The weekly newspaper "Nedelya" was published in St. Petersburg for 35 years (1866-1901). In 1868-1871, it had a pronounced revolutionary - democratic character. The newspaper was then published in a limited edition 2 000 - 2 500 ex. and it was distributed mainly among young students. During this period, N. Demert (later known as a columnist for Otechestvennye Zapiski), D. Minaev, G. Uspensky, P. Lavrov, P. Tkachev, V. Zaitsev, a member of the Russian section of the First International, E. G. Barteneva, and others performed in it. The newspaper published materials by A. I. Herzen, who valued Nedelya for the fact that what it published was "incredibly bold." 1 When Herzen died, the newspaper published, in fact, the only obituary in the Russian democratic press. It was not without reason that the tsarist administration considered Nedelya "the center of the extreme, so-called red direction." 2
In 1868, Nedelya was actually directed by N. S. Kurochkin, and from February 1869 by E. I. Conradi (nee Bochechkarova), a journalist of the radical trend. 3 Since the autumn of 1869. she became the publisher of the newspaper and attracted as co-publishers Yu. A. Rossel and P. A. Gaideburov, who was known as a publicist for the democratic magazine Delo. A former student of the Medical and surgical Academy, Yu. A. Rossel (he was considered a British citizen, but was born and lived almost all his life in Russia) was a political commentator for Nedelya. His materials, written for the department of Politics (which he had been leading since January 1868), were imbued with the spirit of anti-monarchism and sympathy for the Republican way of government. The members of the Council of the General Directorate for Press Affairs evaluated Rossel's articles as "confessions of the editorial board" 4 . C, No. 46 of the newspaper of November 16 (28), 1870.Materials from France signed by Mih also began to be published in the" Week". Tar-ts 5 .

For the "harmful direction" of the published materials, 6 Nedelya was repeatedly harassed. In 1869. it was suspended from May to October, for six months - the longest period provided for by law. On the report of the Minister of Internal Affairs, where it was reported, Alexander II wrote in his own hand: "Efficiently"7 . In April 1871, the newspaper was closed for a second time for six months. In this regard, Yu. A. Rossel was forced to leave it. Later, in 1874, E. I. Conradi had to leave the editorial office. Since 1872, the newspaper has been increasingly influenced by Gaideburov, who gradually began to move to positions close to the liberal-narodnik ones.

The position of the "Week" in relation to the Paris Commune has not yet been specifically considered .8 And yet still for-

1 "Literary Heritage", vol. 64, 1958, p. 710.

2 TsGIA, f. 776, op. 5, d. 38a, 1870, l. 46 (85); op. 2, d. 6, l. 60 vol.

3 O. E. I. Konradi for more information, see E. G. Barteneva. "Women's business", 1899, N 1.

4 TsGIA, f. 776, op. 2, d. 6, l. 68; d. 7, l. 271.

5 I. F. Masanov deciphered this pseudonym as the signature of the writer Mikhail Dalmert (see I. F. Masanov. Dictionary of pseudonyms of Russian writers, scientists and public figures. In 4 vols. Vol. 4. Moscow, 1960, p. 156). In S. D. Kunisky's book " Russian Society and the Paris Commune "(Moscow, 1962), this surname sounds like Dalpert.

6 TsGIA, f. 776, op. 1, d. 6, l. 22 (8); op. 2, d. 6, l. 60 ob; op. 5, d. 38a, 1870, l. 47 (88).

7 Ibid., op. 1, d. 5, l. 8 (12).

8 Even in such a work as The Paris Commune of 1871, the materials of the Week are not actually used, except for the publication of Rossel's diaries, which was already made in the autumn of 1871 (see The Paris Commune of 1871, vol. 2, Moscow, 1961, p. 336). S. D. Kunisky was more attentive to the newspaper, noting that the attitude of "Nedelya" to the Commune "has more breadth and depth" than that of magazines (S. D. Kunisky. Op. cit., p. 70), but he did not review all the newspaper's materials: correspondence and reviews of the Politika department for 1871 fell out of his sight.

page 204

long before March 18, 1871, the newspaper made its sympathies for the French proletarians quite clear, declaring that "in them alone lived the majestic dreams of France." 9 She wrote that order and unanimity reigned in Paris under Prussian siege (other newspapers portrayed the events in the city as chaos and destruction), and tirelessly emphasized that it was the workers who were "more ready to fly into the air than to surrender." 10 From the very beginning of the events of the Paris Commune, the "Week" took her side. The newspaper wrote that in Paris, not a riot, not a conspiracy, but a revolution 11 . The entire responsibility for the possible bloodshed "Week" laid on Thiers. In the editorial of March 9 (21), Yu. Rossel accused him of treachery. The author of the review considered Thiers 'attempt to capture the National Guard guns at night a repetition of December 2, 1851, and condemned Thiers' appeal, in which the latter frightened the French with communist doctrines.

The newspaper managed to tell readers about the majestic events of the Commune in only three issues 12. It failed (and probably did not have time) to give a class definition of the Commune, but it did so indirectly every time when it showed that the Commune embodied the best features of the program of extreme Republicans, that is, the very program of which Nedelya was a supporter and propagandist. Closing of the newspaper.

In the political chronicle No. 11 of March 14 (26), Nedelya reported that the revolution in Paris had finally gained the upper hand over the government of Thiers and the troops of General Vinois. She wrote that on March 19, the rebels occupied the town hall and raised a red flag over it. Yu. Rossel cites in the review a proclamation issued by the revolutionary committee, which proclaimed freedom of the press, announced the fulfillment of the preliminary conditions of peace with Germany, and set the task of establishing a republic by providing the National Guard with a Wave of freedom in choosing as a result of the universal submission of votes, she called on all citizens to participate in the mayoral elections. Nedelya reported that the revolutionary committee acts on behalf of the 215 battalions of the National Guard, that is, it is declared the authorized representative of the masses. 40 thousand troops went over to the side of the revolution, and only 10 thousand followed Thiers. Thus, Nedelya correctly guided its readers in this issue.

The newspaper's columnist took the same approach to the coverage of the events of March 21 in Place Vendome, the so-called demonstration of the "party of order", which opposed the demand of the revolutionary committee for the election of a new government and considered only the Versailles assembly legitimate. the leaders of the demonstration were the first to attack the communards, which caused a shootout.

Nedelya pointed out that the uprising in Paris was not isolated, and it reported, in particular, on the March 23 revolution in Lyon. At a time when the Russian official and liberal-protective press raised a cry about the atrocities of the communards, the newspaper declared that the charge of shooting two generals was rejected by the revolutionary committee of Paris, and added that even if the rumors about the shooting were justified, this still did not indicate the cruelty of the revolutionaries, because one general was guilty of that that four times he ordered shooting at unarmed popules13, and another tried to pass on to the enemy a plan for the fortifications at Montmartre.

In No. 12 of March 21 (April 2), Nedelya wrote:: "Paris is completely placed in the power of the red Republicans." Analyzing what is happening, the newspaper columnist condemned Thiers for not recognizing the Paris revolutionary committee and stressed that this leads to internecine war. This statement led to the conclusion about the legitimacy of the body created by the rebellious people. However, Yu. Rossel notes that Republicans such as Louis Blanc, Edgar Quinet and others would be ready to support Thiers if he became serious.

9 See the editorial "Long Live France!" in Nedelya, 1870, No. 35.

10 See "Scenes from life in a besieged city". Nedelya, 1870, No. 40.

11 See the editorial "Who is to blame". Nedelya, 1871, No. 10.

12 At the beginning of April 1871, after the publication of No. 13 for March 28 (April 9), the issue of Nedelya was suspended for a second time for six months.

13 This case is also mentioned in K. Marx's "Civil War in France"; the point of view of" Nedelya " coincides with his assessment (see K. Marx and F. Schulz). Engels, Soch. Vol. 17, p. 333).

page 205

to restrain the monarchical aspirations of the Versailles Assembly. These "Republicans of order," as Rossel calls them, have power even in Lyon, Marseille, and Toulouse. They managed to suppress the "Reds"who had seized power in these cities. At first glance, it may seem that the observer follows the actions of these individuals with approval, 14 especially since he refers to A.-L. Tholen as "one of the remarkable leaders of the Parisian workers." 15 However, the phrase follows later in the review: "But what if the Republican Party suddenly withdraws from the assembly - what will happen in Lyon, Marseille, and in general in all the big cities of France?", which reveals the whole point of Yu's reasoning. Rossel. He showed that the petty-bourgeois democrats go into revolution only up to a certain point; they are ready to support even such a figure as Thiers if he gives them a political advantage; they are hostile to the "Reds", the true defenders of the republic, who fought for a radical change in the situation of the working masses. The observer of the "Week" brought the reader to the conclusion that the petty-bourgeois leaders would destroy not only the "Reds", but also themselves, since the bourgeois government could not fulfill their demands, because it was inclined to betray the republic and the country's defense.

In the same review, Rossel reported that the strength of Paris is growing. The new Paris municipality, he wrote, consists of more than half of the" red " Republicans like G. Flourens, O. Blanqui, F. Pia, etc. This municipality has decided not to recognize the Versailles assembly as legitimate and is ready to repel Thiers if he plans to suppress the Commune by force. The author writes with sympathy about the perseverance of Parisians, their desire to fight to the end. By the whole course of his reasoning, he makes it clear that the new government is legitimate and capable. In the same issue, No. 12, there is a translation of the essay-chronicle by F. Sarcet and J. Clarice's "Paris under Siege", which describes the course of events since September 1870 and shows the legitimacy of the March 18 uprising.

In the last Issue No. 13 of March 28 (April 9), the newspaper reported that blood was being shed in Paris, and on March 20 (April 1) skirmishes took place between the outposts of the rebels and the Versailles troops. "The Versailles troops... they took the barricades defended by the National Guard with amazing courage, and showed extraordinary ferocity. Captured insurgents were shot... Yu. Rossel emphasizes that the Parisians were fought by those troops whose guns "were powerless to defend Paris and France from the Prussian pogrom." In the story of Yu. Rossel has a lot of bitterness, it suggests the possibility of collusion of the Versailles assembly with the Prussians, which F. Engels predicted at a meeting of the General Council of the International 21 March 16 . As you know, this is exactly what happened. The author of a review published in Nedelya admires the heroism of the defenders of the Commune. If Moskovskiye Vedomosti shouted that the Communards were criminals "without principles or banners", if Golos reported that the Communards were "robbers, gold is found in their boots", then Nedelya wrote:: "The situation in Paris during these last three weeks has not presented such pictures of horror and anarchy as would justify the pathetic and indignant exclamations of the correspondents of various bourgeois newspapers." Here order is preserved, property and security of civilians are respected, and discipline is observed in the troops. Y. Rossel writes that the tactics of the Commune are "based on dictatorship", which he contrasts with the "cowardly double-mindedness" of Versailles. As serious political acts of the legitimate government, Nedelya's observer reports on the Commune's decrees concerning the separation of church and state and the nationalization of church property.

In the same review, an excerpt was given from a publication of the Commune, which defined its tasks: "Paris, in a federal union with other communes of France, which has already won" municipal liberties, should discuss the articles of the treaty on its own behalf and on behalf of Lyon and Marseille, and soon, perhaps, ten other cities., which will link it

14 Just like N. Mikhailovsky or K. Chassin, who considered Louis Blanc a true hero who managed to avoid "extremes" (see Otechestvennye Zapiski, 1871, No. 3, pp. 185-212; No. 8, pp. 204).

15 A. L. Tholen, who was once highly valued by Karl Marx as a real working-class candidate in Paris and a "nice guy" (see K. Marx and F. F. Tolen). Engels, Soch. Vol. 31, p. 4. 8), during the Commune remained in the Versailles assembly and went over to the side of Thiers.

16 See K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 17, p. 622.

page 206

with the rest of the nation, and submit your Ultimatum... This ultimatum should contain a guarantee for their autonomy and the newly won municipal independence; it should provide sufficient scope for the communication that exists between the communities and the representatives of national unity; it should issue an Electoral Law that would prevent the absorption of urban representatives by representatives of rural districts", referring here to the predominant influence of workers in the new government, about their leading role in the life of society. The observer of the "Week" noted that such a principle will make it possible to deal a fatal blow to the then administrative and political centralization of France, which suppresses the life of the districts. This reasoning shows that Yu. Rossel speaks as a matter of course of the possibility of the victory of the Commune's cause throughout France, of the justice and progressiveness of its demands.

Thus, we can conclude that in January - March 1871, Nedelya, which was the only democratic newspaper in Russia, truthfully covered the events of the Paris Commune.

G. S. Lapshina

page 207

Permanent link to this publication: