope and looked into the distance, to where this small, everyday thing, hiding in the fog of the distance, seemed to him great and endless only because it was not clearly visible. This is how he imagined European life, politics, Freemasonry, philosophy, philanthropy. But even then, in those minutes that he considered his weakness, his mind penetrated into this distance, and there he saw the same petty, everyday, meaningless. Now he learned to see the great, the eternal and the infinite in everything, and therefore it is natural, in order to see him, in order to enjoy his contemplation, he threw the pipe into which he had still looked over the heads of people, and joyfully contemplated around him the ever-changing, ever-great , incomprehensible and endless life. And the closer he looked, the more calm and happy he was. The terrible question that had destroyed all his mental structures before: why? did not exist for him now. Now the question is - why? a simple answer was always ready in his soul: then, that there is a god, that god, without whose will no hair would fall off a man's head.

Pierre barely changed in his outward methods. He looked exactly the same as he had been before. Just as before, he was absent-minded and seemed busy not with what was in front of his eyes, but with something of his own, special. The difference between his former and his present state was that before, when he forgot what was in front of him, what was said to him, he wrinkled his forehead in pain, as if trying and could not make out something far away from him ... Now he also forgot what was said to him and what was in front of him; but now with a faintly perceptible, as if mocking, smile, he peered into the very thing that was in front of him, listened attentively to what was said to him, although he obviously saw and heard something completely different. Before he seemed to be a kind person, but unhappy; and therefore people involuntarily moved away from him. Now the smile of the joy of life was constantly playing around his mouth, and his eyes shone with concern for people - the question was: are they as happy as he is? And people were pleased in his presence.
Before he talked a lot, got excited when he talked, and listened little; now he was rarely carried away by conversation and knew how to listen in such a way that people willingly told him their most intimate secrets.
The princess, who never loved Pierre and had a particularly hostile feeling towards him since the death of the old count, she felt obliged to Pierre, to her annoyance and surprise, after a short stay in Oryol, where she came with the intention of proving to Pierre that, despite his ingratitude, she considers it her duty to follow him, the princess soon felt that she loved him. Pierre did nothing to curry favor with the princess. He only looked at her with curiosity. Previously, the princess felt that in his look at her there were indifference and mockery, and she, like in front of other people, shrank in front of him and exposed only her combat side life; now, on the contrary, she felt that he seemed to be digging into the most intimate sides of her life; and she, at first with distrust, and then with gratitude, showed him the hidden good sides of her character.
The most cunning person could not have more skillfully crept into the confidence of the princess, evoking her memories of the best time of her youth and showing sympathy for them. Meanwhile, all Pierre's cunning consisted only in the fact that he was looking for his pleasure, evoking human feelings in the embittered, cyhay and proud princess.
- Yes, he is very, very kind person when he is under the influence not of bad people, but of people like me, the princess told herself.
The change that took place in Pierre was noticed by his own and his servants - Terenty and Vaska. They found that he had grown a lot simpler. Terenty often, undressing the master, with boots and dress in hand, wishing good night, hesitated to leave, waiting for the master to enter into conversation. And for the most part Pierre stopped Terenty, noticing that he wanted to talk.
- Well, tell me ... but how did you get your own food? He asked. And Terenty began a story about the ruin of Moscow, about the late count, and stood for a long time with his dress, telling, and sometimes listening to Pierre's stories, and, with a pleasant consciousness of the master's closeness and friendliness to him, went into the hall.
The doctor who treated Pierre and visited him every day, despite the fact that, according to the duties of doctors, he considered it his duty to have the appearance of a person, every minute of which is precious for suffering humanity, he sat for hours at Pierre's, telling his favorite stories and observations on the customs of patients in general and especially ladies.
“Yes, it’s nice to talk to such a person, not like in our provinces,” he said.
Several captured French officers lived in Orel, and the doctor brought in one of them, a young Italian officer.
This officer began to visit Pierre, and the princess laughed at the tender feelings that the Italian expressed towards Pierre.
The Italian, apparently, was happy only when he could come to Pierre and talk and tell him about his past, about his home life, about his love and pour out his indignation to him on the French, and especially on Napoleon.
“If all Russians, though a little like you,” he said to Pierre, “c“ est un sacrilege que de faire la guerre a un peuple comme le votre. from the French, you don't even have anger against them.
And now Pierre deserved the passionate love of the Italian only by what he evoked in him the best sides his soul and admired them.
During the last time of Pierre's stay in Oryol, his old acquaintance, the Mason, Count of Villars, came to him, the same one who introduced him to the box in 1807. Villarsky was married to a wealthy Russian, who had large estates in the Oryol province, and occupied a temporary position in the city for food.
Learning that Bezukhov was in Oryol, Villarsky, although he never knew him briefly, came to him with those declarations of friendship and closeness that people usually express to each other when they meet in the desert. Villarsky was bored in Oryol and was happy to meet a man of the same circle with him and with the same, as he believed, interests.
But, to his surprise, Villarsky noticed soon that Pierre was very far behind real life and fell, as he defined Pierre with himself, into apathy and egoism.
- Vous vous encroutez, mon cher, [You start, my dear.] - he told him. Despite the fact that Villarsky was now more pleasant with Pierre than before, and he visited him every day. But Pierre, looking at Villarski and listening to him now, was strange and incredible to think that he himself had been the same very recently.
Villarsky was married, a family man, busy with the affairs of his wife's estate, and service, and family. He believed that all these activities are a hindrance in life and that they are all despicable, because they are aimed at the personal welfare of him and his family. Military, administrative, political, Masonic considerations constantly consumed his attention. And Pierre, not trying to change his look, not condemning him, with his now constantly quiet, joyful mockery, admired this strange phenomenon so familiar to him.
In his relations with Villarsky, with the princess, with the doctor, with all the people with whom he now met, Pierre had a new feature that deserved him the favor of all people: this recognition of the ability of each person to think, feel and look at things in their own way; recognition of the impossibility of words to dissuade a person. This legitimate feature of every person, which previously worried and annoyed Pierre, now formed the basis of the participation and interest that he took in people. The difference, sometimes a complete contradiction between the views of people with their own lives and among themselves, delighted Pierre and evoked in him a mocking and meek smile.
In practical matters, Pierre now suddenly felt that he had a center of gravity that had not been there before. Before, every money question, especially requests for money, to which he, as a very rich man, was very often subjected, led him into hopeless worries and bewilderment. "To give or not to give?" He asked himself. “I have it, but he needs it. But the other needs it even more. Who needs it more? Or maybe both are deceivers? " And from all these assumptions, he previously did not find any way out and gave to everyone as long as there was something to give. Precisely in the same bewilderment he was before at every question concerning his condition, when one said that it was necessary to do this, and the other - differently.
Now, to his surprise, he found that in all these questions there were no more doubts and bewilderments. A judge now appeared in him, deciding, according to some laws unknown to him, what was needed and what should not be done.
He was just as indifferent to money matters as before; but now he undoubtedly knew what should and should not be done. The first application of this new judge was for him a request from a captive French colonel who came to him, who told him a lot about his exploits and at the end almost declared that Pierre should give him four thousand francs to send to his wife and children. Pierre refused him without the slightest effort and effort, wondering afterwards how simple and easy it was that previously seemed insoluble difficult. At the same time, immediately refusing the colonel, he decided that it was necessary to use cunning in order to force the Italian officer to take the money, which he apparently needed, when leaving Orel. New proof for Pierre of his established view of practical matters was his solution to the question of his wife's debts and the resumption or non-renewal of Moscow houses and dachas.
His general manager came to Oryol, and with him Pierre made a joint account of his changing income. The fire in Moscow cost Pierre, according to the account of the general manager, about two million.
The general manager, in consolation of these losses, presented to Pierre a calculation that, despite these losses, his income would not only not decrease, but would increase if he refused to pay the debts left after the Countess, to which he could not be obliged, and if he does not renew the Moscow houses and the Moscow region, which cost eighty thousand annually and did not bring anything.

Vera Zasulich was born in the village of Mikhailovka in the Gzhatsky district of the Smolensk province into an impoverished noble family. Three years (1852) her father, a retired officer, died; mother was forced to send Vera as one of three sisters to better-off relatives (Makulich) in the village of Byakolovo near Gzhatsk. In 1864 she was transferred to a Moscow private boarding house. After graduating from the boarding school, she received a diploma as a home teacher (1867). For about a year she served as a clerk for the magistrate in Serpukhov (1867-1868). From the beginning of 1868 in St. Petersburg she got a job as a bookbinder and was engaged in self-education.

She took part in revolutionary circles. In May 1869 she was arrested and in 1869-1871 was imprisoned in connection with the "Nechaev affair", then - in exile in the Novgorod province, then in Tver. She was again arrested for distributing forbidden literature and exiled to Soligalich, Kostroma province.

From the end of 1873 she studied obstetric courses in Kharkov. From 1875 she lived under the supervision of the police, carried away by the teachings of M. A. Bakunin, entered the circle "Southern rebels" (created in Kiev, but had branches throughout Ukraine, uniting about 25 former members"Going to the people"; L. G. Deutsch was a member of this group). Together with other "rebels" - the Bakuninists, she tried, with the help of false tsarist manifestos, to raise a peasant uprising under the slogan of an equalizing redistribution of land. She lived in the village. Tsebulevke together with M.F.Frolenko. When the plan of the "rebels" was not carried out, Zasulich left, fleeing police persecution, to the capital, where it was easier to get lost.

The case of the attempted murder of the mayor of St. Petersburg, General F.F. Trepov

On January 24 (according to other sources, January 28), 1878, she tried to kill the mayor of St. Petersburg FF Trepov with shots from a pistol. The reason for the attempt was Trepov's order on corporal punishment of the imprisoned revolutionary Bogolyubov (A.P. Yemelyanov), who did not want to welcome Trepov to the prison cell by removing his headdress. Zasulich came to Trepov's appointment and shot him twice in the stomach, seriously wounding him. She was immediately arrested, but won the sympathy of the jury at the trial, although the law required 15 to 20 years in prison for such crimes. The jury on March 31, 1878 fully acquitted Zasulich. The prosecution was supported by the prosecutor K. I. Kessel, who later became famous for his investigation into the Tiligul catastrophe case. The position of the chairman of the court A.F.Kony and defense lawyer P.A.Aleksandrov also influenced the acquittal of the jury.

The acquittal was greeted with enthusiasm in society and was accompanied by a manifestation from a large mass of the public gathered outside the courthouse. The news of V. Zasulich's acquittal was met with great interest abroad as well. Newspapers from France, Germany, England, USA, Italy and other countries gave detailed information about the process. In all these messages, along with Vera Zasulich, the names of the lawyer P. A. Aleksandrov and the 34-year-old A. F. Koni who presided over the trial were invariably mentioned. The fame of a judge who does not make any compromises with his conscience was entrenched in his merits, and in the liberal strata of Russian society they openly talked about him as a person who stood in opposition to the autocracy. Zasulich and the government responded to the acquittal. Minister K. I. Palen accused A. F. Koni of violations of the law and urged him to resign. Koni remained firm in his decision. Then began a long period of his disgrace: he was transferred to the civil department of the judicial chamber, and in 1900 he left the judicial activity. The emperor's anger was so great that he did not spare the Minister of Justice either. Count Palen was soon dismissed from his post "for the negligent conduct of the case by V. Zasulich."

The day after her release, the verdict was protested, and the police issued an order to capture Zasulich, but she managed to hide in a safe house and soon, to avoid being arrested again, was sent to her friends in Sweden.

Already on the second day after the acquittal, a memorandum appeared in the minister's office on the need to streamline criminal provisions. By a personal decree, cases of armed resistance to the authorities, attacks on army and police officials and officials in general in the performance of their official duties, if these crimes were accompanied by murder or attempted murder, infliction of wounds, mutilation, etc., were transferred to a military court, and the perpetrators were subject to punishment under article 279 of the Military Regulations on punishments, that is, deprivation of all rights of state and the death penalty. This measure was recognized as timely when, four months later, S. M. Kravchinsky killed the chief of the gendarmes, Mezentsev.

First emigration

In 1879 she secretly returned to Russia, together with Deutsch and Plekhanov she joined the "Black Redistribution". She was the first of the female revolutionaries to try the method of individual terror, but she was also the first to become disillusioned with its effectiveness. She participated in the creation of the Black Redistribution group, whose members (especially at first) denied the need for political struggle, did not accept the terrorist and conspiratorial tactics of Narodnaya Volya, and were supporters of widespread agitation and propaganda among the masses.

Second emigration

In 1880 she emigrated again, was a foreign representative of the "Red Cross" "Narodnaya Volya". In 1883, having switched to the position of Marxism, she became a member of the Emancipation of Labor group, translated the works of K. Marx and F. Engels, and corresponded with them. She took an active part in the activities of the International Workingmen's Association (II International) - she was the representative of the Russian Social Democracy at its three congresses in 1896, 1900 and 1904. Decisively abandoning her previous views, she promoted the ideas of Marxism, denied terror - “a consequence of feelings and concepts inherited from autocracy ”.

From 1894 she lived in London, was engaged in literary and scientific work. Her articles of those years dealt with a wide range of historical, philosophical, socio-psychological problems. Zasulich's monographs on Rousseau and Voltaire were published a few years later in Russia, albeit with large censorship cuts, in Russian, becoming the first attempt at a Marxist interpretation of the meaning of both thinkers. As a literary critic, Zasulich reviewed the novels of S. M. Kravchinsky (Stepnyak), the story of V. A. Sleptsov "Difficult time". She sharply criticized the novel by P. D. Boborykin “Differently”, believing that in his reflections on the history of the Russian revolutionary movement he distorted the essence of the dispute between Marxists and populist publicists, D. I. Pisarev and N. A. Dobrolyubov. Zasulich argued that the "hopeless Russian ideology" of the liberals needed "the renewal that Marxism brings", defended the "birthright of genuine Russian revolutionaries", saving, as she believed, their images from "vulgarization and falsification."

In 1897-1898 she lived in Switzerland.

Return to Russia

In 1900 she became a member of the editorial boards of Iskra and Zarya. Participated in the congresses of the Second International.

At the Second Congress of the RSDLP (1903) the minority sided with the Iskra-ists; after the congress she became one of the leaders of Menshevism. In 1905 she returned to Russia. After the 1905 revolution in 1907-1910, she was one of the "liquidators", that is, supporters of the elimination of underground illegal party structures and the creation of a legal political organization.

M.F. Frolenko wrote about a meeting with Zasulich in 1912, who lived in the Petersburg house of writers:

She regarded the February revolution of 1917 as bourgeois-democratic, stating with irony: "Social Democracy does not want to admit liberals to power, believing that the only revolutionary good class is the proletariat, and the rest are traitors." In March 1917, she joined the group of right-wing Menshevik defencists "Unity", advocated with them the continuation of the war to a victorious end (these views were set forth in the brochure "Loyalty to the Allies." Pg., 1917). In April, she signed an appeal to the citizens of Russia, calling to support the Provisional Government, which has become a coalition.

Zasulich considered the October Revolution of 1917 to be a counter-revolutionary coup that interrupted the normal political development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and regarded the system of Soviet power created by the Bolsheviks as a mirror image of the tsarist regime. She argued that the new ruling majority simply "crushed the starving and degenerating gagged majority." Claiming that the Bolsheviks "are destroying capital, destroying large-scale industry," she sometimes decided to make public appearances (at the Rabocheye Znamya club on April 1, 1918). Lenin, criticizing her speeches, nevertheless admitted that Zasulich was "the most prominent revolutionary."

“It’s hard to live, not worth living,” she complained to her colleague in the populist circle L. G. Deutsch, feeling dissatisfaction with the life she had lived, punishing her with the mistakes she had made. Seriously ill, until the last hour she wrote memoirs, published posthumously.

In the winter of 1919, a fire broke out in her room. Zasulich lost her home and her beloved cat. A 70-year-old, useless old woman sat on the steps and cried. She was sheltered by two sisters who lived in the same courtyard, but pneumonia had already begun, and the first Russian terrorist died.

She was buried at the Volkovskoye cemetery.

Literary activity

The first publicistic work - a speech dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Polish uprising of 1831, published in translation into Polish in the collection Biblioteka "R? Wnosci" (Geneva, 1881). Zasulich owns an essay on the history of the International Association of Workers, a book about J.-J. Rousseau (1899, second edition 1923) and Voltaire (Voltaire's first Russian biography "Voltaire. His Life and Literary Activity", 1893, second edition 1909), as well as literary-critical articles about D. I. Pisarev (1900), N. G. Chernyshevsky, S. M. Kravchinsky (Stepnyak), about VA Sleptsov's story "Difficult time" (1897), PD Boborykin's novel "Differently", and other writers and works. Entering the editorial office of the Iskra newspaper, she published an article about N. A. Dobrolyubov, obituaries about Gleb Uspensky and Mikhailovsky.

After the 1905 revolution, in search of earnings, she undertook translations of H. Wells' prose (The God of the Dynamo, In the Days of the Comet, The Invisible Man) and Voltaire's novel The White Bull. She was a member of the All-Russian Society of Writers and the All-Russian Literary Society. In her literary criticism, Zasulich continued the traditions of revolutionary democratic literary criticism and journalism. In recent years, she wrote memoirs, published posthumously.

139 years ago, on March 31, 1878, the jury began hearing the case of the revolutionary Vera Zasulich about the attempted murder of the mayor of St. Petersburg, General F.F. Trepova.

It was a process where one of the brilliant speeches that changed the course was made. Russian history: defense of the defendant was led by lawyer Pyotr Aleksandrov. Thanks to his masterful performance, the jury acquitted Vera Zasulich.

Today we invite you to familiarize yourself with an abridged version of this landmark speech.

Outstanding Russian lawyer Pyotr Akimovich Aleksandrov was born in 1838 into a priest's family and initially studied at the seminary. After completing his legal studies at St. Petersburg University, he served judicial investigator Tsarskoye Selo district, was assistant prosecutor of the St. Petersburg district court, then received the post of prosecutor of the Pskov district court. In 1876, being by that time the assistant chief prosecutor of the criminal cassation department of the Governing Senate, after a conflict with his superiors, Peter Alexandrov retired and joined the estate of attorneys at law of the St. Petersburg court chamber. He acted as a defender at many high-profile trials, but the protection of Vera Zasulich brought him European fame.

Judicial speech of attorney P. A. Aleksandrov in defense of Vera Zasulich.March 31, 1878 (abridged)

Gentlemen of the jury! I listened to the noble, restrained speech of the assistant prosecutor, and with much of what he said, I completely agree; we differ only in very little, but nevertheless my task after the speech of the mister prosecutor did not turn out to be facilitated. Its difficulty lies not in the facts of the present case, not in their complexity; the matter is simply because of its circumstances so simple that if we confine ourselves to the event of January 24, then there is almost no need to reason. Who would deny that arbitrary murder is a crime; who will deny what the defendant asserts that it is difficult to raise a hand for arbitrary execution?

All these are truths that cannot be argued against, but the fact is that the event of January 24 cannot be considered separately from another case: it is so connected, so intertwined with the fact that pre-trial detention took place in the house on July 13, that if the meaning of the attempt made by Vera Zasulich on the life of Adjutant General Trepov is incomprehensible, then it can be understood only by comparing this attempt with those motives that began it was an incident in a pre-trial detention center ...

Every official, commanding person appears to me in the form of a two-faced Janus, placed in a temple on a mountain; one side of this Janus is directed to the law, to the authorities, to the court; it is covered and discussed by them; the discussion here is complete, weighty, truthful; the other side is facing us, mere mortals, standing in the vestibule of the temple, under the mountain. We look at this side, and it is not always equally illuminated for us. We sometimes approach her only with a simple lantern, with a penny candle, with a dim lamp; much is dark for us, a lot leads us to such judgments that do not agree with the views of the authorities, the court on the same actions of the official. But we live in these, maybe, sometimes, erroneous concepts, on the basis of them we harbor certain feelings for an official, we blame him or praise him, love him or remain indifferent to him, rejoice if we find the orders quite fair ...

To fully judge the motive of our actions, one must know how these motives were reflected in our concepts. Thus, in my judgment on the July 13 event, there will be no discussion of the official's actions, but only an explanation of how this event affected the mind and beliefs of Vera Zasulich ...

You remember that from the age of seventeen, after completing her education in one of the Moscow boarding schools, after she passed the examination for the title of home teacher with honors, Zasulich returned to her mother's house. Her old mother lives in Petersburg. In a relatively short period of time, a seventeen-year-old girl had the opportunity to meet Nechaev ... She did not know who Nechaev was, what his plans were, and then no one knew him in Russia either; he was considered a simple student who played a role in student unrest that was not political.

At the request of Nechaev, Vera Zasulich agreed to render him some, very ordinary service. Three or four times she received letters from him and handed them over to the address, of course, knowing nothing about the content of the letters themselves. Subsequently it turned out that Nechaev - a state criminal, and her completely casual relationship to Nechaev served as the basis for bringing her into account as a suspect in a state crime in the well-known Nechaev case. You remember from Vera Zasulich's story that two years in prison cost her this suspicion. She spent a year in a Lithuanian castle and a year in Peter and Paul Fortress... These were the eighteenth and nineteenth years of her youth ...

During these years of nascent sympathies, Zasulich really created and consolidated in her soul forever one sympathy - selfless love for everyone who, like her, is forced to drag out the unhappy life of a suspect in a political crime. The political prisoner, whoever he was, became her dear friend, a comrade of youth, a comrade in education. The prison was for her the alma mater, which cemented this friendship, this camaraderie. Two years are over. Zasulich was released, without even finding any reason to put her on trial ... Zasulich was still young - she was only twenty-one. Mother consoled her, said: "You will get better, Vera, now everything will pass, everything ended well." Indeed, it seemed that the suffering would be cured, the young life would overcome and there would be no traces of the difficult years of imprisonment.

It was spring; ten days have passed full of rosy dreams. Suddenly a late call. Isn't he a belated friend? It turns out - not a friend, but not an enemy, but a local overseer. He explains to Zasulich that they ordered her to be sent to a transit prison. “How to go to jail? Probably, this is a misunderstanding, I was not involved in the Nechaev case, I was not brought to trial, the case about me was dismissed by the Court of Justice and the Governing Senate. " “I don’t know,” the supervisor replies, “please, I have an order from the authorities to take you” ...

In the transit prison, her mother and sister visit; they bring her sweets, books; no one imagines that she could be expelled ... On the fifth day of her detention, they say to her: "Please, you are now being sent to the city of Kresttsy." - “How do they send it? Yes, I have nothing for the road. Wait, at least give me the opportunity to let my relatives know ... I am sure that there is some misunderstanding ... "-" It is impossible, - they say, "we can not according to the law, they require you to be sent immediately."

Zasulich understood that one must submit to the law; I just didn’t know what law it was about. She went in one dress, in a light burnus; while driving along railroad, it was passable, then I went to the post office, in the wagon, between two gendarmes. It was April, it became unbearably cold in the light burnus: the gendarme took off his greatcoat and dressed the young lady. They brought her to the Sacra. In Kresttsy they handed it over to the police chief, the police chief issued a receipt and said to Zasulich: “Go, I am not holding you, you are not arrested. Go and report to the police department on Saturdays, since you are under our supervision. " Zasulich considers her resources, with which she has to start new life in an unknown city. She has a ruble of money, a French book and a box of chocolates.

There was a kind person, a deacon, who placed her in his family. She did not have the opportunity to find employment in the Sacres, especially since it was impossible to hide the fact that she was exiled by the administrative order. Then I will not repeat other details that Vera Zasulich herself told. From Kresttsy she had to go to Tver, to Soligalich, to Kharkov. Thus began her wandering life ... She was searched, called for various interrogations, sometimes subjected to delays other than arrests, and finally she was completely forgotten.

When they stopped requiring her to report to the local police authorities on a weekly basis, then she smiled at the opportunity to smuggle into Petersburg and then, with her sister's children, go to the Penza province. Here, in the summer of 1877, she reads for the first time in the newspaper "Golos" the news about the punishment of Bogolyubov ...

Zasulich really created and consolidated in her soul forever one sympathy - selfless love for everyone who, like her, is forced to drag out the unhappy life of a suspect in a political crime.

A person, by birth, upbringing and education, is alien to the rod; a person who deeply feels and understands all its shameful and humiliating meaning; a person who, in his way of thinking, in his convictions and feelings, could not see and hear the execution of the shameful execution of others without a heart shudder - this person himself had to endure on his own skin the overwhelming effect of humiliating punishment. What, thought Zasulich, an agonizing torture, what a contemptuous desecration of everything that constitutes the most essential property developed person, and not only developed, but everyone who is not alien to the sense of honor and human dignity ...

In conversations with friends and acquaintances, alone, day and night, in the midst of activities and idle Zasulich could not tear herself away from the thought of Bogolyubov; and nowhere for sympathetic help, nowhere for the satisfaction of a soul agitated by the questions: who will stand up for the disgraced Bogolyubov, who will stand up for the fate of other unfortunate people who are in the position of Bogolyubov? Zasulich was expecting this intercession from the press, she was expecting an uplift from there, the excitement of a question that worried her so much. Mindful of the limits, the seal was silent. Zasulich was waiting for help from the power of public opinion. From the quiet of the study, from the intimate circle of friendly conversations, public opinion did not creep out. She waited, at last, for a word from justice. Justice ... But nothing was heard about him ...

And suddenly a sudden thought, like lightning, flashed in Zasulich's mind: “Oh, I myself! Everything about Bogolyubov has calmed down, everything about Bogolyubov is needed, a cry is needed, there will be enough air in my chest to emit this cry, I will publish it and make it hear! " ... It could not be otherwise: this thought perfectly corresponded to those needs, answered those tasks that worried her.

The guiding impetus for Zasulich is revenge. With revenge, Zasulich herself explained her act, but ... “revenge” alone would have been the wrong yardstick for discussing the inner side of Zasulich's act. Revenge usually manages personal accounts with those who avenge themselves or loved ones. However, not only were there no personal interests for Zasulich in the incident with Bogolyubov, but Bogolyubov himself was not a close, familiar person to her ...

For the first time, a woman appears here, for whom there were no personal interests, no personal revenge in the crime - a woman who connected the struggle for an idea with her crime, in the name of someone who was only her brother in the misfortune of her entire young life.

“When I commit a crime,” Zasulich thought, “then the silenced question of Bogolyubov's punishment will arise; my crime will cause a public process, and Russia, in the person of its representatives, will be forced to pronounce the verdict not about me alone, but to pronounce it, according to the importance of the case, in view of Europe, that Europe, which still likes to call us a barbaric state, in which the whip serves as an attribute of the government ... "I cannot agree with the very witty assumption that Zasulich did not shoot in the chest and in the head of Adjutant General Trepov ... found enough strength in herself to fire a shot. I think that she simply did not care about a more dangerous shot ... Satisfied with what had been achieved, Zasulich herself threw the revolver before they could grab her, and, stepping aside, without struggle or resistance, surrendered herself to the power of Major Kurneev, who had attacked her and remained not strangled by him only thanks to the help of others. Her song was now sung, her thought was fulfilled, her deed was done ...

Thus, rejecting the attempted murder as unfulfilled, one should dwell on a really proven result that corresponded to a special conditional intention - to inflict a wound ...

No matter how gloomy one looks at this act, one cannot but see an honest and noble impulse in its very motives.

And do not bargain with representatives of public conscience for this or that reduction of their guilt, she appeared before you today, gentlemen of the jury. She was and remains a selfless slave to the idea in the name of which she raised a bloody weapon. She came to lay down before us all the burden of a sore soul, open the mournful page of her life, honestly and frankly state all that she had experienced, changed her mind, felt what drove her to the crime, what she expected from him.

Gentlemen of the jury! It is not the first time that a woman has appeared before the court of public conscience in this bench of crimes and severe mental suffering on charges of a bloody crime. There were women here who avenged their seducers with death; there were women who stained their hands in the blood of those they loved or their happier rivals. These women came out of here justified. That was the right judgment, the response of the divine judgment, which looks not only at the outer side of deeds, but also at their inner meaning, at the actual criminality of man. Those women, committing a bloody massacre, fought and avenged themselves.

For the first time, a woman appears here, for whom there were no personal interests, no personal revenge in the crime - a woman who connected the struggle for an idea with her crime, in the name of someone who was only her brother in the misfortune of her entire young life. If this motive of misconduct turns out to be less heavy on the scales of public truth, if for the good of the common, for the rule of law, for the public, legal punishment must be called upon, then let your punishing justice be done! Do not hesitate!

Not much suffering can add to your judgment for this broken, broken life. Without reproach, without bitter complaint, without offense, she will accept your decision from you and will be comforted by the fact that, perhaps, her suffering, her victim prevented the possibility of a repetition of the incident that caused her act. No matter how gloomy one looks at this act, one cannot but see an honest and noble impulse in its very motives.

Yes, she can leave here condemned, but she will not come out disgraced, and it remains only to wish that the reasons that produce such crimes that give rise to such criminals are not repeated.

Vera Ivanovna Zasulich

Minister of Justice Russian Empire Count Konstantin Palen accused Anatoly Koni, the presiding judge in the Zasulich case, of violating the law and persistently urged him to resign. The renowned lawyer did not make concessions, for which he was transferred to the civil department of the judicial chamber. But Count Palen did not escape the emperor's displeasure and was dismissed from his post "for the careless conduct of the Zasulich case."

Turning a rebel into a terrorist

Vera Zasulich was born in 1849 in the Smolensk province into an impoverished noble family. In 1864 she was admitted to the Rodionov Institute for Noble Maidens in Kazan. Three years later, she passed the exam for the title of home teacher with honors and moved to St. Petersburg. It did not work out with work in her specialty, and she went to Serpukhov near Moscow, where she got a job as a clerk at the magistrate. After working for a year in this position, Vera returned to the capital. Here she got a job as a bookbinder, and in her free time she was engaged in self-education. In St. Petersburg, Vera first got acquainted with revolutionary ideas, starting to attend circles of a radical political persuasion.

In 1968, fate brought Zasulich together with Sergei Nechaev, who, albeit not immediately, but involved the young revolutionary in the activities of his organization "People's Repression". On April 30, 1869 Vera Zasulich fell into the hands of justice. The reason for her arrest was a letter from abroad received for transfer to another person. So Zasulich became one of the defendants in the famous "Nechaev case", which then shook the entire Russian society.

Zasulich spent almost a year in the "Lithuanian Castle" and the Peter and Paul Fortress. In March 1871, she was exiled to Kresttsy, Novgorod province, and then to Tver, where she was again arrested for distributing illegal literature. This time she was sent to the small town of Soligalich, Kostroma province, and in 1875 Zasulich ended up in Kharkov.

Despite constant supervision by the police, Zasulich entered the revolutionary circle of adherents of the ideas of M. Bakunin "Southern rebels". Combining the efforts of the "rebels-Bakuninists", she tried to raise a peasant uprising in the village of Tsebulevka. The uprising failed, Zasulich fled to St. Petersburg, where it was easier to hide from police pursuit.

In the capital, Vera found herself in an underground position, entered the society "Land and Freedom" and began working in the illegal "Free Russian Printing House". Then an event took place, which, according to historians, launched a bloody machine of political terror in Russia and served as a pretext for one of the most notorious trials of tsarist Russia in the 70s of the XIX century.

What prompted Zasulich to assassinate the mayor

In the summer of 1877, the newspaper "Golos" published a message about the punishment of the populist Bogolyubov with rods, who was sentenced to hard labor for participating in a youth demonstration on December 6, 1876 on the square of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. The flogging was carried out by order of the mayor of St. Petersburg Trepov, upon whose appearance Bogolyubov refused to take off his hat. Corporal punishment at that time was prohibited by law, the shameful execution caused a riot among the prisoners and received wide publicity in the press.

Trepov understood that the incident with Bogolyubov, which caused a wave of popular anger, could have serious consequences, and on the same day he twice wrote to the well-known lawyer and public figure Anatoly Fedorovich Koni with a request for a meeting. Realizing that the mayor acted unlawfully, ordering the flogging of Bogolyubov, Koni openly expressed his indignation at his actions against not only Bogolyubov, but all other prisoners.

Vera Zasulich did not stand aside either. Impressed by the mockery of the prisoner, she decided to take a desperate step. On January 24, 1878, Zasulich made an attempt on the mayor's life. She came to Trepov for an appointment, grabbed a revolver from under her cloak and shot him three times in the chest. As a result of the assassination attempt, Trepov was seriously wounded, and Zasulich again found herself in the role of a prisoner.

The investigation quickly established the identity of the terrorist. The name Zasulich was listed in the file of the police department and was also referred to in the "Nechaevsky case". It was not difficult to find the suspect's mother, who identified her as her daughter Vera Ivanovna Zasulich.

At the end of January 1878, the entire capital's elite discussed the attempt on the life of Governor Trepov. The most incredible rumors circulated in high society. Gossipers claimed that Zasulich was Bogolyubov's mistress, and that the attempt on Trepov's life was her revenge on the mayor (in fact, Zasulich did not know Bogolyubov).

An interesting coincidence: on the day of the attempt on Trepov's life, A.F. Horses. Maybe this is what solved it further destiny Vera Zasulich.

Investigation and preparation for the process

Vera Zasulich shot the mayor in the presence of several police officials and herself did not deny her guilt. But a lot depended on the legal qualification of her actions. According to A.F. Koni, "any hint of a political nature was removed from the case with an insistence, simply strange on the part of the ministry, which until recently inflated political affairs on the most insignificant reasons." Everything that had any political connotation was carefully removed from the investigation. The prosecutor of the St. Petersburg Court of Justice, Alexander Alekseevich Lopukhin, argued that the Minister of Justice was confident in the jury trial and boldly transferred the case to him, although he could have withdrawn it by a special imperial command. The investigation into the Zasulich case was completed by the end of February 1978.

“Opinions,” wrote Anatoly Fedorovich, “hotly debated, were divided: some applauded, others sympathized, but no one saw Zasulich as a“ scoundrel ”, and, arguing differently about her crime, no one threw mud at the criminal and did not pour over her with angry foam all kinds of fabrications about her relationship to Bogolyubov. "

A.F. Koni, through Lopukhin, received an order from the Minister of Justice to schedule the case for consideration on March 31 with the participation of a jury. The criminal case was submitted to the court, the composition of the court was determined, preparations for the hearing began.

The first difficulties were encountered when appointing a prosecutor, who was selected by the prosecutor of the chamber, Lopukhin. IN AND. Zhukovsky, a former Kostroma provincial prosecutor, whom A.F. Koni praised it very highly, refused, citing the fact that Zasulich's crime had a political connotation. A talented lawyer and poet S.A. Andreevsky also refused the offer to act as a prosecutor. As a result, the assistant prosecutor of the Petersburg district court K.I. Kessel.

Several lawyers tried to become Vera Zasulich's defenders at once, but at first she was going to defend herself. However, upon receipt of the indictment, the defendant made an official statement that she was electing a sworn attorney and former prosecutor of the court chamber, Pyotr Akimovich Aleksandrov, as her representative. Aleksandrov told his colleagues: "Pass the defense of Vera Zasulich to me, I will do everything possible and impossible to justify her, I am almost sure of success."

After the opening of the court session, Aleksandrov decided to use his right to challenge the jury.

Before the hearing of the case, the Minister of Justice, Count Constantin Palen, once again spoke with A.F. Horses. The minister began to realize that he had acted frivolously by referring the Zasulich case to a jury. He tried to convince A.F. Horses that the crime is a matter of personal revenge and the jury will accuse Zasulich: "Now everything depends on you, on your skill and eloquence." "Count," Koni answered, "the chairman's skill is impartial observance of the law, and he should not be eloquent, because the essential features of a resume are impartiality and calmness. My responsibilities are so clearly defined in the bylaws that now you can already say what I will do at the meeting. No, Count! I ask you not to expect anything from me, except for the exact execution of my duties ... "

Trial

On March 31, 1878, at 11 a.m., a session of the Petersburg District Court opened in the case of V.I. Zasulich, chaired by A.F. Horses with the participation of judges V.A. Serbinovich and O. G. Dena. The act of Zasulich was qualified under Articles 9 and 1454 of the Penal Code, which provided for the deprivation of all rights of state and exile in hard labor for a period of 15 to 20 years. The meeting was open, the hall was filled to capacity with the public.

The jury consisted of nine officials, one nobleman, one merchant, and one freelance artist. Court counselor A.I. Lokhova.

The court clerk reported that on March 26 Trepov received a statement that he could not appear in court for health reasons. A medical certificate was read out, signed by Professor N.V. Sklifosovsky and other doctors.

A judicial investigation has begun. Zasulich behaved modestly, spoke with naive sincerity. When asked whether she pleaded guilty, she replied: "I admit that I shot General Trepov, and whether this could have resulted in a wound or death, it did not matter to me."

After questioning the witnesses, medical experts made their conclusion. Then began the debate of the parties.

The first to speak was K.I. Kessel. He accused the defendant of a deliberate intention to take the life of the mayor Trepov. In support of his words, Kessel added that the defendant was looking for and found just such a revolver, from which it was possible to kill a person. Kessel devoted the second part of the accusatory speech to the act of the mayor Trepov on July 13, stressing that the court should neither condemn nor justify the mayor's actions.

Admittedly, against the background of the colorless speech of the prosecutor, the speech of the defender Aleksandrov was a major event in public life. The defense attorney traced in detail the connection between the flogging of Bogolyubov on 13 July and the shots at Terepov on 24 January. The information received by Zasulich about the Bogolyubov section, he said, was detailed, thorough, and reliable. The fatal question arose: who will stand up for the defiled honor of the helpless convict? Who will wash away the shame that will forever remind the unfortunate of itself? Zasulich was tormented by another question: where is the guarantee against a repetition of such a case?

Addressing the jury, Aleksandrov said: “For the first time there is a woman here for whom there were no personal interests, no personal revenge in the crime - a woman who connected with her crime the struggle for an idea in the name of someone who was only her brother in misfortune If this motive of misconduct turns out to be less heavy on the scales of divine truth, if for the good of the general, for the rule of law, for public safety, punishment must be recognized as legitimate, then may your punishing justice be done! this broken, broken life. ”Without reproach, without bitter complaint, without offense, she will accept your decision from you and be comforted by the fact that, perhaps, her suffering, her victim will prevent the possibility of a repetition of the incident that caused her act. this act, in its very motives, one cannot fail to see an honest and noble impulse. " “Yes,” said Aleksandrov, concluding his speech, “she can leave here convicted, but she will not come out disgraced, and it remains only to wish that the reasons for such crimes are not repeated.”

Zasulich refused the last word. The debate was declared closed. With the consent of the parties A.F. Koni posed three questions to the jury: "The first question was posed as follows: is Zasulich guilty of the fact that, having decided to take revenge on the mayor Trepov for punishing Bogolyubov and acquiring a revolver for this purpose, on January 24, with a deliberate intention, Adjutant General Trepov wound in the pelvic cavity bullet of a large caliber; the second question is that if Zasulich committed this act, then whether she had a premeditated intention to take the life of the town governor Trepov; and the third question is that if Zasulich had the goal of taking the life of the town governor Trepov, then did she do everything, what depended on her to achieve this goal, and death did not follow from circumstances that did not depend on Zasulich. "

AF Koni admonished the jury and, in fact, prompted them to acquit. He clearly imagined all the hardships that could be associated with the acquittal of Zasulich, but remained faithful to his principles and expressed them in questions to which the jury had to answer.

Koni finished his resume as follows: “The instructions that I have given you now are nothing more than advice that can make it easier for you to analyze the case. They are not at all obligatory for you. You can forget them, you can take them into account. You will pronounce decisive and final word on this case. You will utter this word according to your conviction, based on everything that you have seen and heard, and not embarrassed by anything except the voice of your conscience. You can recognize it as deserving of leniency according to the circumstances of the case. These circumstances you can understand in a broad sense. These circumstances always matter, since you are not judging an abstract subject, but a living person, whose present is always directly or indirectly formed under the influence of his past. grounds for condescension, you will recall the life of Zasulich revealed before you. "

Announcing the questionnaire, the foreman only managed to say "Not guilty", which caused thunderous applause in the hall. Koni announced to Zasulich that she was acquitted and that the order for her release would be signed immediately. Vera freely left the house of preliminary detention and fell right into the arms of the admiring crowd. Abroad, they also reacted with great interest to the news of Zasulich's acquittal. The newspapers of France, Germany, England and the USA covered the process in detail. The press noted the special role of the lawyer P.A. Alexandrov and the presiding officer A.F. Horses. However, the Russian government did not share such enthusiasm.

Justice Minister Pahlen accused Koni of violating the law and urged him to resign. The renowned lawyer remained true to himself and did not make concessions, for which he was transferred to the civil department of the judicial chamber. In 1900, under pressure, he left the judicial activity. Count Palen was soon dismissed from his post "for negligent conduct of the Zasulich case."

Life after the process

The day after the release of Zasulich, the verdict was appealed, the police issued a circular about the capture of Vera Zasulich. She was forced to hastily hide in a safe house and soon, to avoid being arrested again, was sent to her friends in Sweden.

In 1879, she secretly returned to Russia and joined a group of activists who sympathized with the views of G.V. Plekhanov. In 1880, Zasulich was again forced to leave Russia, which saved her from another arrest. She left for Paris, where the so-called political Red Cross, created in 1882 by P.L. Lavrov, a foreign alliance for assisting political prisoners and exiles, which aimed to raise funds for them. While in Europe, she became close to the Marxists, and especially to Plekhanov, who had arrived in Geneva. There in 1883 she took part in the creation of the first Marxist organization of Russian emigrants - the "Emancipation of Labor" group. Zasulich translated the works of K. Marx and F. Engels into Russian. In addition, Zasulich herself wrote a lot. In due time such works of her as "Rousseau", "Voltaire", "Essay on the history of the international workers' society", "Elements of idealism in socialism" were known. Most of them were published in two volumes.

Zasulich, becoming the first Russian woman to commit an act of terrorism, subsequently abandoned her previous views, promoted the ideas of Marxism, and denied terror.

Professor Y. NOSOV.

Bloody Tuesday September 11, 2001 marked the beginning of a new period in the history of terrorism - the period of terrorist (and anti-terrorist) wars, in which not only significant human, material, financial, information resources, but also ideological ones confront each other. The targets of terrorists are no longer individuals, but entire countries. Sometimes it seems that the times of terrorism are the second half of the XIX centuries, which were often called "romantic", "ideological" terrorism, have irrevocably sunk into oblivion. But no - the old and the new coexist and feed each other. Perhaps, it was in those first, "classic" terrorist attacks that the essence of terrorism as a universal timeless phenomenon was most clearly manifested.

Science and Life // Illustrations

On March 13, 1881, in St. Petersburg, the nihilist N. Rusakov, having thrown a bomb under the wheels of a carriage in which the Tsar-liberator was traveling, mortally wounded him. A woodcut by G. Brodling, made in hot pursuit, captured the assassination of Alexander II. 1881 year.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife are about to get into an open car.

The Italian terrorist organization Red Brigades kidnapped Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978. After 55 days, his body was found in the trunk of a car left by terrorists in the center of Rome.

One of the many frames that captured the unprecedented terrorist attack of the just beginning of the 21st century - the aerial ram of the Twin Towers in New York on September 11, 2001.

The victims on Dubrovka in Moscow on October 23, 2002 (those who came to the theater to see the musical "Nord-Ost" were captured by terrorists) are taken out of the theater after the end of the operation.

Al-Qaeda bombing at a Bali nightclub. 2002 year.

An explosion staged by terrorists in the Madrid metro in 2004 killed 191 people.

A car loaded with explosives blew up in Baghdad, killing many people. 2005 year.

EPILOGUE OR PROLOGUE?

Almost one hundred and thirty years ago, on March 31, 1878, at eight o'clock in the evening, an inconspicuous girl emerged from the building of the Petersburg House of Preliminary Detention (Shpalernaya, 26). The crowd that filled the street with a roar of delight picked her up in their arms. It was Vera Zasulich. Two months ago, she shot at Trepov, the mayor of the capital, and wounded him. And now, just been acquitted by a jury.

The verdict did not fit in with all the previous Russian practice and was so unexpected that the authorities were momentarily shocked. Having come to their senses, they rushed to rectify the situation in their traditional way of "grabbing and not letting go." They were late: the heroine immediately got lost in the stone jungle of a big city, and a few days later she found herself abroad. It was no longer destined to override anything in the court verdict - the acquittal became historical fact... The genie escaped from the bottle, his name is terrorism.

Subsequently, Zasulich was called "the first Russian terrorist", although high-profile assassination attempts took place earlier (suffice it to recall Dmitry Karakozov's shot at Alexander II on the afternoon of April 4, 1866, when he left the gates of the Summer Garden), there were memorable terrorist attacks after her. And more effective, more bloody, on more significant than Trepov, persons. Why was Vera Zasulich's shot so iconic?

"The whole history of Russian terrorism can be reduced to the struggle of a handful of intellectuals against autocracy in front of a silent people," said Albert Camus. When on the morning of August 4, 1878, Sergei Kravchinsky (in the future - Stepnyak-Kravchinsky, author of "Andrei Kozhukhov") in the very center of St. side of the Alexandrinka, none of the passers-by tried to stop him. True, there are no rules without exceptions: Karakozov did not hit the tsar only because a peasant from the crowd pushed the shooter under the elbow - so the famous Frenchman seems to be not quite right.

In the Zasulich case (this is usually what they say - "the case", because everything that followed her shot is more significant than the shot itself), for the first time, a terrorist attack and the way society reacted to it: the tsar and his entourage, the highest nobility, professional lawyers, broad strata of the intelligentsia of the conservative, liberal and revolutionary persuasion - men and women, young and old, intellectuals and undergraduate school students. The problem of "terrorism - society" in this matter has manifested itself fully and comprehensively, so it is interesting and historically instructive.

Let's take a closer look at the Zasulich case from our time, who survived the attack on America (September 11, 2001) and the permanent Palestinian intifada in Israel, the daring seizure of a theater in Russia during the performance of the musical "Nord-Ost" and, finally, a series of explosions in Moscow, London, Madrid ...

Terrorism is one of the most disgusting plagues of public life, a terrible but, alas, an unconditional reality of today's world. Terrorist attacks follow one after another in Ulster, seething with contradictions and in prosperous Austria, in post-industrial England, France, Italy and in semi-feudal Sri Lanka, Egypt, Pakistan, under the scorching sun of Algeria and in snowy Sweden. They shoot from revolvers and machine guns, blow up plastic postcards and trucks stuffed with TNT, the victims are taken out with a rocket and a grenade launcher. Terrorists act as individuals, groups, organizations. They keep millions of ordinary people in fear, and the heads of state are forced to deal with the fight against terrorism and its prevention as one of the most important problems.

Violence (most often murder), while remaining the main attribute of terrorism, does not exhaust this concept. Generation and whipping up of fear - these are, first of all, its defining features: translated from Latin, terror means fear, horror. Hence - the preventiveness, surprise, swiftness, unpredictability of terrorist attacks, their inevitability and relentlessness, declared by terrorists. It is always an attack, aggression, not defense. And one more thing: the most important mandatory sign of terrorism is arbitrariness, lawlessness, and extrajudicialness of the perpetrated reprisals. The terrorist appoints himself both the judge and the executioner.

The anti-human orientation of terrorism is so obvious that there seems to be no politician or public figure who does not call for an uncompromising fight against terrorism, at the same time using these calls as a low-cost means of raising the rating. But a surprising thing: the public is perplexed to discover that the intensification of this struggle only increases the number of hotbeds of terrorism. In addition, the virus of terrorism affects the adversaries themselves in their "just fight". They begin to forget about democratic freedoms, do not shun intimidation, "accidental" destruction of civilians, etc.

However, there is nothing to be surprised at - only the simplest ailments can be treated with moxibustion, the rest requires more subtle approaches and a careful study of the medical history, but one must start ab ovo - with an egg.

PUNISHING SHOT

The eventual outline of the assassination attempt by Zasulich is as follows. On January 24, 1878, the usual morning procedure took place in the reception room of the St. Petersburg mayor - petitions were accepted. The petitioners were lined up, and the general entered. Having accepted the papers from the first petitioner and exchanging a couple of insignificant phrases with her, the general turned to the right to go to the old woman-official who was standing further, but at that time the woman left by him pulled out a revolver from under a wide cape and almost point-blank, without aiming, fired at Trepova, on the left side. Wounded, he fell, the woman dropped the revolver, the duty officers attacked her, twisted her arms. Immediately during interrogation and later on during the investigation, it turned out that the woman who identified herself at the appointment as Kozlova was in fact Zasulich. The police had a case against her, and she told everything about herself without concealment.

Zasulich Vera Ivanovna, twenty-eight years old, originally from near Smolensk. From a large family Gzhatsk local nobles, at the age of three she lost her father, her youth passed in a diverse youth environment. At the age of 17 she received a teacher's diploma, was carried away by the ideas of the populists - everything is in the traditions of that time. Chance brought her together with Sergei Nechaev, the evil genius of the seventies, theorist of extreme forms of terror, the leader of the most extremist segment of youth. She did not enter his organization, however, the very acquaintance with the "authorities" is not in vain. When the "nechaevskoe affair" began, the police arrested eighteen-year-old Zasulich: for some time his letters came to her address from abroad.

Neither the accused in the case, nor her witness was identified, but without trial they were kept in solitary confinement for almost two years, and when they were released from Petropavlovka, they not only did not apologize, but also slapped exile. Then - life under the supervision of the police far from the capitals, the change of a dozen provincial cities, poverty, illness, uncomfortable women's fate, nervousness and isolation. All this gradually shaped her as a person ready to go to extremes. The authorities did a good job, fostering a terrorist from an ordinary girl-teacher - she was not such either by convictions or by innate qualities, and throughout her subsequent life she invariably avoided extremism.

During the investigation, Zasulich explained her act. Six months earlier, on July 13, 1877, when visiting the House of Pre-trial Detention, it seemed to Trepov (probably it was) that one of the prisoners walking in the courtyard, Bogolyubov, had not taken off his hat in front of him. The general, already agitated by something, became furious and ordered him to be flogged. The gendarmes carried out the order with special sensuality and in public, this angered the entire prison and caused a riot, brutally suppressed with beatings.

Zasulich learned about all this from an article in the newspaper "Golos" while in Penza. She did not know either Trepov or Bogolyubov, but, outraged by the outrage at the human person, she became firmly convinced that such things could not be left unpunished, that “attention must be attracted” and that “if not me, then who?” As public interest in Bogolyubov's case waned, her excitement only intensified. And now the illegal move to St. Petersburg, long, careful preparation and finally - a shot.

THE COURT IS COMING!

At that time, the St. Petersburg District Court occupied the building of the former arsenal built by V. I. Bazhenov (17th century); from the mid-60s it was adapted for "judicial rulings" (burned down in the days of February 1917). The facade of the building overlooked Liteiny Prospekt, by a passage along Shpalernaya it was connected to the House of Pre-trial Detention. The domes of Sergievsky of the entire artillery of the cathedral were gilded nearby. It was in this setting that the last act of the Zasulich case was played out. The "clean" public, who received invitation cards, settled in the courtroom, revolutionary-minded youth filled Liteiny and Shpalernaya. When the process ended and began to diverge, a huge factory caught fire behind the Neva on Vyborgskaya, and the dark-purple reflections of the fire gave the place of action an ominous flavor. History loves to use italics like this important events- are better remembered.

The Zasulich case aroused tremendous interest not only in Russia, but throughout Europe (at that time it was "the whole world"). Publications of that time and later, noting the decisive role in its fate of the growing revolutionary and liberal movement, nevertheless note that the defendant's complete acquittal was nevertheless an accident - many factors favorably converged. Now, if the Minister of Justice Palen was not so "frivolous" and defined the hearing of the case not as criminal, but as political, there would be no justification. (Yes, there was no "frivolity", he just did not want to disturb the capital with another political process, and Zasulich's guilt and condemnation seemed self-evident, but it turned out to be something wrong.) Or if the accuser Kessel had not been such a colorless figure and would not have read his speech on a piece of paper, and uttered it with appropriate passion ... Or if the dignified public in court did not treat Trepov with such contempt ... And if judicial errors were not made during the trial ... If only, if if only ... As they joked later, "the revolution happened because the police overlooked."

No accidents happened. Society wanted, or rather, society thirsted for the advent of terrorism. One can perceive this as collective blindness, temporary insanity, a syndrome of self-destruction, finally, but the fact remains: society itself has drawn terrorism upon itself, blessed it. Then it caught on - but it's too late.

Who was Trepov Fedor Fedorovich, the target of the terrorist attack? Sixty-six years old, tall, stout, active. A mixture of rude martyrs, lust for power, petty tyranny, everyday intelligence. The cultural level of the district - “in a word of three letters makes four mistakes: instead of“ still ”he writes“ ischo. ”In a word, his own, not an enemy. not alone.

But in the Russian society of those days for fifteen years - since the abolition of serfdom - there was a process of civil self-assertion. He walked slowly, strictly dosed by the highest royal permission, but he walked. The law still allowed a convict to be flogged, but only before being sent to the escort, in prison it was not allowed. “I am an uneducated person, I don’t understand the legal intricacies,” Trepov explained, considering himself a victim of circumstances and intrigues. And he sent the whipped Bogolyubov tea and sugar so that he would not hold any grudge against him - a kind of patriarchal simplicity, bordering on mockery (a couple of years later Bogolyubov died in a prison hospital in a state of gloomy insanity).

The less freedoms were won back, the more frenzied society reacted to their trampling. The conflict clashed a fragment of the past and those who looked with hope into Russia's promised European future. Neither side considered turning to the law. And was the law so free from arbitrariness that everyone believed: "the law is harsh, but just." Some grabbed the whip, some revolver.

Yes, the accuser Kessel did not have enough stars from the sky: not a tribune, not an orator. But all the essential has been said. That the criminality of the gunman was acknowledged by herself; that it is unacceptable to use immoral means to achieve moral goals; that any guilty person (that is, Trepov) has the right to a court of law, and not to lynching Zasulich; that "no amount of eloquent reasoning will erase the blood stains from the hands that attempted murder." They did not hear him, did not want to hear him.

Contemporaries did not speak about the speech of Aleksandrov's defender, except as "brilliant", "inimitable", "historical" and so on in the same spirit. He really got his bearings perfectly. It is futile to defend the defendant - it is too obvious that arbitrary murder (or attempted murder) is a crime. But to “graze” to one's heart's content in the fertile field of denouncing the tyrant Trepov is a completely different matter. It was a win-win card, society longed for liberal change. There followed angry tirades about the outraged human dignity of Bogolyubov, about the agonizing groan of a strangled and humiliated person (read - the people), even about "a sphere that defies law, where the leveling law is powerless to penetrate" - what is it! And this is what the lawyer said. This was followed by the transition to the broken fate of Zasulich herself, to the fact that she, as "an exalted, nervous, painful nature," could not remain indifferent to the suffering of another. (And had the right to shoot?) The entire assassination technique: acquiring a revolver, lengthy preparation, thoughtful clothing, a cold-blooded shot - all this the lawyer casually disavowed with the lofty metaphor "the poet's inspired thought may not think about the choice of words and rhymes for its implementation" (this is about that the revolver was chosen with the greatest lethal force?). And a final nod to Europe, "which still likes to call us a barbaric state." However, this is what a lawyer is for, in order to adjust the audience accordingly, even if you have to manipulate truth and law. And what about the environment - the public, the jury, the judge? As if hypnotized, no one "noticed" the substitution of the thesis (exposing Trepov instead of justifying the criminal), frantically applauding the effective passages of the defender.

THE STAR HOUR OF A. F. KONY

And yet the main thing actor of the play played and at the same time its director - the chair of the trial Koni, is a symbolic figure in the blessing of the future of terrorism.

Koni Anatoly Fedorovich, then 34 years old, an intellectual in the third generation, brilliantly and comprehensively educated, honest, open face of a typical sixties. A highly qualified lawyer, an active advocate of judicial reform, a researcher of legal problems. Observant memoirist, witty writer, progressive liberal.

A parallel with the best representatives of our "first draft" democrats involuntarily suggests itself. The same conviction that the proven truth is unconditionally accepted by everyone. The same naivety as the authorities (up to tsars and presidents) need the truth, and not something else. The same inability to foresee what their perfectly stifling reasoning can lead to in practice. The same misunderstanding that the phantoms released by them materialize and begin to act independently of the will of their creators, very often against them. "Little Horses", an ardent lawyer, how he wanted to establish the truth! It turned out that it is not enough to be smart, you have to be wise.

Going out to the trial, he realized that he was caught between two fires. Minister Pahlen bluntly told him that Zasulich should be convicted: "The prosecutor, the defense lawyer, the jury are all nonsense, it all depends on you!" The tsar accepted the horses and, of course, "did not stoop" to discuss the matter and to talk in general. But the very fact of an audience is already an attitude. On the other hand, Koni was sensitive to the mood of society. Society, driven to the extreme by the "outrages" of the authorities, especially manifested in the just-ingloriously ended Balkan war "for the liberation of the Slavs", was upset, tense, painfully susceptible and thirsty for change. He himself was a part of society.

Koni's final resume is presented as an example of objectivity, consistency, and judicial impartiality. Well, let's see ...

Almost every thesis of the prosecutor, he debunks or questions, and he uses not so much the arguments of the defender (sometimes they simply do not exist), as his own "texts". He insists on special attention to the "inner side of Zasulich's deeds", to her personal unhappy fate, he casually drops phrases of this kind: "the fact of the shot is undeniable, but ..." or "her desire for revenge does not yet indicate her desire to kill "etc. What is this - objectivity? Why is he like this? The defender, carried away by the pathos of denouncing Trepov (which he became famous for), actually did not demand Zasulich's acquittal. "She can leave here condemned, but she will not come out disgraced" - this is his last phrase.

It seems that all those present, including the defense lawyer and the defendant, did not consider her acquittal possible. Everyone wanted an angry condemnation of Trepov (the authorities in general) and a mild, maximally condescending sentence to Zasulich. (As in our famous film "Beware of the Car" - "he stole, but he is an honest man, have mercy on him, citizens of the judge", and the dearest Yuri Detochkin still had to serve the required minimum.) It seems that Koni wanted this too, but after the performance It must have seemed realistic to him that Zasulich would leave the courtroom "in shackles." And society would not have forgiven him for this, he himself would not have forgiven himself!

And Koni began to work for a lawyer, only more professionally and purposefully. And overdid it. The ending of his resume calls on the jury to "judge by your conviction, not constrained by anything except the voice of your conscience." (And the law?) "The last phrase is remembered," as Stirlitz said. And ten minutes later the foreman of the jury said: "No, not guilty!" "Dull-headed Palen" was right: they decided as the judge suggested - the mechanism of "popular approval" is the same at all times and under any regimes, and the minister knew this mechanism well, but did not know his employee Koni very well.

Soon after the trial, the terrorist Kravchinsky wrote: "Only six months have passed since Vera Zasulich's shot. Look how our great movement is growing ... just like an avalanche falls with an ever-increasing speed. Think what will happen in some six months, a year ? "

Neither Koni nor the "cream of society" sitting in the courtroom thought about it. Or - didn’t want to think about it?

IMPRESSIONS RELEASED

Would you try not to justify? Some of us would have been killed at the very threshold of the court, probably the prosecutor, the chairman and some distinguished visitors would have been killed "- such a motive for the" fair "verdict sounded in a letter from one of the jury. the companion - fear - has already begun to administer justice and reprisals. this with all possible awkwardness. ”In the ensuing scuffle with the gendarmes, one of the students, accidentally firing, hit his own and immediately shot himself.

However, what the youth! The refined public in court behaved the same way. And not only titled idiots like Count Barantsov, many with passion beat themselves in the chest, muttering "this is the happiest day of life!" Chancellor Gorchakov (a lyceum comrade of Pushkin), an eighty-year-old man with wisdom in life, was applauding - it would seem that he should have figured out where the justification of the criminal shot would lead. And a couple of weeks before the trial, the victim himself, barely recovering from Trepov's wound, while driving around the city in a carriage, assured everyone that "he would be glad if she was acquitted." "Feldwebel" also wanted to match the times. All this collective psychosis is difficult to explain only by the progressive liberal moods of society.

Interestingly, in his later memoirs, Koni often speaks of Zasulich's "act" rather than a crime. Time is gradually erasing the memory of what happened, I want to justify my behavior of that time, hence the calming "was there a boy?" "obscured by the idea of" revenge "..." - he asserts. Completeness, your excellency. And before and after, in a multitude of flogged and right and guilty, "legal" and illegal and - nothing. The "good" to terrorism was given an acquittal by your court.

Since those ancient times, it has become a tradition: if a terrorist opposes us, it is a terrorist who deserves only condemnation, and if it is for, then it is no longer a terrorist, and we will wait with condemnation. In 1923, a Swiss jury acquitted the murderers of Vorovsky, the Soviet representative at international conferences. Even the Social Revolutionaries, the ideologues of terror, called them - Konradi and Polunin - "maddened avengers for personal grievances and suffering." And in the Western press they wrote that "the verdict of the court coincided with the legal consciousness of the masses." If against the hated Bolsheviks, then the terrorists are no longer terrorists, and speculations on the "consciousness of the masses" are used.

In December 1996, in broad daylight in the center of Baghdad, four opposition terrorists shot at a motorcade, one of which was the son of dictator Saddam Hussein. Of course, the attackers were not terrorists, but "desperate brave men with great courage." At the anti-terrorism summit in Sharm al-Sheikh in 1996, Britain and France did not support the American condemnation of "Cuban terrorism." It's simple: they are trade partners with Cuba. At the same time, England grumbled that first it would not hurt the United States to stop flirting with Sinn Fein, this "legal representation of Ulster terrorists." Interests first, then morality. The double standard in assessments leads, alas, only to the expansion and strengthening of the base of terrorism.

"Side effects" have gradually become an indispensable companion of terrorist attacks. The most "inspired" of the terrorists, the favorite of world literature, Vanya Kalyaev, the murderer of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich (Moscow, Kremlin, February 4, 1905), several times tore off what was planned due to the fact that the prince's wife and nephews were in the same carriage. But after all, waiting for a suitable opportunity and throwing a fatal bomb, he casually wounded the coachman Rudinkin. Yigal Amir, the killer of Israeli Prime Minister Rabin (Tel Aviv, Kings of Israel Square, December 5, 1995), also "at the same time", accidentally wounded Rabin's bodyguard. “I didn’t want that and I’m very sorry,” the terrorist said in court. Released by Bogrov, Stolypin's executioner (Kiev, Opera theatre, September 1, 1911), a bullet ricocheting wounded a violinist in the orchestra. And Bogrov's predecessors, who were still in St. Petersburg hunting for Stolypin, "through a misunderstanding" mutilated the children of their future victim. Eserka Leontyeva in a Swiss cafe "by mistake" shot a local inhabitant Müller, the tsarist minister Durnovo, who was "outlined" by her, was not in the cafe at all at that time. Farce? Of course, but - bloody.

Zhelyabov and Kibalchich, chasing Alexander II, blew up one of the premises of the Winter Palace on February 5, 1880. The tsar was not there, but "at the same time ten were killed and forty-five people of the lower ranks of the Finnish regiment were wounded" (historians call this fourth attempt on Alexander II "unsuccessful" - that is). The Executive Committee of Narodnaya Volya expressed condolences over the "overlay": "with deep regret ..." etc. They are still dressing up in the toga of holy avengers, they are still declaring the unacceptability of innocent victims - for how long? A century later, a certain Kevin McKenn, an Irish terrorist, hearing about the murder of a police woman by an explosion, applauded frantically: "I hope she was pregnant! In that case, we would have destroyed two enemies at once with one blow." Do you think this is a mental patient? If...

In the Zasulich case, the very fact that prompted her to attempt her life is undoubtedly convincing and serious - the mockery of the unbound power over a defenseless person. And today, many understand and are close to the aspirations of, for example, the Irish (or Corsicans, or Kurds, or Basques), for freedom and independence. And yet the methods to achieve them look repulsive.

Terrorism, professing the dogma "I want it so, I decided so," often turns the very purpose of its actions into a mockery of common sense, into a bloody farce. In 1898, a terrorist stabbed with a dagger Elizabeth of Austria, the incomparable Sisi, and to this day adored by all of Austria. Her "fault" was only that she was the wife of Emperor Franz Joseph I, who was hated in the Balkans. It’s like pouring acid on Rembrandt’s Danae - truly one step from an “ideological” terrorist to a schizophrenic maniac.

And not so long ago, a dozen or so "thugs" created the "Texas Liberation Army", demanding the return of this state to the status of 1845, when it was not part of the United States, and so that there was no doubt about their seriousness, they began to take hostages from among the first oncoming. In some states, similar "gentlemen" have organized a series of random explosions - wherever. They, you see, are against the authorization of abortion! The gloomy-famous Kuzhinsky terrorized the United States for 18 years, sending plastic explosives to universities (for this bias he was dubbed the Unibomber). It turned out that he was angry with the industrial world for violating the ecology, settled in a hut without a TV, telephone, electricity, shower and, as best he could, persuaded others to the same life. And opponents of the 2004 Olympics in Stockholm were noted by the arson of several houses (not their own, of course). Need more examples?

It would seem that a win-win moment for terrorism in the Zasulich case is her sacrifice. For decades to come, this became a moral and ethical justification: "When I kill, I must also sacrifice myself." Sounds pretty, but what kind of relief is there for the victim of terror? All religions of the world condemn suicide. "Love your neighbor as yourself" also means "love yourself, your life is sacred, only He can dispose of it."

Ideally, terrorism actually begins with the fact that a person is able to overstep his life - beware of suicide! The society often applauds hunger strikes and self-immolations with the aim of "attracting attention" and "expressing protest", not noticing the obvious: there is no more than half a step from here to easily overstep someone else's life.

From the "romantic" sacrifice of early terrorists to "suicide terror" the path was very short. A fifteen-year-old girl crowns Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi with a garland of flowers, and at the same moment an explosive attached to her waist tears them both apart (near Madras, May 21, 1991). And here is a photograph of a parade of Arab suicide bombers in Qilqiliya: they are wearing black masks with slits for their eyes, their hand is gripping a submachine gun. The next day, one of them will sit behind the wheel of a heavy truck filled with explosives and set off on their last journey. Then another, then another. Just like the Gospel herd of pigs, in which devils have taken over: "and the herd rushed from the steepness into the lake and drowned." But now it is not biblical times, in special schools in place of the "drowned" new fighters of the most ruthless, savage, fanatical squad of terrorists are being trained.

I wonder how those who applauded the "holy" sacrifice of Zasulich almost 130 years ago would comment on this?

Islam, like other religions, condemns suicide, but the usual, "everyday" suicide of the unfortunate a weak person- in Arabic "antahar". And suicide with simultaneous striking of a blow to the enemy - "astashad" - is, as it were, not suicide, but a sacrifice on the altar of the Almighty. "Words, words, words", you say, but ideologues of terror do not think so. Do not try to discuss with terrorists, I assure you, they thought about the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" no less than others. It is not the forgetting of moral dogmas that determines their behavior, but the ability to overstep them. Speaking in court, the killer of Prime Minister Rabin Yigal Amir posed: "Perhaps God acted with me" (at these words, his mother shuddered: "The devil has possessed my son"). "How did you, a religious man, the son of a rabbi, forget about the commandments?" - "But in the Law there is a stronger prescription for the salvation of the soul, I acted according to it." At the same time, he grinned satanically - "Beretta" did its job, and "texts" can be juggled this way and that. The widow of the murdered security guard Rabin Leia - "subhuman", said about him most accurately.

The Savinkovites, reproached for violating the commandments, quoted from Scripture: "According to your deeds, you will be rewarded" - and made the saying the motto of their terrorist organization.

The dispute assumes that there are two sides, in this case it is not so: the second "side", terrorists are demons who, not by mistake, but deliberately oppose themselves to human morality.

AND THEN THERE WAS NO PRIORITY

How did the then "engineers of human souls", "spiritual shepherds of society", that is, writers perceive Zasulich's case? Of course, a lot of poems appeared, in different ways inclining and rhyming "freedom", "honor", "groans of brothers" and other nonsense in the same spirit. A new "product" - terror - began to be promoted to the market. The living classic Turgenev, who had become decrepit in his foreign distant, responded with another poem in prose. A girl stands before a high threshold, ready for cold, hunger, prison, death, as well as loneliness, contempt, obscurity. "Come in!" The girl crosses the threshold, rushing after her: "Fool!", "Holy!" The last word is, after all, "Holy!" It was impossible to expect otherwise from Turgenev, he listened too sensitively to the conjuncture, too jealously cared about his image as a "father" of revolutionary "children." What business does the girl go through, what she steps over, not a word about it. As in a courtroom - applause, delight, emotion and - emptiness.

How many brilliant talents then and later turned to the images of terrorists! And an amazing thing: everyone seems to condemn, debunk, stigmatize, and the reader, especially the young, is irresistibly attracted by these outcast, demonic fighters for justice. Even in "Eagle or Tails" by Alexei Tolstoy, where the physiologically disgusting terrorist, traitor and provocateur Azef personifies a vicious and immoral, but still enticing life-game, "in which the stakes were gold, the heads of ministers and revolutionaries, expensive taverns and women ". What can we say about the "Righteous" by Albert Camus with his either condemnation or admiration for "heroes" like Kaliayev.

Thought about moral aspects and in a revolutionary environment - after all, it was not limited to psychopaths and maniacs. And while Savinkov the Socialist-Revolutionary coolly sent his "bombers" to work, Savinkov the writer offered them a "new", logically clear morality: "One of two things: either" Thou shalt not kill ", and then we are robbers, or" An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. "And if so, then what are the excuses for? I want to and so I do." Reasoning in this way, he rejects as unnecessary verbal rubbish both "the interests of the revolution" and "expediency". You can kill the husband of your mistress. "Who gave you the right? Who allowed?" - "I allowed myself." This attracted (and attracts) many.

It would seem that over a century with the moral debunking of terrorism, complete clarity has been achieved. Is it so? Before the execution in June 2001 of Timothy McVeigh, on whose conscience the lives of 168 people (it was he who drove a truck loaded with explosives to the Oklahoma City mall on April 19, 1995), the American media swirled in hysterical whistle. Describing the “hero,” they said what a brave soldier he performed during the “war in the gulf”, how he was awarded a bronze cross, how he loved to drive madly, what he read, ate, preferred ... remote states desired a child from him? Do you think they sympathized with terrorism? It’s ridiculous to even assume, but if they turned out to be friends of the future McVeighs, would they not become their accomplices?

And no matter how many writers and journalists disown demons, the problem of "terrorism and the media" exists. Professionals from anti-terrorist centers argue that often the interests of both coincide: striving for fame, sensationalism, detective ... So it's not all simple with the condemnation of terrorism.

F.M. was also in the courtroom on March 31st. Dostoevsky, there is a version that he approved the acquittal of Zasulich. Could he really justify terrorism, having just exposed the abomination of nechaevism in "The Demons", foreseeing the Savinkovites and Kampuchean Khmers with millions of their victims? But of course he saw that Zasulich was not Nechaev, and here are his words: “The punishment of this girl is inappropriate, unnecessary. , such a legal norm, and what good is she now elevated to a heroine. "

As I looked into the water, they erected it. So it was, so it will be - no one wants to listen to the prophets.

Who defended the faith zasulich. Vera Zasulich: "Bloody Mary" or a just executioner? Participation in revolutionary movements and fatal acquaintance with Nechaev

First emigration

Return to Russia

Literary activity

Memory

Essays

Write a review on the article "Zasulich, Vera Ivanovna"

Notes (edit)

Links

Literature

An excerpt characterizing Zasulich, Vera Ivanovna

The case of the attempted murder of the mayor of St. Petersburg, General F.F. Trepov

First emigration

Second emigration

Return to Russia