Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev: person, politician and lawyer

May 21, 2007 marks the 180th anniversary of the birth, and March 10 marks the 100th anniversary of the death of Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev (1827–1907). He had a rare fate for a statesman - to become a symbol of an entire era in the history of his country. Moreover, it was a fatal era - one that determined the fate of the country for the entire next century, and perhaps forever. The last two decades of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries were such an era in Russian history. (years from 1881 to 1905) - the entire reign of Alexander III and exactly half of the reign of Nicholas II. The scenario of the Russian tragedy, the first act of which was Russia’s entry into the war with Germany, and the most important action was the February-October revolution of 1917, was written precisely in this era. At the same time, the main active forces of Russian tragedy first appeared on the political stage. In historical and memoir literature, these years in the history of Russia are usually called the period of counter-reforms and reactionary government policies, and Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev is declared the main creator and exponent of the latter. According to P.N. Miliukov, he was “a dry, stubborn fanatic, not without reason given the nickname Torquemada, a principled enemy of everything that resembled freedom and democracy” 1 . According to N.A. Berdyaev, Pobedonostsev was a sincere ideologist of “our historical nihilism, the nihilistic attitude of the Russian official Church and state to life” 2. French ambassador to Russia in 1914–1917. Maurice Paleologue also called Pobedonostsev “the Russian Torquemada” 3. “An outstanding lawyer, a learned theologian, a fanatical champion of Orthodoxy and autocracy, Pobedonostsev brought to the defense of his reactionary views fiery faith, exalted patriotism, deep and immutable conviction, broad education, the rare power of dialectics, and finally - what will seem a contradiction - perfect simplicity and great charm of manners and speech. Autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality - these three words summed up his entire program, and he pursued its implementation with extreme severity, with magnificent contempt for the phenomena of reality that interfered with him. As one would expect, he cursed the “new spirit”, democratic principles, Western atheism” 4. These words of M. Palaeologus express the most common characteristics of K.P. in the Russian educated society of that time. Pobedonostseva. Similar characteristics completely dominate in foreign historical literature. “Reactionary, gloomy, chauvinistic, he helped shape Russian imperial policy to such an extent that it is difficult to think of tsarist reaction and nihilism without calling to mind the name of Pobedonostsev,” 5 - this is the idea of ​​the Russian statesman expressed by the American historian Murray Polner. Undoubtedly, the role of a symbol of a historical era is honorable for any statesman - it is rarely given to anyone. However, there is also something deeply tragic in this role: the one who begins to play it ceases to be perceived by his contemporaries as a living person. In his appearance, everyday lifestyle, in his works, one involuntarily sees manifestations of some social tendency, signs of some social force, in a word, anything but the properties of an ordinary human personality, always multifaceted, diverse, complex. V.V. Rozanov carefully, by his own admission, followed the activities and creativity of K.P. Pobedonostsev and treating this man with obvious sympathy, began his memorial article about him in the Sytin newspaper “Russian Word” (March 13, 18, 27, 1907) as follows: “Pobedonostsev died. And with him died an entire state, social, even literary system; a remarkable, perhaps the most remarkable, face of Russian history of the 19th century has died; went to his grave, “passing away quietly after a long illness,” as it is written in his obituaries, “the whole historical style of a completed and long era” 6. During his lifetime, Pobedonostsev became a myth, and this myth, like a thick fog, hid his extraordinary personality from his contemporaries. “My name is the subject of controversy and temptation among all the so-called public figures who read newspapers and in circles who draw their ideas about people and affairs. How many people know me? – Konstantin Petrovich sadly asked his friend S.A. Rachinsky in 1884 - Both good and evil are attributed to me, and every speaker in every circle pronounces my name with what he likes or doesn’t like. There are many people who don’t know me at all, to whom you just have to hint that my name is connected with this or that name or movement, so that they, without reasoning, will join the opposite.” A century has passed since Pobedonostsev’s death, but he still remains a mystery to us. However, Konstantin Petrovich himself is largely to blame for the fact that he remained a great stranger to his contemporaries and descendants. As an active participant, and in some cases, the driver of many important events in Russian political history of the last quarter of the 19th - early 20th centuries. It would seem that he simply had to write memoirs, talk about his life and the people he encountered, but no - he did not leave behind either memoirs or any detailed autobiography. Explaining to Emperor Alexander III in 1893 why he did not write memoirs during his time in public service, Pobedonostsev referred to the fact that he had neither the time nor the strength by then. “I’m busy during the day, and at night I’m so tired that I don’t have the strength to write about myself... True, in recent years, especially since the 70s, I have witnessed, and partly participated in, many important events and could have written down a lot of interesting things, but I never had time to do this, moreover, the more important the events, the more difficult it is to describe them, and in the last years of the past and in the first time of the new reign, everything that I saw produced such a strong excitement in me that I would not have the strength to carry a pen in my hand to tell some kind of chronicle. This same excitement, with heartache about many things, did not allow me to convey my impressions to anyone, of course, except for my wife, who, just like me, kept them deep in her soul” 7 ​​. As a result of this attitude of Pobedonostsev to his own memoirs, much in his personal life, in his spiritual world, remained his secret. In fact, what can be learned about Pobedonostsev’s life path from his own confessions scattered throughout his works and letters? “I was born in Moscow, in the family of Professor Moskovsky]. University. My father had 11 children, all of whom were raised by the labors of their father,” 8 - this is how Konstantin Petrovich began his short biography in a letter to Nicholas II. He could have added that his grandfather, Vasily Stepanovich (?–1805), was a priest: instead, he noted that he was “raised in a pious family, devoted to the Tsar and the Fatherland, hardworking” 9 . Konstantin's father, Pyotr Vasilyevich Pobedonostsev (1771–1843), was educated at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. In May 1797, he resigned from the clergy and entered the position of teacher at the gymnasium at Moscow University: at first he taught French here, then Russian eloquence. In 1807 P.V. Pobedonostsev became a master of philosophy and literary sciences. Then he began teaching Russian literature at the Alexander Institute of Noble Maidens. In 1811, he was elected a full member of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature at the Imperial Moscow University, and in March of the following year he was appointed adjunct of the department of verbal sciences at Moscow University. Pyotr Vasilyevich began giving lectures to students (on rhetoric and poetics) in September 1814, and at the end of 1826 he became an extraordinary professor. Writer I.A. Goncharov, who studied at the literature department of Moscow University in 1831–1834, wrote to A.N. Pypin on May 10, 1874: “Peter Vasilyevich Pobedonostsev was neither rude nor vindictive, as you say in your biography (V.G. Belinsky 10. - V.T.). He was a meek, good-natured man, but of an old age. He himself was terribly afraid of his superiors, he respected them unquestioningly, and when, it happened, Rector Dvigubsky, a professor like him, entered the classroom, Pobedonostsev stood in front of him, like a soldier in front of a general, hands at his sides, with timidity in his voice. And he himself demanded respect from the students as his due. The students answered the professors while sitting (then this had already become common), but he did not tolerate this. And only then (I even remember the name of the student Tsvetsinsky) he will say: “Get up, brother, get up!” But usually he didn’t go out of his way to address students.” 11 For his second marriage, Pyotr Vasilyevich was married to Elena Levasheva (1787–1867), a representative of an old noble family who, according to legend, descended from the German Christopher Karl Dol, who in the 20s. XIV century entered the service of the Pskov prince Alexander Mikhailovich (in 1325–1327, Grand Duke of Tver). His great-grandson Alexander Vikulovich was a Tver boyar and bore the nickname Lavash. His descendant Fyodor Vasilyevich Levashev in 1610 held the position of governor in Balakhma, and in 1612 he was an associate of Prince D.M. Pozharsky. In 1809, Peter and Elena Pobedonostsev had a son, Alexander 12, in 1810, a daughter, Varvara 13, around 1814–1815, a son, Dmitry 14, in 1816, Sergei 15, and in 1819, a daughter, Elizaveta 16. Konstantin was the youngest child in this large family: he was born on May 21, 1827. His mother turned 40 that year, and his father was 56 at the time of his birth. The Pobedonostsevs' house, where Konstantin spent his childhood, was located in Khlebny Lane, not far from the Church of Simeon the Stylite. The ringing of its bells became the melody of his childhood. This small church with a tented bell tower somehow miraculously survived the catastrophic events of the 20th century and now stands at the beginning of the new Arbat, reflecting with its discreet beauty the defiant ugliness of its buildings. The Pobedonostsevs raised all their children in a sublimely religious spirit, but they showed special care for their youngest son. Pyotr Vasilyevich could pay more attention to him, since on December 21, 1835, he resigned from service at the university at his own request. Konstantin Petrovich later recalled his childhood as a holiday. “The impressions of childhood have never been so strongly felt in my soul, my imagination has never been so clearly transferred to the distant, flourishing time of my youth,” he wrote on December 25, 1856, “as on the days of the great holidays of the Nativity of Christ and Holy Easter. These are holidays primarily for children, and on them the power of Christ’s words seems to be fulfilled: unless you are like children, you cannot enter into the kingdom of God...” 17. Konstantin Pobedonostsev received his primary education at home. It allowed him in 1841 to enter, bypassing the gymnasium, the Imperial School of Law, created on the initiative of M.M. Speransky and Prince P.G. Oldenburgsky specifically for preparing young people for the civil service “in terms of the judiciary.” The first charter of the School of Law was approved by Emperor Nicholas I on May 29, 1835, and on December 5 of the same year the official opening of this educational institution took place. On May 27, 1838, a new, revised and supplemented charter was adopted, confirming and developing the basic principles of its internal organization and activities. The charter of the School of Law prescribed that “this institution” should accept students “only from the class of the ancient hereditary Russian nobility, included in the sixth part of the genealogy book, as well as children of military ranks no lower than colonel, and civilians of the 5th class or state councilor.” It was assumed that people from such families would be fairly independent people in the public service and would not discredit themselves with bribery and other dishonest acts. Konstantin Pobedonostsev's father had the rank of state councilor: it was awarded to him upon his retirement as a reward for many years of impeccable service. Young men aged 12 to 17 years were accepted to study at the School of Law. The entire learning process lasted six years (from sixth to first grade) and was divided into two-year junior and four-year senior courses. The training program at the School combined the disciplines of a gymnasium and a university. She assumed that students who had gone through the entire training process would study gymnasium subjects and receive a university level of legal education. They had to study such legal sciences as the encyclopedia of law, the history of Russian legislation, Roman law, state law, civil law and legal proceedings, criminal law and legal proceedings, police law, financial legislation, etc. Professors from the Tsarskoye Selo (Alexandrovsky) Lyceum and from St. Petersburg University were invited to teach these sciences. During his studies at the Konstantin Pobedonostsev School of Law, civil law was read here by Alexander Ivanovich Kranichfeld (1812–1881) 18 , Roman law 19 and Latin literature by Vasily (Wilhelm) Vasilyevich Schneider (1793–1872) 20 . Paragraph 50 of the charter of 1838 provided that “pupils who completed a course at the School, in accordance with the success they showed both at the last test and at the two previous ones, are awarded by the Council the ranks of the 9th, 10th and 12th grades. Moreover, the behavior of the person released is strictly taken into account.” Graduates of the School of Law differed from students who graduated from universities not only in their aristocracy, but also in the brotherhood that they maintained throughout their subsequent lives. The motto of this legal fraternity was a line from a poem by Horace: “Quidquid agis prudenter agas et respice fmem (whatever you do, do it wisely and without losing sight of the goal).” Later, another motto was added to this motto: “Live honestly, do not offend anyone, give everyone their due.” On September 30, 1843, Pyotr Vasilyevich Pobedonostsev died. Konstantin lost not only his father and mentor, but also his guide in the first stages of his future bureaucratic career. On June 15, 1846, titular councilor Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who graduated from the School of Law, was assigned to the office of the 8th (Moscow) department of the Governing Senate. This department resolved legal disputes in civil cases coming from the provinces adjacent to Moscow. On July 12, 1846, he was appointed to the post of assistant secretary, and on November 19, he took over as junior secretary. On March 28, 1847, he was made a correcting secretary, and on May 15, a secretary, a position many young officials had been waiting for for years. On March 1, 1848, Konstantin Pobedonostsev was moved to the same position in the 7th (Moscow) department of the Senate; on March 22, he became the acting chief secretary. On August 12, he was assigned to the Ministry of Justice, and on September 15, 1848, he was appointed to the position of Chief Secretary of the 8th Department of the Senate: the official who took this position became a rather influential and prominent person. On December 23, 1849, Pobedonostsev was elevated to the rank of collegiate assessor, and exactly three years later he was awarded the rank of court councilor. At the end of December 1852, Pobedonostsev was instructed by an order from the Chief Prosecutor to check the protocols of the 8th Department of the Senate and take the journals of its meetings under constant surveillance. On March 24, 1853, he was appointed “head of one of the secretariats due to the illness of the chief secretary” 21, and on April 29 of the same year - correcting the position of chief secretary of the General Assembly of the Moscow Departments of the Senate 22; On December 25, 1854, he became a collegiate adviser. On August 21, 1856, Konstantin Pobedonostsev was entrusted with “checking the proof copies of the highest orders” 23, printed in the Moscow Senate printing house during his stay in Moscow on the occasion of the coronation of Emperor Alexander II. On May 27, 1858, Pobedonostsev was confirmed as chief secretary of the General Assembly of the Moscow Departments of the Senate, and on December 25 of the same year he was elevated to the rank of state councilor. Already at the very beginning of his clerical activity, Pobedonostsev, in the process of fulfilling the duties of his positions, began to study legal documents in order to write scientific works on Russian law: in 1858, his rather extensive article “Notes for the history of serfdom in Russia” 24 was published in the magazine “Russkiy Vestnik”; in the magazine "Athenaeus" - a review of books by D.I. Meyer “Essay on Russian bill law” and “Readings on Russian civil law” 25; Pobedonostsev published a whole series of articles on the history of Russian law in 1859. 26 In any case, by the end of the 50s. he was a well-known expert on Russian legislation in Moscow. Therefore, when in December 1858, the Faculty of Law of the Imperial Moscow University needed a teacher of civil law and judicial procedure (due to the fact that V. N. Nikolsky, who was filling the post of adjunct in the department of civil laws, was going on a business trip abroad), then the trustee of the Moscow educational district, Alexei Nikolaevich Bakhmetyev, invited him to accept “the title of an outside teacher of Russian civil law for the duration of the adjunct’s business trip.” Nikolsky" K.P. Pobedonostseva 27. Konstantin Petrovich agreed and on March 4, 1859 he was approved as Minister of Public Education in this rank. In 1859, Pobedonostsev defended his master's thesis “Towards the Reform of Civil Procedure” and the following year became the correcting position of extraordinary professor at the Faculty of Law in the department of civil laws and civil proceedings. While lecturing seven hours a week at Moscow University on civil law and civil procedure courses, 28 Pobedonostsev simultaneously continued to work in the 8th Department of the Government Senate. On November 19, 1860, he was entrusted with the task of the Minister of Public Education E.P. Kovalevsky to develop a project for transforming the “maritime judicial unit” for the Maritime Ministry. “I would like you to take a primary part in this useful matter” 29, wrote Evgraf Petrovich Pobedonostsev. On July 2, 1861, Konstantin Petrovich received an order from the main department of the Ministry of Justice “on a business trip to participate in the drafting of a new legal procedure in Russia” 30 . On September 17, 1861, the newspaper “Our Time” (No. 30) published a message that D.A. had been invited to the commission on judicial reform. Rovinsky, N.A. Butskovsky and K.P. Pobedonostsev as having sent the “best projects”. On November 8 of the same year, Konstantin Petrovich was sent to St. Petersburg “at the disposal of the Secretary of State for temporary work on the organization and transformation of the judicial department” 31. The very first meetings of the “Commission on Judicial Statutes” deeply disappointed him. In 1862, he wrote in his diary: “I enter in medias res of St. Petersburg clerical formalism and liberalism. Liberalism and vulgarity emanate from everywhere: I am convinced that it is not the gods who burn these pots and I am horrified by the general liberal frivolity” 32. Having attended a meeting of the united departments of the State Council on the issue of transforming legal proceedings on May 2, 1862, Pobedonostsev wrote the following remark in his diary: “It’s a pity to think what a meager supply of information the most active members have: a one-sided attitude to the subject, superficial views: not a single issue is discussed in depth. So, for example, no one knows how to explain the idea of ​​cassation and distinguish it from an appeal” 33. “The pallor of knowledge and legal ideas is amazing,” Konstantin Petrovich wrote in his diary after another meeting of the “Commission on Judicial Statutes.” - Poor Russia! And this is who transforms you” 34. The conclusion that he drew from his observations of the work of the highest state dignitaries brought him closer to the Slavophiles. “In one people one senses the power of thought and action,” he declared. “And at the top, in the government, it’s scary to even think about what’s going on.” Madmen and boys rule us - the good and honor of Russia are in their hands" 35 (emphasis added - V.T.). A.E. Nolde, who specifically investigated the issue of Pobedonostsev’s participation in the commission on judicial reform, considered it undeniable that he “had influence in the commission; they could not help but listen to him” due to his erudition, due to his ability to find a unique expression for his thoughts, due to his great knowledge of life practice” 36. The content of Pobedonostsev's numerous notes on various problems of judicial reform shows that among the members of the commission he was the most prepared for the role of developer and critic of bills in this area. Many of these notes were published in the multi-volume publication “Materials on judicial reform in Russia in 1864” 37. In the note “On Civil Proceedings,” which Pobedonostsev submitted in December 1861 to the commission for drawing up judicial statutes, he criticized a number of proposals from the drafters of the new statute of civil proceedings. Pobedonostsev considered the main drawback of the civil process operating in Russia at that time to be the soulless formalism that permeated it to the core, which made it difficult to consider cases and prevented their correct resolution. The dead forms of the judicial process, in his opinion, turned away young and fresh forces from judicial activity, and yet the need for the creation of a permanent class of judicial figures in Russia was felt more acutely than anywhere else. “Neither in the courts, nor among the judiciary,” Pobedonostsev noted in his note, “do we have a repository of judicial customs and judicial doctrine, do we not find judicial authorities for guidance and guidance and that internal discipline that, developing within the boundaries of the class, gives strength to knowledge, solidity of opinion, order of discussion and, educating those who are new, forms from them not only workers, but living figures and teachers” 38. At the present time in Russia, the persons on whose behalf the court verdict comes, Pobedonostsev pointed out, are in the hands of half-educated clerks and chancellery officials; They do not see or hear the litigants and look at the case they are deciding through paper. Therefore, he objected to the plan of dividing legal proceedings into a general procedure and an abbreviated one: the general procedure (as it was conceived and partly implemented in the current legislation) gave preference to the written form of the trial, weakening the importance of verbal competition; abbreviated - reduced the process to verbal explanations and completely eliminated written forms. According to Pobedonostsev, the desired goal of judicial reform could be achieved only if the center of the judicial process was recognized as a verbal explanation, preceded by written preparation; verbal competition in a trial should take place in live speech, and not be reduced to reading notes. All proceedings and ultimately the decision must be based on the data that the parties present in court. For appellate proceedings, he believed it was possible to soften the requirement for the parties to attend the court hearing. Assessing Pobedonostsev’s note “On Civil Proceedings,” A.E. Nolde noted that it “testifies to the author’s very clear understanding of both the shortcomings of the order of the process that existed in his time, and the radical formulation of what is desirable.” 39 1861 brought Pobedonostsev another appointment, which, as he later admitted, decided his fate “fatally” - he was asked to teach legal sciences to the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich. For two years, Konstantin Petrovich lectured the Tsarevich on jurisprudence, Russian state law and civil law 40. Prince V.P. Meshchersky, who met Pobedonostsev in 1863, wrote about him in his memoirs: “He made a very nice impression on me with his original, cosmic mind, constantly merging with good nature and gaiety, his simplicity and fascinating speech and erudition. Those were the days of the wonderful spring of his political life. Called to teach Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich, he devoted himself wholeheartedly to this task, for he found in his Student such grateful and rich soil for instilling thoughts and knowledge into His young soul. The life of K.P. was filled with this pleasure from the responsiveness and talent of the Tsarevich. Pobedonostsev at that time, and it gave him so much light, so much benevolence, so much freshness and cheerfulness in his thoughts and in the manifestation of his feelings” 41. In the spring of 1862, Pobedonostsev returned to Moscow and resumed teaching at Moscow University: he began to lecture only on civil proceedings, since V.N. Nikolsky had already arrived from abroad and taught a course in civil law. The manuscript department of the Russian National Library preserves a handwritten copy of Pobedonostsev’s lectures on civil proceedings, which he read at the Faculty of Law of Moscow University from January 15 to March 21, 1863. As A.E. correctly noted. Nolde, “this course was taught just in the most transitional era from the old order to the new, when it was already clear that the old process would not exist for a long time, and the new one was still in the form of an incompletely finished project. Therefore, the lecturer was constrained in choosing material and faced a very difficult task” 42. Pobedonostsev found a successful version of the lecture course: he devoted it mainly to expounding the beginnings of the “new” process that existed at that time in Western European countries. He described the old legal process, which was still in effect in Russia at that time, briefly and with an explanation of all its shortcomings. “An excellent course in civil proceedings, clear, concise, accurate and instructive, was read to us by the then Chief Prosecutor of the Eighth Department of the Senate, Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev,” 43, wrote A.F. in his memoirs. Horses. He noted that Pobedonostsev’s lectures were very informative, although rather abstract and “theoretical.” According to him, “this, however, was explained by the fact that the lectures were given at the crossroads between the old and new order, which was established by the reform of 1864. They also, oddly enough, had a complete absence of a critical element and the skepticism to which Pobedonostsev was so inclined in his future activities. Pobedonostsev spoke in a very monotonous, colorless, dull and somehow completely indifferent voice, as if he was fulfilling a boring duty. This also amazed me later, when I heard in various commissions and in the State Council his strong, peculiarly eloquent words, which attracted everyone’s attention. A figure with a pale, thin face towered over the pulpit. Pobedonostsev, preceded by literary fame and fame as an experienced civilist, inspired us with respect, but did not enliven us and left us indifferent to his subject” 44. On September 18, 1862, Pobedonostsev was appointed chief prosecutor of the 2nd department of the 6th department of the Senate. In the summer of 1863, he accompanied his student, Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich, on a trip to Russia. On September 24 of the same year, he was appointed chief prosecutor of the 8th department of the Senate and elevated to the rank of full state councilor, corresponding to the military rank of major general. Konstantin Petrovich spent the autumn of 1863 and the entire next year in Moscow in work and thought. “I live so quietly and monotonously that if you could see, you would be drawn twice as much out of your bustle into the peace of Moscow. In the morning - work in the Senate, in the evening - work at home, but besides work and books - and sometimes living people. Time doesn’t go, but runs...,” he reported in November 1864 to A.F. Tyutcheva. After speaking about himself, Pobedonostsev described to Anna Fedorovna his impressions of what was happening around him: “Why are there no people at all? Why does everyone seem so small, there is no strength in anyone, there is no one to grab hold of - there is only someone through whom to receive awards and government money and different degrees of power! Why has power itself lost its enormous size and is getting smaller and smaller every day? Or – for a contemporary there are no great people? If only you knew how I sometimes want to meet and see a great man, a man with strength, with whom to merge, with whom to work hard together! No - no - everywhere you see only the shine of the official gilding of the suit, everywhere you hear the ringing - of official money. – Or, by the will of God, a time has come upon us when, they say, great things happen by themselves. I don’t know - I don’t know - but I often feel afraid of what else I will have to see and experience. Have you experienced this feeling – for yourself and for others! A person does not live as he should, he weakens, is faint-hearted, forgets himself, lies to himself, that is, he says one thing and does another - and, believing in the love of God, he knows that punishment awaits him, that is, an event will appear that - despite him - will show him the truth, with pain and sadness will restore the balance of forces in him, will shake him not only in thought, not in feeling and fantasy, but at the very root of life, with the truth of God. This is how you sometimes become fearful for the future when you see in the present signs of decay and weakness and untruth. There are no strong people who would serve as representatives of the idea - but you see how, in the lack of people and ideas, different opinions penetrate into the mass and are unconsciously grafted onto it and fight one against the other in a secret struggle, and none of them takes a definite form, in none of them, with all the persistence, even with bitterness, is that deep faith in the idea that creates and reworks heard. But this struggle, the silent struggle of opinions, of course, has its significance and, mixing the elements, prepares the ground - for some unknown event, prepares the field for some unknown force that will yet appear. This is why sometimes it becomes scary to live, and from this fear we can only derive this word again: “Lord God.” On the night of April 11-12, 1865, the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich, died in Nice. Having received news of this sad event the next day, Konstantin Petrovich immediately wrote to A.F. Tyutcheva: “Oh, what grief - Anna Fedorovna! What a bitter and terrible grief! Such melancholy, such darkness attacked my soul - I lived the whole Bright Week in agony, from one telegram to another - and still there was hope - and today the terrible news took away everything, shattered everything - our dear prince is no more - and every minute you see him as if alive in front of you. And yesterday we prayed and cried - on Kremlin Square, in a national prayer service, with all the shrines of Moscow - and I left the square with a quiet feeling of hope - but God was not pleased with sinful prayer. We knew that she was a sinner, and we prayed: God! raise up a righteous man so that he may pray to You. But, apparently, no righteous person was found, and God’s fate fell on us... I don’t know how to say who and what I’m mourning. Whether it is his young life, his lost strength and happiness that has just blossomed, or his dear, dear fatherland - I cannot separate one from the other. But the thought of the future blows over me with coldness and fear. Everyone is sad, everyone is quiet and despondent from the terrible news, but we, who knew him, feel most strongly what the loss of our prince means to everyone. I believe, I feel with all my soul that God’s destiny is being accomplished, that this hour is a fatal hour in the destinies of Russia. There was hope for him, and in each of us who knew him, this hope came to life all the more, the darker the horizon became, the stronger the dark forces began to press, the more bleak the situation of our destinies seemed. There was hope in him - we saw opposition in him, we were looking for another pole in him, and our eyes got used to turning to Nice, to him and to the Empress, from the darkness that was gathering more and more on our northern point. We knew him - and the people knew him and hoped for him and unconsciously rested their hope for a better future on him. And God took this hope from us - what will happen to us? May His holy will be done!” By 1865, Pobedonostsev’s range of official responsibilities had expanded to such an extent that he no longer had the time or energy to teach at Moscow University: Konstantin Petrovich decided to leave teaching. On June 1, 1865, he turned to the rector of the university, Professor S.I. Barshev with the following letter: “Dear Sir Sergius Ivanovich! Having taken upon himself in 1859 the responsibility of teaching civil law and judicial procedure to students of the Faculty of Law at Moscow University, and then, upon returning from abroad, prof. Nikolsky, limiting myself to teaching only civil proceedings, I assigned myself as a duty and charged with honor, to the best of my ability and ability, to perform this duty for the benefit of the listeners. Meanwhile, my studies in the Senate service expanded and increased to the point that for the last two years, with great difficulty and effort, not without damage to my health, I continued teaching, which, and due to my own zeal for the benefit of Moscow University, it was not easy for me to refuse. Now my Senate studies have become even more intense and my health has weakened to the point that I, even with heartfelt sorrow, see the decisive impossibility of reconciling the duty of a teacher with these studies, which is why I am forced to deprive myself of the pleasure and honor of continuing to teach. In informing Your Excellency about this, I consider it my duty to add that if subsequently the state of my affairs and health would allow me to resume teaching, and the Moscow University would need my services, then I will put myself at its disposal in full readiness. At the same time, I humbly ask you, Gracious Sovereign, to express to the University Council my request that, in respect of my 6 years of work in the service of the university, I will be allowed, in the future, to use books and magazines in the university library on the same basis as I have used until now” 45 . On June 10, 1865, the Council of Moscow University considered Pobedonostsev’s letter and decided: “Notify the university librarian of the admission of the actual state councilor K.P. Pobedonostsev to use books from the university library, on the same basis on which he had hitherto used it, and to inform the university board about the termination of his support from the beginning of the vacation period. Express K.P. Pobedonostsev regrets that circumstances do not allow him to continue teaching at the university, which brought so much benefit to students” 46. On December 2, 1865, at a meeting of the Faculty of Law of Moscow University, it was unanimously decided to nominate Pobedonostsev for election as an honorary member of Moscow University. By an overwhelming majority of votes (26 to 3), the university council decided to award him this title. Konstantin Petrovich was pleased to learn about such a high assessment of his merits in the teaching field. In a letter to Rector Barshev, he expressed “ardent heartfelt gratitude to the entire venerable class of Moscow University”, which elected him as an honorary member. “An ancient and close connection,” he wrote further, “from birth connects me with Moscow University, where my father occupied a professorship for 35 years, and therefore, since I can remember, I have been surrounded by names and events and legends of university life. This connection has strengthened and become even more palpable to me since I was unexpectedly called to serve Moscow University as a teacher. Not allowing myself to judge highly the benefits that I dreamed of bringing to the university with my teaching to the best of my ability, I am glad that my zeal for this matter did not go unnoticed, as evidenced by the current flattering university resolution. “I truly consider it a great honor for me to be considered a member of the university class and I will try by all means so that, as much as possible, my honorary title is actually justified” 47 . Having said goodbye to Moscow University, Konstantin Petrovich went at the beginning of July 1865 to rest at the estate of his classmate at the School of Law D.A. Engelhardt, which was located in the village of Polykovichi, Mogilev province 48. Here he again met his older brother's daughter Catherine. This meeting turned out to be fatal for Pobedonostsev: having long been secretly in love with Catherine, he opened up to her and learned that he could count on reciprocity. On July 15, joyful Konstantin Petrovich wrote to A.F. Tyutcheva: “The kindest Anna Fedorovna! How much goodwill and heartfelt sympathy you have shown me, that without fear I hasten to you to tell you the great joy that the Lord has sent me. Oh, rejoice with me and bless my joy. Since yesterday I have been the groom, and my bride is the one about whom I have not stopped thinking with trepidation for ten years - telling my deep thought to God alone... I felt, however, that I was necessary for her, that her heart completely believed in me alone, that she relied and relied on me alone - but could she love me - that’s what I did not know and could not know. I arrived here on the 4th of July and had an anxious whole week! We both felt that we could no longer talk about anything calmly and freely until one thing was explained between us and a word was said about that one thing. The situation became unbearable, and with fear I decided to tell everything to my Katyusha - and then there was another whole day of anxiety and excitement, and finally - I heard the word that my soul was waiting for. And my joy appeared before everyone. Oh, to what a wide place the Lord has brought me out of narrowness and sorrow and alienation! What can I tell you about her - and you won’t take my word for it, but, if God willing, you will someday see her and recognize her, you will love her - everyone loves her, who knows... But you will believe how new life seems to me now - and what joy there is in my soul. I remember how glad my dear, beloved Nikolai Alexandrovich (Tsarevich - V.T.) would be to hear about this - he so often told me: “How I would like you to get married - why are you not married?” And now, remembering these words, we pray for him fervently with dear Katya, because, for me, she too knew and loved him. Rejoice for me, kind, dear Anna Feodorovna, I have seen so much goodness from your soul. Rejoice in the joy with which “the friend of the bridegrooms rejoices when he hears his voice, and stands and hears him,” 49 and God bless you with all peace and all joy. - Tell me a word from yourself and about yourself - my address: the provincial city of Mogilev on the Dnieper, in the name of Alexander Andreevich Engelhardt. - The Lord is with you. Remember in love and in peace with all your soul the devoted and grateful.” Ekaterina Alexandrovna Engelhardt was born on February 4, 1848 50 in the family of headquarters captain and court adviser Alexander Andreevich Engelhardt (1822 - not earlier than 1880) and Sofia Nikanorovna (nee Ogon-Doganovskaya). She was therefore 20 years 9 months and 17 days younger than her husband. Subsequently, Ekaterina recalled: “I knew my husband from the age of 5, and he was then about 20 (actually about 26. - V.T.). He was at the School of Law. My father’s younger brother was his friend and often came to us with him” 51. E.V. Saburova, who saw Pobedonostsev’s young wife, wrote in her memoirs: “A very beautiful young figure... Very graceful, with magnificent curls... I saw for the first time and immediately noted Ekaterina Aleksandrovna Pobedonostseva, who had recently just married Konstantin Petrovich]. Her appearance was picturesque and original. The legend of her marriage to a famous professor at Moscow University was everyone's favorite conversation. She was raised by him; it seems that he was a guardian and from childhood supervised her entire development” 52. The death of Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich made his brother Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich heir to the throne. In August 1865, Pobedonostsev was invited to teach law as his mentor 53 . “The new crown prince, having heard good things about me from his late brother, wished to have me with him to teach. I could not evade and moved to St. Petersburg in 1866 to live and serve,” 54 - this is how Pobedonostsev later described the new turn in his destiny. Konstantin Petrovich's mother was left alone in Moscow in her family abode in Khlebny Lane. But she did not live long after the departure of her youngest son: in September 1867, Elena Pobedonostseva died. “She was like a shrine in our house,” Pobedonostsev wrote to Anna Fedorovna Aksakova (Tyutcheva), “like a living grace sent by God as a blessing. Always meek, quiet, clear, always in prayer for us all, she burned like a candle before the Lord God - like a candle and went out, in the 81st year of her life, in an instant, one clear morning... She gathered everyone around her, and now, without her, the old house, where everything was so warm, and clear, and full, stands empty and cold without her - and God knows how long it will stand.”55 On February 12, 1868, he described how Pobedonostsev lived at this time, what moods he carried within himself, in a letter to Ekaterina Fedorovna, the daughter of the poet Tyutchev: “I thank you from my heart, kindest Katerina Fedorovna, that you remembered about me and wrote to me. And I would answer you immediately if the letter came in a quiet moment. But these last days have been days of fatigue for me. You know this St. Petersburg unhealthy fatigue from emptiness and coercion, when the day passes and you ask yourself: what did I do? Who and what did I talk to? What was I thinking? And I am so impressionable that sometimes one dinner that I have to attend fills the whole day with fatigue - in the morning from anticipation, in the evening from the remaining bad taste. You won’t believe how little freshness and interest there is today in everything you see and hear - it seems you’ve heard it all, seen it all so many times before - and it’s always the same. In general, it seems that I can’t get tired from trips, because I have very few of them, and maybe that’s why they tire me so much when they happen. As for my Katya, she almost never goes out at all - travel is beyond our means, and it tires her very much - she has not yet looked around in society and is unlikely to master the art of talking about everything and with everyone - she only knows how to talk together and does not yet understand the possibility of raising and lowering the loops of small talk... What I do here officially, I don’t even know how to properly explain to myself. I have no faith in the work that I am obliged to do here, and that is why my position weighs on me. You can only rest in the fact that it was not I who wanted this - but I was called. But it's like wandering through the desert. And of my own free will, I am now busy printing my book on civil law, which I hope to publish soon. Then I will begin to print the translation of “Imitation,” which is already completely finished. I still don’t like St. Petersburg - it’s stuffy in the air here, very stuffy: it seems like everything here has shrunk into pieces - business, people, manners, and forms of community life. I look back at Moscow - and you won’t believe how sadly it is - I still can’t get used to the idea that my old nest is empty and cold. But God has not yet allowed my wife and I to make a new nest, and sometimes it seems to us that we are wandering - to the promised land, and the soul asks for the same faith that Abraham had when he waited until his death for the fulfillment of the word of God! By “book on civil law,” Pobedonostsev meant the first volume of his “Course of Civil Law”: it was published at the end of March 1868. 56 On April 13 of the same year, the Faculty of Law of Moscow University considered the application of the extraordinary professor V.N. Nikolsky “about the scientific merits of the new work of honorary member of Moscow University K.P. Pobedonostsev”, on the basis of § 113 of the University Charter, “unanimously decided to petition the Council to award Mr. Pobedonostsev the degree of Doctor of Law in the Department of Civil Law” 57 '. On the same day, the University Council approved Pobedonostsev in this degree. Five days later (April 18), Rector Barshev sent the corresponding diploma to the new Doctor of Civil Law 58. Konstantin Petrovich responded on April 24 with a letter of gratitude: “Dear sir, Sergius Ivanovich! Having received the most respectable letter from Your Excellency, and the attached diploma for the title of Doctor of Civil Law, I hasten to convey to you my sincere gratitude for your good disposition expressed in that letter. At the same time, I humbly ask you to testify to the University Council the feeling of my deep gratitude for the honor that Moscow University has bestowed on me, and which is more sensitive than many other awards, not only for my pride, but also for my heart, which has long been attached to Moscow University. Without attributing this honor to scientific merits, which I do not dare to recognize as corresponding to it, I attribute it to the attention of Moscow University to the zeal with which I tried to serve it for its benefit, and in which I would not want to yield to any of its venerable figures. In the new title with which I have been awarded, I will have a new motivation for work, which, may God help me to continue, to the best of my ability, for the benefit of science” 59. Just over two months earlier (February 19, 1868), Pobedonostsev was appointed a senator present in the 2nd Department of the Senate and elevated to the rank of Privy Councilor. On November 28 of the same year, he was transferred to the Civil Cassation Department. In 1871 Konstantin Petrovich became close to F.I. Tyutchev. On September 22, Fyodor Ivanovich wrote to Ekaterina Fedorovna: “Yesterday, my daughter, Pobedonostsev and I had a long and intimate conversation about you, he treats you very warmly and complains about your silence. It's like he's about to text you. I see him and his very sweet and smart wife quite often” 60. Pobedonostsev had long been friends with the Tyutchev family, especially with Anna Fedorovna. He and Fyodor Ivanovich were brought together by an equally critical attitude towards contemporary Russian society and towards the policies of Emperor Alexander II; they both considered it alien to Russian interests. In one of his letters (dated December 1, 1870), Tyutchev wrote that Russia is dominated by “absolutism, which includes the most distinctive feature of all - contemptuous and stupid hatred of everything Russian, an instinctive, so to speak, misunderstanding of everything national” 61. In letters to the Tyutchev sisters, Pobedonostsev did not hide his negative attitude towards the way Alexander II carried out reforms. “And here we are,” he wrote to Anna Fedorovna on December 14, 1864, “you won’t believe how tired we are of transformations, how we have lost faith in them, how we would like to stop at something, so that we can finally know which wheel is turning and in which place which worker is standing. .. Really, sometimes you can imagine that you live among children who imagine that they are adults: judge how difficult it is. And how often in this entire market of projects, in all this noise of cheap and shallow delights, do you remember the words of John: “The idols of the pagans are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have eyes and do not see, they have ears and do not hear, they have feet and do not walk, they have a tongue and do not speak. Like them are all who trust in them and worship them.” In this idol market, who will stand up, who will emerge strong, to break the idol and proclaim the true God? Every idol has its own priests, who protect it and themselves together with it.” “Everything that I see that is happening around oppresses my soul,” Pobedonostsev poured out in a letter to Ekaterina Fedorovna Tyutcheva on October 18, 1866. “Such a process of decomposition is taking place around me that sometimes fear attacks the soul and I want to say: enough. What else will you have to see, go through and experience in this crazy, senseless, vulgar human rebellion” 62. February 1880 marked the 25th anniversary of Alexander II's accession to the imperial throne. Konstantin Petrovich had the opportunity to express his opinion about the results of his reign. “And this 25th anniversary is fatal, and its man is fatal for unfortunate Russia. God is with him, God will judge whether he is guilty or not, only in his hands the power entrusted to him by God crumbled and was disgraced, and his kingdom, perhaps through no fault of his, became the kingdom of lies and mammon, and not truth,” 63 he wrote to E.F. Tyutcheva. While Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich was alive, Pobedonostsev pinned his hopes only on him for the emergence of a truly national state in Russia - state power serving Russian interests. Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich did not initially inspire much optimism in Pobedonostsev. Konstantin Petrovich, with great reluctance, set off in the second half of 1866 to accompany His Highness on the traditional trip around Russia for the heir to the throne. But communication with Alexander Alexandrovich gradually convinced Pobedonostsev that there was hope in him. In 1867, he wrote about Tsarevich Anna Fedorovna Aksakova (Tyutcheva): “Comparing the previous time, from his groom’s time, I don’t recognize him. He has become clearer, freer, and his soul is truly direct and honest - you can become attached to him. His heart is Russian.” In 1868, Pobedonostsev informed Anna Fedorovna: “On Mondays and Saturdays I visit the crown princess (Maria Feodorovna - V.T.) - she is very kind and simple by nature; but, my God, they live like children in the desert, like sheep wandering without a shepherd, and sometimes it hurts my heart to look at them.” Having completed teaching jurisprudence to Tsarevich Alexander Alexandrovich, Pobedonostsev did not stop communicating with him. In letters to His Highness, Konstantin Petrovich regularly recommended this or that book for him to read. Moreover, the choice of literature was not random. Thus, in a letter dated October 28, 1869, Pobedonostsev recommended that the heir to the throne read Neil Popov’s book “Russia and Serbia” 64; on November 24 of the same year, he advised Alexander Alexandrovich to read the book by the historian M.P. Pogodin on the Baltic Sea issue 65, October 5, 1873 Pobedonostsev informed the Grand Duke that he had sent him to Crimea Melnikov-Pechersky’s novel “In the Woods” 66 published in the magazine “Russian Messenger”. On May 14, 1876, the future Russian Tsar received a recommendation from his mentor to read N.S.’s story. Leskov “At the End of the World” 67, and in a letter dated October 12, 1876, Konstantin Petrovich advised the Tsarevich to get acquainted with another remarkable work. “I take the liberty of sending Your Highness a book. I don’t know if you like to read in English, but I ask you to diligently read the first, beautifully written article about the German fleet in this book. It is very instructive and interesting - precisely in the present circumstances, it will show how much they managed to do there with funds that are much less than what we spent” 68. In addition to recommendations to read this or that book, Pobedonostsev often gave advice on managing the Russian state in letters to the future emperor. “The whole secret of the Russian order and success is at the top, in the person of the supreme power,” he instructed Alexander Alexandrovich on October 12, 1876. “Do not think that the authorities subordinate to you will limit themselves and put them to work, if you do not limit yourself and put them to work. Where you dissolve yourself, the whole earth will dissolve. Your work will move everyone to work, your relaxation and luxury will flood the whole earth with relaxation and luxury - this is what the union with the earth in which you were born means, and the power that is destined for you from God. Do not believe when someone tells you that everything will go by itself in the state, and that you can calm down on this or that provision or law. This is not true. Perhaps the time will come when flattering people - those who love to lull monarchs by telling them one pleasant thing - will begin to assure you that if only the Russian state is given a so-called constitution in the Western style, everything will go smoothly and rationally, and the government can completely calm down. This is a lie, and God forbid that a true Russian person lives to see the day when this lie can come true” 69 (emphasis added - V.T.). “It is my deep conviction,” Pobedonostsev inspired Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich in 1877, “that in Russia we must value most of all the moral trust of the people, their faith in the government. The people become despondent and sad when they do not feel the ruling power - my God, how important this is! In Russia we have no other driving force other than the unity of the people with the government in 70 moral consciousness” 70 . On January 1, 1872, Pobedonostsev was appointed a member of the State Council for the Department of Civil and Spiritual Affairs, i.e. got the opportunity, as he wrote about himself, “to express out loud to everyone his opinions on state issues - opinions that he never hid from anyone” 71 . True, Konstantin Petrovich quickly became disillusioned with the State Council. According to the testimony of those around him, he repeatedly spoke sharply negatively about this institution: for example, he stated that it should be locked and the key thrown into the Neva, or he admitted that he was tired of listening to chatter at meetings of the State Council. In one of the letters of 1878 to E.F. Tyutcheva Pobedonostsev wrote that members of the State Council “sell the truth of life and its solid principles - to the most vulgar arguments of liberal principles, and every time they look around - if Europe would not consider us barbarians!” According to him, they are “ready to destroy anything, refuse anything, accept anything, as long as they shine with the gloss of the European stock exchange!” 72. In 1880 he complained to Ekaterina Feodorovna how hard it was for him “to sit among people who have renounced traditions, who have lost their state meaning, who only want to throw off the burden of responsibility, to let the most important functions of state power go somewhere into free space - into the so-called society.” And “all these tendencies of relaxed egoism,” Pobedonostsev stated, “are covered up and justified by phrases, formulas of worn-out liberalism” 73 . The professor, famous for his critical mind and broad education, evoked involuntary respect among members of the State Council. A.F. Koni later recalled that most of the speakers at State Council meetings constantly looked towards Pobedonostsev, “greedily looking for in the dry features of his ascetic face a sign of approval or sympathy for what they said, imitating the views of ... the “Grand Inquisitor,” as they called him in absentia” 74. On April 24, 1880, Emperor Alexander II appointed K.P. Pobedonostsev as Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, while leaving him in the positions of senator and member of the State Council. The chief prosecutor's functions included control over the appointments of certain persons to episcopal and metropolitan departments, as well as to professorships in religious educational institutions. Pobedonostsev thus became the de facto leader of the Russian Orthodox church organization. The new, higher position did not please him. “Oh, power is truly a terrible thing, and those who desire it do not know what they are saying,” he exclaimed in a letter to E.F. Tyutcheva, sadly noting at the same time: “I always looked at her as a disaster, knowing that in power you have to lose freedom and be a servant to everyone. I am supported by faith in the holiness of my calling and hope in living forces” 75. The accession to the imperial throne of Alexander III after the assassination of Alexander II on March 1, 1881 strengthened Pobedonostsev’s role in the political life of the Russian Empire, although he remained in his previous positions and was only promoted in rank: on April 17, 1883, he became an actual Privy Councilor. For a whole quarter of a century (a huge period at that time), Pobedonostsev became one of the most influential figures in the Russian political elite, and this despite the fact that he remained alien to this elite itself. Over the decades of living in St. Petersburg, he was never able to become close to its dignitary world. Moreover, the evil nature of this city began to be felt even more acutely by him. “Bedlam and the center of depravity for all of Russia” 76 – these are the words he called St. Petersburg in a letter to S.A. Rachinsky, written on June 30, 1882. V.V. Rozanov, who personally knew Pobedonostsev and well understood his loneliness among the dignitaries of the empire, tried to explain this phenomenon and came to a very original conclusion. “For anyone who had the slightest touch with him,” he wrote shortly after Pobedonostsev’s death, “there can be no doubt that it is impossible to place him and leave him in the ranks of truly dark people in politics, like the famous Austrian Metternich: they had some kind of innate uniform, some kind of uniform of mentality that repels humanity from them. “Not ours, not ours!” - there is an exclamation over their coffin, fatal, the most painful, if it comes from the lips of humanity. Over Pobedonostsev’s coffin I would like to say another, conciliatory word. I know how everyone who did not know him personally will rear up against this word and simply cannot judge by this ignorance. He had just put on his uniform, and from the outside, at that. And although Pobedonostsev nervously hated society and the public and in this regard sometimes uttered words of amazing audacity, but already by their temperament and in general by the absence in him of guile, cunning, duplicity, pretense, ingratiation, by this free, beautiful spirit in him “he was ours!”... Flesh of the flesh of society, literature, I will say an extraordinary thing - the streets... There are times that a child of the street, a street the wolf cub, by a good fairy or an angel of his destiny, is transported to the palace, to the aristocracy, to the golden and gilded circles; and all his life he stands sullenly among them, bites, despises, fights. I definitely and definitely know that he always and openly despised the gilded environment around him, this bureaucracy of ours. to all their ingratiation... But the fairy separated the wolf cub early and from the street: seeing her only from afar, like dirt sticking to the wheels of his carriage, he despised her too with a distant, uncomprehending, abstract contempt” 77 . The political significance of Pobedonostsev was slightly shaken after the death of Emperor Alexander III and the accession to the throne of Nicholas II. However, the new emperor, just like the previous one, was a student of Pobedonostsev: for two years and eight months (from October 11, 1885 to June 10, 1888), he listened to his lectures on legal sciences and instructions on politics, read every Friday for two hours in the Gatchina Palace. And he listened, as Konstantin Petrovich himself noted, “with interest and liveliness” 78. Therefore, in general, Pobedonostsev’s position in the dignitary hierarchy of the Russian Empire remained very influential under the new emperor. But the wise old man understood that the government in the new conditions was powerless to stop the course of events that was leading Russia to a revolutionary catastrophe. “What will society and the government live to see,” he wrote on July 19, 1900 in a letter to S.A. Rachinsky. “It’s amazing to think how both of them became obsessed with serving the idol of freedom.” They are horrified by anarchy and anarchists, but they say: what to do - freedom! And it doesn’t occur to me that this is not a struggle between ideas and ideas, but a struggle against an epidemic, against an infection that covers thousands and millions of souls, spread by the same indisputable freedom - freedom of all kinds of action, all kinds of speech, and especially freedom of the press: and it takes your breath away when you think about unfortunate Russia" 79 . With each year of the new reign, Pobedonostsev had less and less hope that Russia would be able to avoid disaster. In December 1904, he shared his sad premonitions with P.I. Bartenev: “God took away people’s minds. In 1881 one could have hoped - now there is no one to rely on” 80. “I feel that a maddened crowd is carrying me with it into the abyss that I see in front of me, and there is no salvation” 81, wrote Konstantin Petrovich on December 25, 1904 to S.Yu. Witte. The publication on October 17, 1905 of the “Manifesto on the Improvement of Public Order,” which made it the duty of the government “to grant the population the unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of actual personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and union,” showed Pobedonostsev that all his fears began to be justified. On October 19, he resigned from the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. After this, remaining only a member of the State Council, Konstantin Petrovich no longer took any noticeable part in the political life of Russian society. It was time to take stock of his life. In 1906, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Volyn, who had repeatedly experienced the wrath of Pobedonostsev at the time when he was chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, considered it necessary, in response to “the impudent antics of the newspapers,” to express to him “his high respect and gratitude.” In a letter to Pobedonostsev, which was published in the newspaper “Volyn Diocesan Gazette” (1906. No. 24), Bishop Anthony wrote: “It pleased the providence of God to place me in such positions in relation to people who enjoyed your trust that I often incurred your displeasure; In addition, my views on the church, on monasticism, on the church school and on the patriarchate could not meet with your sympathy and approval; however, despite all this, I could never say reproachful or hostile words towards your personality: my respect for you was so unshakable. I honored you as a Christian, I honored you as a patriot, I honored you as a scientist, I honored you as a worker. I have always been aware that the enlightenment of the people in unity with the church, begun in 1884, exclusively thanks to you and vigorously supported until the last day of your service, is a great, holy, eternal work, all the more exalting your merit to the church, the throne and the fatherland, since in this matter you were morally almost alone... You raised the light of the Divine Bible over literate Russia, spread the word of God at a cheap price in all dialects Orthodox tribes of Russia and other distant countries... You convinced the best of our late kings to order the construction of Orthodox churches in their Orthodox architectural splendor, and not in the ugly appearance of heretical churches... You knew how to appreciate the devouring zeal for God under the peasants' zipuns, under the beshmets of teachers from baptized foreigners. You sought out zealots of the faith and the Church and were not ashamed to learn from the humble workers of the province - Rachinsky and Ilminsky - at a time when the Tsar of Russia had you as his chief adviser, and Europe knew you as the most enlightened professor and public figure... You not only served, you fought a good fight. You were not, however, a dry fanatic of the state or church idea: you were a man of a kind and forgiving heart, like all three sovereigns whom you served. Poor people, or sorrowful in spirit, people who stumbled found a heartfelt response in your heart. You did not retreat in the face of human fears, but you often retreated in the face of tears. Perhaps they even sometimes sinned against principle, submitting to pity, but they did not sin against the Lord Jesus Christ. Contrary to the statement of our despicable enemies, the form and letter of the law were not the highest argument for you: an ardent and convincing request persuaded you to confiscate in the name of mercy. What was especially valuable about you was that you believed in human repentance and correction: in 1883 you forgave one repentant revolutionary seminarian, and in 1898 he was a bishop, and there were many such cases during your service.”82 After Pobedonostsev was appointed Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, he was given the use of a state-owned house at 62 Liteiny Prospekt. The last years of his life passed in this rather large (40 rooms) mansion. He received writers, scientists, composers, artists, statesmen, and ordinary visitors here 83. Children of his good friends or just neighbors on the street, or students of Ekaterina Alexandrovna, who taught at the St. Vladimir Women's Church Teachers' School, opened in 1889 in memory of the 900th anniversary of the baptism of Rus' under St. Vladimir with the aim of training teachers for parochial schools of the St. Petersburg diocese, often came to visit the Pobedonostsevs. The Pobedonostsevs never had their own children (much to the chagrin of both husband and wife). On June 9, 1897, someone dropped a girl at the door of their apartment. The Pobedonostsevs baptized her, calling her Martha, and took her into their care. On April 11, 1902, Konstantin Petrovich received the highest permission to adopt Martha with the rights of hereditary nobility 84. Fate saved Pobedonostsev from the difficult fate of watching the death of Russia, which he both foresaw and predicted. He died on March 10, 1907, two months and eleven days short of his eightieth birthday. His ashes were buried at the church in the name of the Entry into the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, located on the territory of the St. Vladimir Church and Teachers' School for Women. In 1932, his wife Ekaterina Aleksandrovna Engelhardt 85 was buried next to him. In Russian society of the late XIX - early XX centuries. There was a strong opinion about the omnipotence of Pobedonostsev, about his immense power, comparable to the power of the emperor himself. This opinion had some basis. Konstantin Petrovich indeed played a decisive role in the appearance of the manifesto of Alexander III of April 29, 1881, which confirmed the inviolability of the unlimited power of the monarch and thus rejected attempts to introduce elements of representative government in Russia proposed by a group of dignitaries led by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Count M.T. Loris-Melikov. Actually, the dismissal of the latter from this position, as well as his assistant - Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs N.A. Milyutin, was carried out by Alexander III on the advice of Chief Prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostseva. The subsequent appointment to the post of Minister of Internal Affairs of Count N.P. Ignatiev can also be attributed to the influence of Pobedonostsev, and the replacement of Ignatiev with Count D.A. Alexander III produced Tolstoy at the suggestion of his stern mentor. S.Yu. Witte wrote in his memoirs that Pobedonostsev played a decisive role in the appointment of N.P. as Minister of Public Education in early 1898. Bogolepova 86. According to Witte, “On April 2, 1895, Goremykin was appointed Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs on the recommendation of Pobedonostsev” 87 . In the fall of the same year, I.L. Goremykin became Minister of Internal Affairs, again on the recommendation of Pobedonostsev. S.Yu. Witte said in his memoirs that V.K. was initially recommended for this position to Emperor Nicholas II. Pleve and D.S. Sipyagin. However, when His Majesty asked Konstantin Petrovich what his opinion was about these people, he replied: “Plehve is a scoundrel, and Sipyagin is a fool.” “That’s why the sovereign believed,” Witte noted, “that it was impossible to appoint one or the other” 88. In the diary entries of A.V. Bogdanovich under the date for December 18, 1896 there are interesting words: “They said E.V. (To Evgeniy Vasilyevich Bogdanovich, Alexandra Viktorovna’s husband. - V.T.) that the tsar said loudly at the last dinner that Pobedonostsev had recommended many ministers to him, and now he began recommending corps commanders, he was working for Shipov” 89. Reading letters from K.P. Pobedonostsev to the Russian autocrats, the diary of Nicholas II, memoirs and diary entries of people who were part of the highest government spheres of Russia at the time in question, one can find a lot of other evidence of the undoubted influence of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod on the course of state affairs. But what was the secret of this influence, why was the opinion of a person who occupied far from the highest positions in the dignitary hierarchy of the Russian Empire so often accepted by their imperial majesties as a command for action? It seems that the answer to this phenomenon lay hidden both in the peculiarities of the then Russian mechanism of power and in the personality of K.P. himself. Pobedonostseva. The system of absolute and autocratic power that existed in Russia assumed that decisions on all major issues of public administration were made individually by the emperor. However, it is quite obvious that one person, no matter how outstanding he may be, is not able to cover all state affairs. Pobedonostsev was well aware of this. In one of his letters to Emperor Alexander III, he wrote: “In theory, all appointments, dismissals, etc. come from the Supreme Authority. But this is just a fiction, because, without a doubt, Your Majesty cannot have a separate consideration about the individuals in the immense mass of officials from all over Russia” 90. In a similar way, one could say not only about the personnel issue, but also about all issues of public administration in general. The autocrat could not have “separate considerations” about various aspects of numerous state affairs. That is why in Russia, in all historical eras of the existence of autocratic power, we see next to the autocrat some statesman, especially close to His Majesty, the autocrat’s main assistant in state affairs, who often appears to society as almost a second tsar. Such a person under Emperor Alexander I was Count A.A. Arakcheev. In Russian society in the first quarter of the 19th century, especially in the period after the Patriotic War of 1812, there was a widespread opinion that the emperor gave all his power to the all-powerful temporary worker. Count Arakcheev really played an extremely important role in the mechanism of governing the Russian Empire, but not at all the one attributed to him by his contemporaries. Having elevated this statesman, bringing him closer to his august person, Emperor Alexander I did not give him control of the state, but, on the contrary, took this control into his own hands in a way he had never taken before. The temporary worker became for him a kind of auxiliary instrument, through which his august gaze and hands could penetrate into such corners of the space he controlled that they would never have penetrated on their own. Only with the help of the omnipresent, unusually energetic, extremely efficient and intelligent Arakcheev, Emperor Alexander I was able to rule Russia the way he wanted, i.e. keeping everything and everyone under his control and influence, directing all matters of any importance. And at the same time, always remaining in the shadows, especially when it was necessary to take such measures that caused strong irritation and discontent in society 91. K.P. Pobedonostsev was also a special kind of auxiliary instrument with the help of which the autocrat (first Alexander III, and then, for the first half of his reign, Nicholas II) ruled a vast empire. However, Konstantin Petrovich was not the second Arakcheev, he was an instrument of a completely different nature - not at all the same as Arakcheev was: the new historical era required a new management instrument. In the 80s XIX century For various reasons, the importance of the ideological and spiritual factor in public administration has sharply increased. Therefore, the autocrat needed, first of all, a statesman - an ideologist - as a temporary assistant. K.P. Pobedonostsev was suitable for this role in many respects better than others from the dignitary circle of Emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II. First of all, Konstantin Petrovich was a man of extraordinary intelligence. V.V. Rozanov described one of his meetings with him as follows: “Pobedonostsev entered, shining with intelligence and calmness: with that intelligence and calmness that I have always loved in him, like everything pleasant and beautiful. It seems to me that “his own thought,” his half-thought-out thought and unfinished reflection were always in him, inherent in him both day and night. And because of this presence of thought in his face, now thought, it was spiritually more beautiful than other faces, wherever he entered, wherever he appeared. Everyone else is thinking about “now,” and this thought about “now” is short, small. Pobedonostsev, entering the “now” situation, carried on himself the remnants and traces of precisely long thoughts, naturally more important and more beautiful than ordinary ones” 92 In June 1899, Rozanov wrote about S.A. Pobedonostsev. Rachinsky: “In terms of intelligence, he is actually higher, I think, than Speransky; but his distrust of people and the general lack of youthful power of intuition took away 1/2 of his virtues. He “strengthens” everything and is a “strengthening Russia” when in relation to many things it needs to be “cleansed”... But he is somehow dear to me with the sharpness of his words, the speed of his gesture, all the passion of his dry and tall and flexible figure... You know, according to the cycle of ideas that are now dear to me, I am completely outside the cycle of his concerns and sympathies: but he is dear to me as a person, as a moral character” 93 . Even those who disliked him recognized Pobedonostsev’s extraordinary intelligence. True, Konstantin Petrovich’s enemies did not talk about a bright mind, like, for example, Rozanov, but about “cynical”, “dangerous”, “harmful”, etc. Another quality that distinguished K.P. Pobedonostsev was uniquely educated among the Russian dignitaries of his day. S.Yu. Witte, noting Pobedonostsev’s “great statesmanship” in his memoirs, simultaneously wrote about him as a man of “outstanding education and culture” 94. According to him, “one may have different opinions about Pobedonostsev’s activities, but there is no doubt that he was the most educated and cultured Russian figure with whom I had to deal” 95 . In another place in his memoirs, Witte emphasized: “This was a man, undoubtedly, highly talented, highly cultured and a scientist in the full sense of the word” 96. V.V. Rozanov wrote about Pobedonostsev’s intellectuality and culture: “The entire period of Russian history, which can be dubbed the name “Pobedonostsev’s time,” is this entire period, in the part in which it depended on Pobedonostsev or was under pressure from him, in the words of the poet: “... Worthy of tears and laughter...”. But all this profound uselessness and even direct harm of Pobedonostsev for the state was concealed and obscured by his great intelligence. It can be said without exaggeration that for the entire XVIII, XIX and also ten years of the XX century. in our highest government there was not a single figure similar to him in terms of deep spiritual interest, spiritual beauty, spiritual attractiveness. ..” 97 (italics mine. – V.T.). In the biographical literature dedicated to K.P. Pobedonostsev, the opinion is often expressed that if he had not devoted himself to government activities, he would have turned out to be an outstanding scientist or writer. This opinion is most consistently pursued by E.M. Feoktistov, who writes the following about Pobedonostsev: “There is no doubt that he had a remarkable mind, lively and responsive, he was interested in everything, he was indifferent to nothing; his education was multifaceted and thorough; not to mention the legal and ecclesiastical issues that had occupied him for a long time, he discovered solid information in literature, science, and even art. He could understand everything and judged many things correctly. If not for chance, he would have emerged as a remarkable figure in the scientific or literary field...” 98. Contents of works by K.P. Pobedonostsev testifies, however, that the ideologist still prevailed over the scientist in him: in his lectures, and in articles, and in books, he did not so much teach as educate. And in his practical work on organizing public education, Pobedonostsev placed the main emphasis not on teaching, but on education. That is why in the primary education system he gave preference to parochial schools. “The “folk” concept of school,” Pobedonostsev wrote, “is a true concept, but, unfortunately, it has been overdone everywhere in the organization of the new school. According to the popular concept, school teaches reading, writing and counting, but, in inseparable connection with this, it teaches to know God and love and fear Him, to love the Fatherland, and to honor parents. This is the sum of knowledge, skills and sensations that, taken together, form a conscience in a person and give him the moral strength necessary to maintain balance in life and withstand the fight against the bad impulses of nature, with bad suggestions and temptations of thought” 99. In his letters to various individuals, Pobedonostsev repeatedly and with deep regret said that a completely false idea of ​​his role in state affairs prevails in society. “Since ancient times, people, both European and Russian, who do not know what and how our administrative springs are moving, imagine that everything that comes from the government in Russia moves by the will or whim of someone alone, who at one moment or another is considered an influential force, so to speak, “the first person according to the pharaoh,” wrote Konstantin Petrovich in a letter to P.A. Tverskoy dated February 19, 1900 - And so, unfortunately, the fantastic idea that I am such a person has taken hold everywhere, and they have made me a scapegoat for everything that one or another is dissatisfied with in Russia, and about which one or another is indignant. So, they saddled me with the Jews, and the press, and Finland - and now the Doukhobors - matters in which I did not take any part - and all sorts of orders from the authorities, of which I was not at all guilty. Such a burden of so-called public opinion has to be endured - it is impossible to refute it, and no one will believe it, so the illusion of ignorance, ignorance and prejudice has already taken root” 100. In denying his influence on the movement of “administrative springs,” Pobedonostsev was not lying. Never, at any period of his official career, did he have such powers of authority that would give him the opportunity to exert a significant influence on the course of state affairs. Occupying the position of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, which in practice corresponded to the position of a minister, Pobedonostsev attended meetings of the Committee of Ministers. In addition, he was a member of several committees and commissions created to resolve various government issues and develop certain bills 101. In any case, his administrative powers were very limited in nature. Nevertheless, there is no escaping the fact: for a whole quarter of a century - from 1881 to 1905 - this man was the most influential dignitary of the Russian Empire. The solution to this contradiction is simple - Pobedonostsev’s influence on the policies of Russian state power was not the influence of a ruler who is obeyed under pain of punishment or seeking rewards, but of an ideologist who fascinates with the logic of his judgments. This feature of Pobedonostsev as a statesman did not escape the gaze of some of his insightful contemporaries. The publicist M. Rostovtsev wrote in 1907 in the newspaper “Penza Gubernskie Gazette”, responding to his death: “In Russian “Civil” history we know two such large typical figures: Speransky and Pobedonostsev, by the way, both from the clergy. Not by kinship or property, without borrowing and humiliation before the powerful of the world, these two people rose to the role of paramount statesmen. Speaking about the latter, we can say that his activities for 25 years are the history of Russia during this period. By his will, we steadily walked back, although we all felt the need to go forward. Pobedonostsev was considered the evil genius of Russia, but all those who were not at all dependent on him obeyed his logic, as if hypnotized” (emphasis added - V.T.). It is only necessary to make one important clarification to the above statement: Pobedonostsev convinced not only with logic, but also with the feeling that he put into his words. V.V. Rozanov in his essay response to the death of K.P. Pobedonostsev, published in the newspaper “Russkoe Slovo” on March 13, 18 and 27, 1907, recalls how one day he was visiting Metropolitan Anthony, in the midst of the conversation the arrival of Konstantin Petrovich was announced. “Immediately,” writes Rozanov, “the door opened and Pobedonostsev entered. He was as lively and mentally handsome as ever... Pobedonostsev was now served a glass of tea, and he chatted cheerfully with all of us, of course, about those pre-troubled days that were flowing then (Plehve's time). Among his other speeches was the one that “it is impossible to live and work in Russia without knowing it, but to know Russia... how many of us know it? Russia is an endless world of diversity, a homeless and patient world, completely dark: and in this darkness wolves wander.” He expressed the last thought well, with feeling. It seems that it literally sounded like this: “a wild dark field and a dashing man walks among it”... He said the last word with hostility, fear and contempt. His hands lay on the table: “And when that’s the case,” he finished, “then nothing is needed in Russia more than power; power against this dashing man who can cause trouble in our darkness and desert desolation. And his fingers clenched enormously, as if grabbing something” 102 (emphasis mine. - V.T.). Pobedonostsev spoke and wrote not only with his mind, but also with his heart. He convinced others that he was right, largely because he sincerely believed in the truth of his judgments. Lawyer and publicist V.V. Berenstam cites in his memoirs an interesting statement by V.A. Manasein, who personally knew Konstantin Petrovich: “You know,” Vyacheslav Avksentievich told me, “after all, Pobedonostsev is a sincere person. He is undoubtedly a hypocrite, but he is a deeply sincere person. I saw him in the 60s, when everyone around was liberal, when it took great courage, literally courage, not to be a liberal among professors. And at this very time, Pobedonostsev, approaching the monastery, knelt down, stood up and, constantly falling to his knees, crawled along the ground to the church. This is what a man is! Look what a convinced person he is! You will read his “Moscow Collection”. After all, this was written by a 69-year-old man, and how much polemical fervor there is here! And no matter how much Pobedonostsev did to harm Russia, this man never lied and was always sincerely convinced of the benefits of what he did” 103. “Moscow collection”, which was mentioned by V.A. Manasein is a very unusual work. It was first published in 1896, the second and third editions were published in the same year, the fourth edition in 1897, and the fifth edition in 1901. By genre, it is a collection of articles devoted to various aspects of public life in Russia. And although Pobedonostsev borrowed many ideas in the content of the “Moscow Collection” from various foreign writers, with this work he clearly expressed his own worldview. Nowhere, perhaps, does Pobedonostsev reveal his qualities as an ideologist to such an extent as on the pages of the Moscow Collection 104. Throughout this entire work, he consistently conveyed the idea of ​​the destructiveness of political and legal institutions, divorced from the historical foundations of society, inappropriate to the life and consciousness of the people. Pobedonostsev considered such institutions for Russia to be the institutions of Western democracy - parliament, the so-called “free” press, jury trials, etc. “If a true definition of parliament were required,” Pobedonostsev wrote in an article in the “Moscow Collection” with the remarkable title “The Great Lie of Our Time,” “it would have to be said that parliament is an institution that serves to satisfy the personal ambition and vanity and personal interests of representatives. This institution is not the last proof of the self-delusion of the human mind. Having experienced for centuries the oppression of autocracy in individual and oligarchic rule and not noticing that the vices of autocracy are the vices of the society itself that lives under it, people of reason and science placed all the blame for the disaster on their rulers and on the form of government, and imagined that with the change of this form to the form of democracy or representative government, society would get rid of its disasters and from tolerable violence. What happened as a result? What happened was that, mutato nominee, everything remained essentially the same, and people, remaining with the weaknesses and vices of their nature, transferred all their previous habits and inclinations to the new form. As before they are ruled by the personal will and interest of privileged persons; only this personal will is no longer exercised in the person of the monarch, but in the person of the party leader, and the privileged position belongs not to the family aristocrats, but to the dominant majority in parliament and government... On the pediment of this building there is an inscription: “Everything is for the public good.” But this is nothing more than the most deceitful formula; Parliamentarism is the triumph of egoism, its highest expression. Everything here is designed to serve one’s self” 105. Pobedonostsev also considered a jury trial to be inappropriate for the social conditions of Russia. This institution, he noted, increases the randomness of sentences even in those countries where there is “a strong judicial class, trained for centuries, having undergone a strict school of science and practical discipline.” “One can imagine,” he continued, “what this popular justice turns into where in a young state there is not even this strong guiding force, but instead there is a quickly formed crowd of lawyers, whom the interest of pride and self-interest itself helps to soon achieve significant development in the art of sophistry and logomachy, in order to act on the masses; where there is a motley, mixed herd of jurors, assembled either by chance or by artificial selection from a mass in which neither the consciousness of the duty of a judge nor the ability to master the mass of facts that require analysis and logical analysis are available; finally, a mixed crowd of the public coming to the trial as a spectacle in the midst of an idle and poor content life; and this public in the minds of idealists should mean the people" 106. Pobedonostsev subjected “the so-called freedom of the press” to even more harsh criticism. In his opinion, this phenomenon is “one of the ugliest logical contradictions of modern culture, and it is ugliest precisely where the beginnings of modern liberalism have taken root - precisely where each institution requires the sanction of choice, the authority of the popular will... No sanction is required from the journalist alone, whose power extends to almost everything. No one chooses it and no one approves it” 107. The judge, Pobedonostsev points out, having the power to punish our honor, deprive us of property and freedom, receives it from the state. He must prepare for his title through long labor and trial. He is bound by strict law, he acts under the control of a higher authority, his sentence can be changed and corrected. “And the journalist has every opportunity to tarnish, disgrace my honor, affect my property rights; may even restrict my freedom, making it difficult with his attacks or making it impossible for me to stay in a certain place. But he arrogated this judicial power over me to himself: he did not accept this title from any higher authority, did not prove by any test that he was prepared for it, did not in any way confirm the personal qualities of trustworthiness and impartiality, in his court he is not bound by any forms of process, and is not subject to any appeal in his verdict... So, is it possible to imagine a despotism more violent, more irresponsible than the despotism of the printed word? And isn’t it strange, isn’t it wild and crazy that the ever more fierce advocates of freedom are busy trying to maintain and protect precisely this despotism, crying out with bitterness against any violence, against any legal restrictions, against any constraining order of the established authority! One involuntarily comes to mind of the age-old word about wise men who have gone completely mad because they imagine themselves to be wise” 108. Much of what was expressed by Pobedonostsev in the Moscow Collection can be found in his notes to emperors and letters to various individuals. So, in March 1903, Konstantin Petrovich wrote to P.A. Tversky, who settled in the American city of Los Angeles: “Having left Russia, you stand at the same point as you were then, believing in the beneficial significance of some reforms in the sense of new freedom. But faith in “institutions,” divorced from life and from the people, has brought us nothing but lies and constraint on true freedom, for we have become so entangled in institutions that there is nowhere to go. And those who carried them out, releasing them among the people, calmed down, imagining that the institutions would move themselves and revive something. But without leadership, nothing comes to life on its own. The Slavic race is not like the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and even German: there is a spirit of particularism and strong individual development; We have a duty. And so it turned out that we were all dressed up in some kind of someone else’s dress, sewn by our own tailor Vaska, and we couldn’t move in it” 109. In a note on the reform of judicial institutions, submitted by Pobedonostsev to Emperor Alexander III in the fall of 1885, 110, Konstantin Petrovich said about the jury about the same thing that he later published in the Moscow Collection. “The institution of juries in criminal courts turned out to be completely false in Russia, completely incompatible with the conditions of our life and with the structure of our courts, and, as false in its essence and in conditions, it served and serves to disastrously demoralize the public conscience and to pervert the essential goals of justice... The jury, randomly recruited for the most part not from the strong, but from the weak and dependent people in society, are left to the random influence on them of any external influences from outside a lawyer, from the public, from the prevailing prejudice at the moment, from the most important person among them, and finally, from bribery and persuasion, of which, unfortunately, there have already been repeated examples. We need to get rid of this institution in order to restore the importance of the court in Russia” 111 Thus, the motives of the “Moscow Collection” sounded throughout the literary work of K.P. Pobedonostseva. Consistent in pursuing his political views, unshakable in his truth, an insightful thinker - finally, a polemicist who masterfully wielded the pen, he was the most serious opponent of the haters of historical Russia, hiding under the guise of liberals or revolutionaries. Powerless to overturn the orderly ranks of his thoughts, they refused a direct, honest battle with the real Pobedonostsev. Instead, they fashioned themselves a kind of stuffed animal that looked like him, covered it with various labels and began to beat it. And they beat him with such fury that, it seems, in the end they believed that they were beating not a scarecrow, but the real Pobedonostsev. Alexander Blok, a poet by the grace of God, wrote in the introduction to the second part of his poem “Retribution”: “In those years, distant, deaf Sleep and darkness reigned in our hearts: And there was neither day nor night, But only the shadow of huge wings; Russia, looking into her eyes With the glassy gaze of a sorcerer..." It is curious that in these words of A. Blok, the liberals of that time saw a caricature of the all-powerful temporary worker of the reign of Alexander III. A similar view of Blok’s quoted verse about Pobedonostsev, unfortunately, is also present in modern literature 112. Meanwhile, in fact, Blok not only did not “caricature” Pobedonostsev in the above verse, but, on the contrary, enveloped him in a cloud of sympathy and even admiration. The owl has been a symbol of wisdom since ancient times. Pobedonostsev is a sage who “outlined Russia in a wondrous circle, looking into her eyes...”! And the sorcerer, trembling over his treasure, and this treasure is, of course, Russia. His precious Russia, the meaning of his whole life, the main object of his thoughts, the one and only - for the sake of which he lived and worked! In the Russian public consciousness K.P. Pobedonostsev was always perceived primarily as a statesman and ideologist. At the same time, his other, no less interesting role remained in the shadows - that of a legal scholar. Those Russian lawyers who were familiar with Pobedonostsev’s legal writings highly rated him as a specialist in the field of jurisprudence. So, A.E. Nolde wrote in 1907 in an obituary article dedicated to Pobedonostsev: “His political fame overshadowed his more modest and less conspicuous scientific activities. Meanwhile, she deserves attention; works by K.P. Pobedonostsev on issues of civil law, and in particular his major work in this area, “Course of Civil Law,” were at one time of great importance for the scientific development of this discipline, and have not lost it at the present time. They bear a peculiar imprint, and they occupy a prominent place in our legal literature” 113. “Everyone knows the importance and nature of K.P.’s civil law course. Pobedonostsev, wrote B.V. Nikolsky in 1896. – The theoretical side of the course did not meet with praise and approval from representatives of our legal science, but the practical nature of the book made it one of the three foundations that support our civil law: this is the 10th volume of the Code of Laws, “History of Russian Legislation” 114 Nevolin and “Course” by K.P. Pobedonostsev" 115. Konstantin Petrovich worked on his most significant legal work for at least 20 years. The first part of the “Course of Civil Law” was completed by him in February 1868, in the same year it was published under the title “Patrimonial Rights” 116. Pobedonostsev called the second part of the “Course” “Family, hereditary and testamentary rights”; he published it in 1871. 117 The third part of the “Course” (“Agreements and Obligations”) was published only in 1880. 118 Until 1897 - the anniversary year for Pobedonostsev - his fundamental work on civil law was repeatedly republished, and the history of these reissues are curious in their own way. Here are its main milestones: in 1875 the second part of the “Course” was republished, in 1876 the first part was published in the second edition, in 1890 – the third; in 1883 the third edition of the first part was published, and in 1889 the second; in 1892 the fourth edition of the first part was published; finally, in 1896, its last edition was published and for the first time simultaneously in all three parts 119. The new editions of the Course were not much different from its first edition - the author only took into account some changes in the current civil legislation and inserted several new arguments. In the preface to the “Course,” Pobedonostsev characterized the method of presentation of Russian civil law he had chosen as follows: “In the presentation, my main goal was to contribute to the fullest possible explanation of the concepts of the main subjects of civil law. For this purpose, I chose a comparative method of presentation and tried, first of all, at the beginning of each article to point out the main idea of ​​the institution, then proceeded to explain the institution, in its distinctive features, according to Roman, French and German law. Then, having prepared in the mind of the listener or reader as complete and rounded an image of the institution as possible, I began to present it according to Russian law, with a preliminary outline of its origin and historical development on our soil. Thus, according to my calculations, the reader would be able, in necessary cases, to judge in what respect the Russian law of establishment corresponds or does not correspond to its general type, as it was expressed in history, in economics and in the law of Western Europe” 120. Pobedonostsev’s “Course of Civil Law” contained little theoretical discussion about legal institutions; there were almost no general definitions; the system of presentation of the material in the “Course” largely repeated the system of the 10th volume of the “Code of Laws of the Russian Empire”. Pobedonostsev essentially created not only a textbook on civil law, but also a real practical guide for lawyers called upon to conduct cases in civil law. It is no coincidence that quotes from his “Course” in the 70s and 80s. XIX century were repeatedly cited in decisions of the Civil Cassation Department of the Senate to substantiate one or another position. Works of this kind usually say little about the personality of their author, about his worldview and passions. Pobedonostsev’s “Course of Civil Law” became in this sense an exception to the rule. Nowhere, perhaps, did Pobedonostsev’s character as a lawyer manifest itself as clearly as in this work of his. “With this book, Pobedonostsev created the science of Russian civil law; “He can rightly be called the father and founder of this science,” the Rossiya newspaper wrote in 1907 (No. 399). - All that happened in this area before him was either scrapping from foreign books, or expounding laws, or, at best, adapting the general theory of civil law to Russian law. For the first time, Pobedonostsev, with remarkable insight into Russian history and the Russian legal spirit, gives an original and at the same time highly scientific presentation of the civil law of the Russian people. More than one generation of Russian lawyers will pass, but Pobedonostsev’s book will remain the starting point for any scientific work in this area” 121. Pobedonostsev’s “Course of Civil Law” was also highly appreciated by such a prominent Russian civil lawyer as G.F. Shershenevich. According to him, “in the person of Mr. Pobedonostsev we see a completely special type of lawyer, not suitable for the majority of Russian scientists. Not succumbing to the influence of Western science, not bound by the conclusions of previous Russian scientists, Mr. Pobedonostsev is distinguished by his complete independence of views on historical and dogmatic issues of Russian law. Calm and subtle analysis, dispassionate presentation, stubborn conservatism in matters de lege ferenda - these are the distinctive features of Mr. Pobedonostsev as a scientist... We will not exaggerate if we compare Mr. Pobedonostsev with a Roman lawyer. Like the latter, Mr. Pobedonostsev is wary of generalizations, avoids definitions, preferring a description of the facts, but he is striking in the logic of reasoning when it comes to the interpretation of current legislation. To follow the author in his conclusions and in this way acquire the ability to make independent legal decisions is the main benefit that can be obtained from reading. If Meyer’s course 122 embeds in the reader’s memory the system of civil law, which is undoubtedly of great importance for a lawyer, then Pobedonostsev’s course teaches civilistic thinking and in this regard is the best school for dogmatists” 123. K.P. Pobedonostsev was fully aware of the uniqueness of Russian law and its roots in the past. “Our patrimonial relations are very diverse and have so far been little studied by science: in practice and in the economy of our everyday life, many unique questions arise from them, which are either completely unknown, or have long lost their significance in the economy of Western European society,” 124 he wrote in the appendix to Part 1 of the “Course of Civil Law.” Among contemporary Russian jurists, Konstantin Petrovich was famous for his knowledge of the history of Russian law. He devoted his first scientific works in the field of jurisprudence, published during the 50s and 60s, to the historical evolution of various legal institutions in Russian society. XIX century in various magazines, mainly in “Russian Bulletin” 125. Konstantin Petrovich did not stop studying the history of Russian legal life in the future - in those days when he was already the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod. He continued to work in the archives, making extracts from various documents 126, as well as from the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire” 127. Pobedonostsev’s “Course of Civil Law” rested, therefore, on the foundation of the author’s deep knowledge of the historical realities of Russian law. Konstantin Petrovich recommended that all aspiring lawyers apply his method of learning the law, based on the study of texts of legal monuments, archival acts, and judicial practice; in particular, he advised those who begin to study the institutions of civil law to first “acquire familiarity with the general principles of the science of civil law, then arouse and cultivate in themselves the logical sequence of legal thinking.” In his opinion, the best means to this “for a person who has not yet been tested in practical activity can be not just reading, but a careful and serious study of one of the classic creations that German legal literature can boast of” 128. Pobedonostsev called the book by K.F. as such a creation. Savigny’s “System des heutigen romischen Rechts”, which he characterized as “incomparable in the rigor of legal analysis, in the thoroughness of conclusions, in the simplicity of thinking techniques and in the elegance of legal style” 129. In addition, Pobedonostsev recommended that aspiring lawyers read a good French essay on civil law: in his words, such reading would be “useful in terms of the clarity and practicality of presentation, which distinguishes works of this kind in France” 130 . After all this, Pobedonostsev recommended that those who begin to study Russian law turn to the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire”: anyone “truly thirsty for knowledge” should begin reading this collection starting from the first volume. “Such advice may seem strange to many,” explained Konstantin Petrovich, “but I dare to assure everyone that such reading, although at the beginning, although it requires some effort, will soon turn out to be interesting, and for others, fascinating reading. With each volume, the reader will begin to gain strength and will more vividly feel within himself the most precious fruit of attentive work - healthy and practical knowledge, the very knowledge that is necessary for a Russian lawyer and which Russian lawyers, unfortunately, so often neglect, feeding from foreign sources: they imperceptibly absorb into themselves concepts that arose in the midst of the history of a foreign people, assimilate the principles and forms formed on foreign soil and associated with the economy of such a way of life, which is far removed from ours: Naturally, this will give birth to a false concept about the needs of our legal life and about the means to satisfy them, neglect or indifference to one’s own, which they do not know, and an exaggerated opinion about the benefits and dignity of many things that are good and useful where they grew out of their everyday life, but turn out to be crooked and deceitful where there is no appropriate soil and appropriate historical and economic conditions. Such knowledge cannot be recognized as healthy and true, as it is detached from life, and therefore from truth. On the contrary, the study of our complete Collection of Laws is so valuable for a Russian lawyer because here every legal phenomenon, every provision is presented in connection with the entire situation of everyday life, with all historical data, and is explained in conjunction with them. Moreover, such reading brings great benefit also because it familiarizes the reader with the purity and clarity of the style in which the first monuments of legislation were written - the Code and the newly-decreed articles: clarity, definition and purity of Russian speech is a quality necessary for a lawyer, a right hand, without which it is impossible for him to do, and this property must be sought in historical monuments, for examples of the later legislative style are not distinguished by either the purity or clarity of the speech that carries traces of foreign language construction, foreign language forms and concepts. In a word, the study of the first complete Collection of Laws is, in my opinion, a necessity for a Russian lawyer, and it is impossible to find a better school for him, as this is a school of dead, but eloquently speaking monuments, for we do not yet have a living and constantly operating school for the education of a Russian lawyer, that school that educates a person through the combined action of tradition, living authority and living practical activity" 131. This method of studying Russian law was fully justified at the time when Pobedonostsev created his “Course of Civil Law”. It corresponded to both the level of development of Russian theoretical jurisprudence in that period and the nature of Russian law itself. The civil legislation in force in Russia consisted of acts adopted in various historical eras. Therefore, it was possible to understand the essence of a particular legal institution only through a consistent study of the entire chain of laws stretching from the distant past, by considering legal norms in the context of the historical situation in which they arose and developed. But this method of studying civil law, preached by Pobedonostsev, had, along with advantages, a number of disadvantages: all of them were manifested in the content of the “Course of Civil Law”. “The extensive reading of K.P. Pobedonostsev both in legislative materials and in historical literature, noted A.E. Nolde, “gave him the opportunity to dwell on such phenomena that before him were only to a small extent involved or not at all involved in the field of civil law studies” 132. This is, for example, the institution of ancestral property and various types of land ownership inherited from antiquity, the doctrine of the foundations and evidence of patrimonial rights, land surveying, etc. At the same time, Nolde stated that in the study of a number of legal institutions, Pobedonostsev’s method turned out to be unfruitful. These are, as a rule, institutions regarding which there were significant gaps in the X volume of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire - the institution of contracts in favor of third parties, claims for unjust enrichment, copyright, etc. Nevertheless, many Russian legal scholars, and A.E. Nolde, among them, recognized that, based on the wealth of materials collected in it, the “Course of Civil Law” by K.P. Pobedonostsev had no equal. Milyukov P.N. Memories. T. 2. M., 1990. P. 57. Berdyaev N.A. Nihilism on religious grounds and the spiritual crisis of the intelligentsia. Articles on social and religious psychology (1907–1909). St. Petersburg, 1910. P. 201. Paleolog M. Tsarist Russia on the Eve of the Revolution. M., 1991. P. 119. “Reactionary, obscurantist, chauvinistic, he helped shape Imperial Russian policies, so much that it is difficult to think of tsarist reaction and nihilism without immediately calling to mind the name of Pobedonostsev” (Konstantin P. Pobedonostsev: Reflections of a Russin Statesman. With a new foreword by Murray Polner. The University of Michigan Press, 1965. P. V). Rozanov V.V. K.P. Pobedonostsev // Rozanov V.V. The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor F.M. Dostoevsky. Literary essays on writers and writing. M., 1996. P. 516. Letters to K.P. Pobedonostsev to Alexander III // Pobedonostsev K.P. The great lie of our time. M., 1993. pp. 611–612. Letter from K.P. Pobedonostsev to Nicholas II // Ibid. P. 624. Right there. Andrei Bely had information that Pobedonostsev’s distant ancestors lived in the Kyrgyz-Kaisak horde in the 30s. XVIII century, during the reign of Empress Anna Ioannovna, they entered the Russian service. Pypin A.N. Belinsky, his life and correspondence. St. Petersburg, 1876. T. 1. pp. 62–67. Letter from I.A. Goncharova to A.N. Pypin dated May 10, 1874 // Literary heritage. M., 1950. T. 56. P. 268. Alexander Petrovich Pobedonostsev (1809–1900) studied at the moral and political department of the Imperial Moscow University and in February 1829 graduated with a candidate's degree and rose to the rank of state councilor. Varvara Petrovna Pobedonostseva (1810 - after 1880) was educated at the Moscow School of the Order of St. Catherine, from which she was released in 1828; subsequently she lived in Moscow, was engaged in literary creativity (see: Michatek N. Pobedonostseva Varvara Petrovna // Russian Biographical Dictionary. St. Petersburg, 1905. T. 10. P. 141). Dmitry Petrovich Pobedonostsev died in 1891 and was buried in Ryazan at the cemetery of the Spassky Monastery. Sergei Petrovich Pobedonostsev (1816–1850) served as an officer, from 1842 was in the civil service, became a writer (see: Alekseevsky B. Pobedonostsev Sergei Petrovich // Russian Biographical Dictionary. St. Petersburg, 1905. T. 10. P. 143). Elizaveta Petrovna (née Pobedonostseva) died in 1874. Pobedonostsev K.P. Feasts of the Lord // Pobedonostsev K.P. Essays. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 224. The lectures that Professor A. Kranichfeld read at the Imperial School of Law at the time when Konstantin Pobedonostsev studied here were printed in 1843 in the printing house of the 3rd department of His Imperial Majesty's own chancellery (see: Kranichfeld A. Outline of Russian civil law in its historical development: Compiled for the Imperial School of Law. St. Petersburg, 1843). For some reason, Pobedonostsev did not like this subject and did not fully prepare for the exam on it. “I answered from the history of Roman law about the reforms of Justinian, and from Roman law about possession; volunteered in Latin,” he wrote in his diary under the date May 13/20, 1844, “and this saved me, otherwise I would have cut myself off, but now I just said a few words, I was already given a 12” (the highest score. - V.T.) (see: Pobedonostsev KP. For the few. Excerpts from the school diary of 1842-1845. St. Petersburg, 1885. P. 59). Among the published works of V.V. Schneider’s book “On the significance of Roman law in relation to modern law”, which was published in St. Petersburg in RGIA. F. 797. Op. 64. D. 28 (Formular list 1898). L. 3 vol. Russian Bulletin: Literary and political magazine, published by M. Katkov. M., 1858. T. 15. June. Book 1. pp. 209–248; Book 2. pp. 459–498; T. 16. August. Book 2. pp. 537–582. K.P. [Pobedonostsev K.P.] Theory and practice: Regarding the works of Professor Meyer: Essay on Russian bill law. Kazan, 1857; Readings about Russian civil law. Vol. I. Kazan, 1858 // Athenaeum: Journal of criticism, modern history and literature, published under the editorship of. E. Korsha. M., 1858. Part 6. pp. 306–326. Pobedonostsev K.P. Criticism of M. M. Mikhailov’s essay on Russian civil proceedings before the publication of the Code of Laws in 1832. And the Archive of historical and practical information relating to Russia, published by N. Kalachov. St. Petersburg, 1859. Book. 1 (with attachment). pp. 1–62; It's him. Review of modern Russian legislation. Volume XXXI of the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire // Russian conversation. M., 1859. Book. 4 (16). pp. 1–12; It's him. On reforms in civil proceedings // Russian Bulletin. M., 1859. T. 21. June. Book 2. pp. 541–581; T. 22. July. Book 1. P. 5–34; Book 2. pp. 153–190; etc. RGIA. F. 1574. Op. 2. D. 1. L. 16; and also: CIAM. F. 418. Op. 34. D. 195. L. 1. According to the distribution of teaching subjects in 1860/1861 acad. g., which was approved at a meeting of the Faculty of Law of Moscow University, civil law was taught for three hours a week in the 3rd year, the subject “civil law and litigation” was taught for four hours a week to 4th year students (CIAM. F. 418. Op. 463. D. 18. L. 77 vol. - 78). RGIA. F. 1574. Op. 2. D. 1. L. 20 rev. Diaries of K.P. Pobedonostseva (1846–1893) // RGIA. F. 1574 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). On. 1. Unit hr. 26. L. 7. Right there. Unit hr. 1. L. 12. RGIA. F. 1574 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). Op. 1. Unit hr. 26. L. 45. Nolde A.E. Pobedonostsev and judicial reform. Pg., 1915. P. 13. See, for example: Pobedonostsev K.P. Preliminary remarks about the plan and the main grounds of the Charter on the Judicial System // Materials on judicial reform in Russia in 1864. T. 17: Considerations of various persons on the transformation of the judiciary (1861–1862). [St. Petersburg, 1862]; It's him. Note on civil proceedings // Ibid. T. 26: Notes on the development of the main provisions of the transformation of the judicial part. Part 6 (1861–1863). St. Petersburg, 1863; It's him. According to the draft of the 2nd book [Charter of Civil Proceedings]. On litigants and the right to seek and answer in court (Section 1, Ch. 1–2) / Ed. K. Pobedonostsev // Ibid. T. 45: Works of editors on the draft Charter of Civil Procedure (October 1862 - October 1863). Part 2. [St. Petersburg, 1864]; It's him. According to the draft of the 3rd book [Charter of Civil Proceedings]. On preliminary execution of decisions (Chapter 1) / Ed. K. Pobedonostsev Ibid; It's him. According to the draft of the 4th book [Charter of Civil Proceedings]: Enforcement proceedings for calculations of losses, costs and income (Section 2) with an explanatory note from the editor / Ed. K. Pobedonostsev // Ibid.; It's him. According to the draft of the 6th book [Charter of Civil Proceedings]: On complaints against the actions of officials of an administrative department (Section 1, Chapter 1) / Research by K. Pobedonostsev (March 17, 1864) // Ibid.; It's him. Disagreements that followed in the Civil Division of the Commission during the discussion of the draft of the second book of the Charter of Civil Procedure. On the oath of the litigant (Article 304). Objection of K. Pobedonostsev // Ibid. T. 46: Works of the Civil Division of the Commission on the draft Charter of Civil Proceedings. Part 1, book. 1–5 (November 30, 1862 – October 24, 1863). [St. Petersburg, 1864]. pp. 76–87; It's him. Disagreements that followed in the Civil Division of the Commission during the discussion of the draft of the second book of the Charter of Civil Procedure. On the evidentiary value of an on-site inspection (Article 329) and on the presentation of a written or verbal opinion of knowledgeable people and their oath (Article 348). Opinion of K. Pobedonostsev Ibid. pp. 89–91; It's him. Disagreements that followed in the Civil Division of the Commission during the discussion of the draft third book of the Charter of Civil Procedure. On cases in which cassation of decisions of judicial chambers is allowed (Art. 86 projects). Opinion of K. Pobedonostsev // Ibid. pp. 14–22; It's him. Disagreements that followed in the Civil Division of the Commission during the discussion of the draft third book of the Charter of Civil Procedure. On the resolution by the Senate of petitions to cancel decisions, without sending the case to the judicial chamber (Article 117 of the draft). Opinion of K. Pobedonostsev Ibid. pp. 27–32; etc. Quote by: Nolde A.E. Review of scientific legal activities of K.P. Pobedonostseva (Obituary) and Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. 1907. No. 8. Dep. 4. P. 89. Nolde A.E. Review of scientific legal activities of K.P. Pobedonostseva. P. 91. See: Pobedonostsev K.P. Lectures on Russian state law, given to Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich and Grand Duke Alexander // GARF. F. 728. Op. 1. Book. 6. Units hr. 3132. Part 15. 82 sheets; It's him. Lectures on civil law, given to Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich in 1862 // GARF. F. 728. On. 1. Book. 6. Units hr. 2725. 206 l. Meshchersky V.P. My memories. M., 2003. pp. 164–165. Nolde A.E. Overview of the scientific legal activities of K.P. Pobedonostseva. P. 91. Koni A.F. Collection Op. : In 8 volumes. T. 7. M., 1969. P. 99–100. Right there. T. 2. M., 1966. pp. 233–234. CIAM. F. 418. Op. 34. D. 195. L. 1–2. The text of this letter was published with slight deviations from the original in an article by A.E. Nolde “Review of the scientific legal activities of K.P. Pobedonostsev” (ZhMNP. 1907. No. 8. Dept. 4. P. 85–86. Note 3). CIAM. F. 418. Op. 34. D. 195. L. 4 vol. Quote by: Nolde A E. Review of the scientific legal activities of K.P. Pobedonostseva. P. 87. This village still exists: it is located on the territory of the Mogilev district of the Mogilev region. Republic of Belarus. Gospel of John. 3:29. Ekaterina Alexandrovna would outlive her husband by almost a quarter of a century: she would die in Leningrad on February 18, 1932. RGIA. F. 1574. Op. 1. D. 29. L. 4. Saburova E.V. Memoirs and the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library. F. 667. Map. 3. Unit hr. 1. L. 79. Lectures on jurisprudence by K.P. Pobedonostsev also read to Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich and the Tsarevich's wife, Grand Duchess Maria Feodorovna. Letter from K.P. Pobedonostsev to Nicholas II... P. 625. Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library. F. 230. Map. 5273. Unit. hr. 4. L. 10–10 vol. The second volume of Pobedonostsev’s “Course of Civil Law” will be published in 1871, the third – in March 1880. CIAM. F. 418. Op. 37. D. 137. L. 1. CIAM. F. 418. Op. 37. D. 137. L. 7–8. Tyutchev F.I. Letter to E.F. Tyutcheva from September 22, 1871 // Literary heritage. T. 97: In 2 books. Book 1. M., 1988. P. 479. Quote by: Kozhinov V.V. Tyutchev. M., 1988. P. 447. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1866) and the Department of Manuscripts of the RSL. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). Kart. 4408. Unit. hr. 1. L. 6. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1880) // Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). Kart. 4408. Unit. hr. 13. L. And about. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. T. 1. M., 1925. P. 9. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. T. 1. P. 54. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letter to Nicholas II // The Great Lie of Our Time. M., 1993. P. 626. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E. F. Tyutcheva (1878) And the Department of Manuscripts of the RSL. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). Kart. 4408. Unit. hr. 13. L. 68–68 vol. Pobedonostsev KP. Letters to E. F. Tyutcheva (1880) // Ibid. L. 79rpm – 80. Koni A.F. Decree. Op. T. 2. P. 267. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1880) // Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). Kart. 4408. Unit. hr. 13. L. 31. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // Manuscript Department of the Russian National Library. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1882. January – July. L. 167. Rozanov V.V. Around the people's soul. Articles 1906–1908 M., 2003. S. 94 – 95. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letter to S.A. Rachinsky dated November 13, 1885. And the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian National Library. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1885. October - December. L. 105 rev. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letter to S.A. Rachinsky dated July 19, 1900 // Manuscript Department of the Russian National Library. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1900. July - August. L. 2. Letters from various persons to P.I. Bartenev (1904) // RGALI. F. 46 (P.I. Bartenev). Op. 1. Unit hr. 596. L. 394. Quote by: Talberg N.D. Pobedonostsev: Essays on the history of Imperial Russia. Quote by: Glinsky B.B. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev: Materials for the biography of I K.P. Pobedonostsev: pro et contra. Anthology. St. Petersburg, 1996. pp. 405–406. The following people visited Pobedonostsev's house on Liteiny Prospekt: Fyodor Dostoevsky, Pyotr Tchaikovsky, Vladimir Solovyov, Vasily Rozanov, Ivan Aksakov, Kramskoy, Balakirev and others. Marfa Pobedonostseva emigrated from Russia after the 1917 revolution; at the end of the 20s. lived in the USA. The graves of Konstantin Petrovich and Ekaterina Alexandrovna Pobedonostsev were restored in the late 90s. XX century They are located in the courtyard of house No. 104 on Moskovsky Prospekt, near the altar part of the school church, facing east. The St. Vvedenskaya Chapel is currently located in the building of the former school church. Witte S.Yu. Favorite memories. M., 1991. P. 48. Right there. P. 322; for a slightly different presentation, see: Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich. Book of Memories. M., 1991. P. 147. Bogdanovich A.V. The last three autocrats. M., 1990. P. 218. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letter to Alexander III dated May 11, 1894 // The Great Lie of Our Time. P. 619. For more information about this, see: Tomsinov V.A. Arakcheev. M., 2003. pp. 276–319. Rozanov V.V. The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor F.M. Dostoevsky. Literary essays on writers and writing. M., 1996. P. 525. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // Manuscript Department of the Russian National Library. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1899. June. L. 77. Witte S.Yu. Decree. Op. P. 422. Rozanov V.V. Mysteries of Russian provocation. Articles and essays from 1910. M., 2005. Feoktistov E.M. Behind the scenes of politics and literature. 1848–1896. M., 1991. P. 219. Pobedonostsev K.P. Works St. Petersburg, 1996. P.309. To Emperor Nicholas II, Konstantin Petrovich explained his commitment to parochial schools as follows: “The people have all the strength of the state, and it is possible to protect the people from ignorance, from savage morals, from debauchery, from the disastrous infection of absurd, outrageous teachings only through the church and a school associated with the church.” 100 Tverskoy P.A. From business correspondence with K.P. Pobedonostsev. 1900–1904 // News. Europe. 1907. Book. 12. P. 654. Pobedonostsev wrote to Tverskoy about the same thing, but in different words, both in August 1902 (“And in general, know that wherever my name appears, there is a lie. It is used like salt, for how many years has it been since foreign gossip has connected everything that happens in Russia with it - while for ten years now I have not been involved in any matters other than church affairs”), and at the end of 1904. (Tverskoy P.A. Decree, op. pp. 664, 667). 101 Commission for drawing up draft laws on the transformation of the judiciary under the State Chancellery, operating in 1862–1865, a Special Commission on the introduction of magistrates’ orders in the Baltic provinces (1877–1880), a Special Commission for the preliminary discussion of projects for the establishment of patrimonial regulations and patrimonial charter (1896–1904), etc. Rozanov V.V. K.P. Pobedonostsev // Rozanov V.V. The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor F.M. Dostoevsky. P. 529. Berenstam V.V. From the experience. Near the war. Lawyer's Notes. Memories. Pg., 1915. P. 178. According to some information, the content of this work consisted of lectures given by Pobedonostsev to the heirs of the Russian throne, Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich, Alexander Alexandrovich and the latter’s son Nikolai Alexandrovich - the future Emperor Nicholas II. Pobedonostsev K.P. Moscow collection // Pobedonostsev K.P. Decree. Op. P. 286. Pobedonostsev K.P. Trial by jury // Ibid. P. 300. Pobedonostsev K.P. Print // Ibid. P. 303. Tverskoy P.A. From business correspondence with K.P. Pobedonostsev... P. 665. On November 2, 1885, Emperor Alexander III wrote to K.P. Pobedonostsev: “Thank you very much for the note you sent about the reform of the judicial system.” K.P. Pobedonostsev and his correspondents. Letters and notes. T. 1. M.; Pg., 1923. P. 510–511. See, for example: Smolyarchuk V.I. A.F. Horses and his entourage. M., 1990. P. 262. Nolde A.E. Review of scientific legal activities of K.P. Pobedonostseva // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. 1907. No. 8. P. 237. B.V. Nikolsky is referring to the three volumes of K.A.’s book published in 1851 in St. Petersburg. Nevolin “History of Russian civil laws” (2nd ed. published in 1857). Nikolsky B.V. Literary activity of K.P. Pobedonostsev (On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary) and Historical Bulletin. 1896. No. 9. pp. 724–725. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. Part 1: Patrimonial rights. St. Petersburg, 1868. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. Part 2: Family, hereditary and testamentary rights. St. Petersburg; M., 1871. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. Part 3: Agreements and obligations. St. Petersburg; M., 1880. The text of this publication was reproduced by the publishing house "Zertsalo" in the series "Russian Legal Heritage". See: Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course: In 3 volumes / Ed. and with a preface. V.A. Tomsinova. M., 2003. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. Part 1. T. 1. P. II. Quote by: Preobrazhensky I.V. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, his personality and activities as perceived by contemporaries of his death. St. Petersburg, 1912. P. 101. G.F. Shershenevich is referring to the course of Professor D.I. Meyer "Russian civil law". The initial lectures of this course were published two years after Meyer’s death - they were published in 1858 in the “Scientific Notes of the Imperial Kazan University” (books 1, 2). Shershenevich G. F. Science of civil law in Russia. Kazan, 1893. pp. 88–89. Pobedonostsev K.P. Study and literature of patrimonial law I Pobedonostsev K.P. Later he published them in a separate collection (see: Pobedonostsev K.P. Historical studies and articles. St. Petersburg, 1876). He published a collection of these extracts of his as a separate book (see: Historical and legal acts of the transitional era of the 17th and 18th centuries, collected by K.P. Pobedonostsev. M., 1887). An addition to these extracts entitled “Materials for the history of writ proceedings” was published in 1890 in “Readings at the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University.” These extracts were published by Pobedonostsev as a separate book in 1895. Pobedonostsev K.P. Study and literature of patrimonial law. P. 221. Nolde A.E. Decree. Op. P. 107.