Civil law course. First part: Patrimonial rights

Part 1 • Part 2 • Part 3 “I see clearly the path and the truth...” (E.V. Timoshina) Conservative features of the civilistic concept of K.P. Pobedonostseva (E.V. Timoshina) “...The [civil law] course of Mr. [Mr.] Pobedonostsev is a major work of Russian legal literature” (G.F. Shershenevich) For a whole hour this man spoke to me, not talking about his mind - with great simplicity and openness, and I listened to him not only with surprise, but also with such gratitude as I could feel only for the old, old professor, revealing in private the essence of his science to the understanding to the student. Of course, this is a great statesman; Of course he is a true Christian: From a letter from V.V. Rozanov to S.A. Rachinsky June 3, 1895 1 At the end of the 20s of the last century, Soviet historian Yu.V. Gautier noted with regret that “the biographies of K.P. Pobedonostsev, not only scientific, but also of any kind, is still missing.” Meanwhile, K.P. Pobedonostsev, who was “the inspirer and leader of Russian state policy during the entire reign of Alexander III and the first years of the reign of his successor,” according to Yu.V. Gautier, “deserves a full and detailed biography: which would be a real scientific study” 2. Despite the revival of scientific and public interest in the worldview of K.P. in the 90s. Pobedonostsev 3 , which resulted in many brilliant studies of his work 4 , a scientific biography of this statesman almost a century after his death was never written. And to this day, the bitter words spoken in a letter to a close friend S.A. have not lost their relevance. Rachinsky words to K.P. Pobedonostsev: “My name is the subject of controversy and temptation: How many people know me? Both good and evil are attributed to me, and every speaker pronounces my name with what he likes or does not like” 5. Soon after the death of K.P. Pobedonostsev Baron A.E. Nolde advised researchers embarking on his life story to “wait, perhaps for a long time, until history is able to establish objective points of view” 6 . However, the lack of objectivity is still a characteristic feature of many modern studies about K.P. Pobedonostsev. Just like a hundred years ago, behind emotional but meaningless epithets - “the beasts of Orthodoxy” (V.S. Solovyov), “the nightmare of Russian life” (N.A. Berdyaev), etc. – the believing, thinking, dedicated personality of K.P. disappeared. Pobedonostsev, and even today in many interpretations of his life and work, he is sometimes only a reason for discovering the ideological preferences of their authors, who develop their criticism or apologetics of conservatism against the background of his ideas. The fact that K.P. Pobedonostsev, whose work dates back to the century before last, failed to become a silent exhibit in a museum of historical figures, testifies to the fact that his life and ideas remain the subject of truly living, vital, and not just abstract scientific interest. However, the biography of a historical figure is a subject of scientific research, and not a reason for expressing one’s own ideological sympathies. Therefore, it would hardly be justified to offer our own assessments here and compete in the originality of interpretation with other researchers, indicating the historical “role”, “place” and “significance” of K.P. Pobedonostsev in the state policy of post-reform Russia - an enlightened reader of this publication is able to form his own opinion about this. The best way to avoid subjectivity in this case, which is incompatible with the specifics of scientific research, is to provide the opportunity for K.P. to tell about himself. Pobedonostsev with the lines of his unpublished letters, diaries and memoirs to this day, many of which, written almost a century and a half ago, are in a state where they may no longer wait for their publication and will remain unknown to the reader. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev was born on May 21, 1827 7 in Moscow in Khlebny Lane in the family of a professor of Russian literature at Moscow University, master of philosophy and literary sciences P.V. Pobedonostsev (1771–1843) and was the youngest of his eleven children. Mother belonged to the old noble family of the Levashovs. K.P. Pobedonostsev was raised in an Orthodox family, where deep traditions of faith were alive: his father graduated from the Moscow Theological Academy, his grandfather served as a priest in the Church of St. Great Martyr George, located on Varvarka. His childhood passed, in his own words, “under the shadow of Simeon the Stylite,” 8 the saint in whose honor the parish church of the Pobedonostsev family was consecrated. Subsequently, he will gratefully remember his parents, who were able to give him a religious education: “How happy is the one whose memories of childhood and youth are connected with the most sublime sensations that are capable of capturing the soul - with the sensations and impressions of faith!” 9 . After receiving his initial home education, father K.P. Pobedonostsev in 1841 sent his son to the Imperial School of Law in St. Petersburg. His classmates were many later famous government and public figures: Slavophile I.S. Aksakov, in whose newspaper “Den” K.P. Pobedonostsev would regularly publish his articles in the 60s, future ministers of justice N.A. Manasein and D.N. Nabokov, whose resignation in 1885 was K.P. Pobedonostsev will be directly involved, etc. After graduating from the School of Law in May 1846, he was assigned to serve in the office of the 8th (Moscow) department of the Governing Senate with the rank of titular adviser. Thanks to his knowledge and abilities, moving up the ranks in the Senate, K.P. Pobedonostsev in 1856 received the Order of St. for his zeal for service. Stanislav 2nd degree, and in 1858 K.P. Pobedonostsev already holds the position of chief secretary of the General Assembly of the Moscow Departments of the Senate with the rank of state councilor. In 1859 K.P. Pobedonostsev, who by that time had already gained fame as the author of works on civil law and procedure, was invited to Moscow University, “depleted of legal professors,” 10 to give lectures on civil law and legal proceedings, 11 and in 1860 he was elected professor in the department of civil law. For K.P. Pobedonostsev, as he would later write, university teaching consisted not only in imparting to students a certain amount of knowledge, the “mental assimilation” of which would make a person just a “walking store of information.” For him, it was, first of all, a way of nurturing the moral character of the listener, a means of developing independence and discipline in his thinking. Professor, K.P. believed. Pobedonostsev, should not limit his activities only to the fulfillment of the duty “to come at a certain hour and give a lecture to a group of listeners gathered in the audience,” but must think about what “is happening in the minds and souls of his listeners, and what has been added to their growth and development from his speeches.” It’s the teacher’s business, K.P. is convinced. Pobedonostsev, “follow: the development of thought and skill of each listener,” only then “the work of the teacher himself thereby acquires lively interest and truly real significance, connecting him mentally and spiritually with each of the young people under his leadership” 12. About lectures by K.P. Pobedonostseva is remembered with gratitude by A.F. Koni: “: an excellent course in civil proceedings, clear, concise, accurate and instructive, read to us by: Pobedonostsev. His course coincided with the publication of the Judicial Statutes, and this was reflected in the content of his lectures. With lively sympathy, he depicted for us the features of the new adversarial process, explaining the “innovations” of cassation, separate from appeal, and the beneficialness of the right of justices of the peace to be guided not only by the written law, but also by folk customs. In particular, he highly valued the start of publicity in production. He was not satisfied with the “clerical image of Themis doing her job with a blindfold.” “What hides from the light and is hidden in secret,” he told us at a lecture on the publicity of proceedings, “there is certainly untruth in that,” and if the goal of justice is to reflect the truth, then it cannot be afraid of the light, and all its actions must be performed openly, because: the announcement of the truth under the cover of clerical secrecy is not an announcement:.” We took away from Pobedonostsev’s lectures a clear understanding of the tasks and methods of true justice” 13. Teaching activities of K.P. Pobedonostsev's work continued intermittently for almost six years, until 1865, when he, with “heartfelt regret” 14, was forced to leave the university due to the increase in his official duties in the Senate (in 1863 he was appointed chief prosecutor of the 8th department of the Senate), as well as the need to teach jurisprudence to the grand dukes. Moscow University highly appreciated the teaching activities of K.P. Pobedonostsev, as evidenced, in particular, by the resolution of the university council, which ordered “to express K.P. Pobedonostsev regrets that circumstances do not allow him to continue teaching at the university, which brought so much benefit to students" 15. In December 1865, for “five years of academic service in the Faculty of Law: and many scientific works testifying to his extensive knowledge of legal sciences” 16, K.P. Pobedonostsev, on the recommendation of the Faculty of Law, was elected an honorary member of Moscow University. In his letter of gratitude to the rector of the university S.I. Barshev K.P. Pobedonostsev wrote: “An ancient and close connection since birth has connected me with Moscow University, where my father held 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 more tangible for me since I was 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” 17. In November 1861, a young professor at Moscow University and Chief Secretary of the General Meeting of Moscow Departments of the Senate K.P. Pobedonostsev was sent “to the disposal of the Secretary of State for temporary work on the organization and transformation of the judicial department” 18. K.P. Pobedonostsev, thus, was destined to become one of the “fathers” of the judicial reform of 1864 and try his hand at the field of transformative state activities, which, as he later admitted to B.N. Chicherin, it was “so dug up by unclean animals that it is difficult to work on it without getting dirty:” 19. About this period of activity of K.P. Pobedonostsev allows us to judge both the numerous draft chapters and articles of the Judicial Charters, primarily the Charter of Civil Proceedings, compiled by him, as well as his own diary entries, as well as articles published anonymously or under a pseudonym in periodicals, which could only be attributed in our days. These sources clearly indicate that already during this period the worldview of K.P. Pobedonostsev acquires distinct conservative features, partly under the influence of the ideas of the German historical school of law, partly due to close acquaintance with government methods of transformation, which he later, in 1882, in a letter to S.A. Rachinsky will write: “Our policy of transformation is amazing. Either the door is locked and the key is thrown away - no one even thinks of pushing through the door. Or all the locks have been removed and the doors are wide open - come in whoever wants to!” 20. K.P. Pobedonostsev nevertheless welcomed the government’s initiative to reform the judicial system: “At the present time, when everyone is more or less clearly aware of the shortcomings of our existing judicial system: a conscientious citizen who ardently desires the establishment of truth in his fatherland: should not shy away from the modern issue of improving the court” 21. The establishment of a “just court,” which, in his opinion, should be “the public conscience,” seems necessary to him, first of all, so that “the law is not just one word: the law is not just a deceptive phrase.” “Only through the court,” K.P. is convinced. Pobedonostsev, - legal truth is realized and goes into action. There is no just court, there is no public truth” 22. At the same time, under the influence of the ideas of the founder of the historical school of law F.K. von Savigny K.P. Pobedonostsev is critical of the plans of “enthusiastic observers of foreign institutions” to “transplant on our soil the statutes and forms of court that are successfully operating in a neighboring state.” Based on the teachings of F.K. von Savigny about the “folk spirit” that creates unique forms of legal culture of the people in history, K.P. Pobedonostsev believes that “among all peoples: the forms of justice and reprisals were in close connection with all the conditions of political and national life, with the morals and customs of the people.” Therefore, “an institution that operates successfully in one region turns out to be in disagreement with popular concepts and morals in another.” A legislator who has forgotten about “the historical phenomena of people’s life” risks “giving an abstract rule or a dead form instead of a law” 23 . K.P. Pobedonostsev formulates the main principle of correct legislative policy: “the law must flow from the needs of real life if it aims to establish order and truth in the midst of it.” Therefore, in his opinion, the greatest criticism deserves the “harmful trend of doctrinaire pedants” who, “not caring about the indications of experience and the requirements of real life,” turn their attention only to the “abstract theory of legal proceedings”: “Putting their dry and dead doctrine above the lessons of history and life, they do not want to cope with either the conditions of the environment, which they hope to remake at will, or with the people who lived and acted in the midst of these conditions.” “The spirit of life is not heard in their complex system,” and therefore “everywhere such a direction: had an influence: on legislation, the laws were dry collections of rules and forms, detached from both the history of the people and the conditions of real life” 24. Conservative priorities of the political and legal worldview of K.P. Pobedonostsev and determined his predominantly oppositional attitude towards the new principles and institutions of legal proceedings and judicial system, as well as towards the people who prepared the judicial reform of 1864, and the institutions in which the discussion of future Judicial Statutes took place. From the first classes “at the Commission on Judicial Statutes” with K.P. Pobedonostsev is left with “dire impressions.” He writes in his diary (1862): “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” 25. K.P. Pobedonostsev records in his diary his impressions of the meetings of the State Council, at which the draft Judicial Statutes were discussed. Obviously, even then K.P. Pobedonostsev begins to form a sharply negative attitude towards the State Council, which subsequently, in the 80s, will lead him to the idea of ​​​​the need to abolish this institution as containing the potential danger of transformation from a legislative advisory body into a legislative body. His diaries for 1862 are replete with critical remarks about the State Council: “And here is a crowd without reasoning. They interpret without any sense. And here are our parliaments!” 26. “The melancholy was unbearable. More dreary than in the general meeting of the Senate. And this is our legislative assembly!” 27, writes K.P. Pobedonostsev regarding yet another “sluggish” meeting of the State Council, whose members were “liberal to the point of nausea” and proposed “incredibly ugly measures.” 28 Already the second meeting of the United Departments of the State Council on the case of transforming legal proceedings, which took place on May 2, 1862, does not leave K.P. Pobedonostsev has no illusions regarding the professional knowledge of its members: “It’s a pity to think what a meager supply of information the most active of the 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” 29. K.P. himself Pobedonostsev resolutely opposed the introduction of the institution of cassation proceedings into the Russian civil process, since this institution, “transferred from a foreign world,” “in the Russian concept will be some kind of false term, incomprehensible to anyone.” In his explanations submitted to the Commission, K.P. Pobedonostsev points out that “this term - cassation - was created by an artificial theory, and this theory is so new to us that it can be explained to the judges and practitioners themselves only after long-term experience in all its subtleties.” Therefore K.P. Pobedonostsev considered it necessary to “eliminate at least from the legal terminology the words cassation and cassation court” and “to explain briefly and clearly in the law when it is permissible to ask for a review of a case and when to invalidate a decision; and then let the Senate practice develop the doctrine of cassation” 30. The third meeting on May 5, 1862 leaves K.P. Pobedonostsev’s impression was even more depressing: “Again I was struck by the lack of general information in the members: the comments mostly related to trifles, to the editor’s addition to [any] unimportant words; no one went deeper and important objects were swallowed: everything had a personal and random appearance. [:] And the impracticality is so great that, for example, they demanded the unconditional personal appearance of everyone before the court, demanded that every action of the court and order of the chairman take place in the presence of the parties, etc.” 31. Often dining with S. Zarudny, K.P. Pobedonostsev subsequently recorded the conversations that took place between them: “They were explaining what an empty history of state reform in Russia is, and how difficult it is to talk about the alphabet as a controversial issue. This is a pitiful matter." 32 Characterizing the participants in judicial reform, in whose activities, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, there is “not the slightest sign of reasonable conservatism,” he writes: “And now they are all obsessed with the fact that they are “erecting monuments to themselves” by accepting these new statutes. As if they understand anything” 33. The next meeting of the Commission forces K.P. Pobedonostsev exclaim with regret: “The pallor of knowledge and legal[ical] ideas is amazing. Poor Russia! And that’s who transforms you!” 34. Thus, a close acquaintance with the people who participated in the preparation of judicial reform, as well as with government methods of transformation, leads to K.P. Pobedonostsev to an unambiguous conclusion: “In one people one senses the power of thought and action. 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 One of the main subjects of criticism by K.P. Pobedonostsev during this period was motivated by the prospect of introducing jury trials in Russia. In anticipation of the discussion of this issue in the Commission, K.P. Pobedonostsev published anonymous articles in the press containing detailed criticism of the institution of juries. K.P. Pobedonostsev warns the legislator against a dogmatic enthusiasm for the principle of people’s participation in legal proceedings, citing France as a sad example, where the institution of juries “from the very beginning they were accustomed to looking at it as a political institution, as a protection of freedom, which France loves to proclaim so much on any occasion and which France uses so little” 36. He is convinced that “it is impossible to promise success to the establishment of juries where the political, social and moral state of the people does not provide it with a reliable basis: where, due to historical reasons, indifference to the interests of truth and law has spread among citizens, and the legal sense is developed to the weakest extent” 37. The issue of introducing a jury trial was discussed at the sixth meeting of the United Departments of the State Council on May 16, 1862, regarding which K.P. Pobedonostsev writes in his diary: “To my surprise, everyone sang in chorus in praise of the institution of the jury. [:] I think not. There were many of these experiments, and we see that where these experiments failed, the jury trial was abolished. [:] However, Panin also concluded that at present I see in this the best means of improving our courts. The meaning of his words was: perhaps we’ll try. [:] So, the leaders decided to have a jury trial. [:] It’s sad to say - in less than 20 minutes, almost without discussion, this most important issue was resolved. No one touched on the practical side of it, its practical conditions. What a pitiful sight - and our young officials are delighted! But it all seemed very pitiful to me." 38 K.P. Pobedonostsev was one of the few figures in judicial reform who insisted on preserving the institution of the judicial oath in Russian legislation, which, in his opinion, is “the last, extreme sign of the reliability” of witness testimony given “in the name of God and eternity” 39. The arguments given by K.P. Pobedonostsev in substantiating his opinion are of interest due to the fact that they demonstrate the requirement for the moral validity of law, which is so characteristic of a conservative legal worldview, not excluding such a form as a judicial decision, which should not be based “on false human truth” 40, but should be a certification of “Divine truth.” The main one proposed by K.P. Pobedonostsev’s arguments are the correspondence of the oath to the “mental conditions of human nature” 41, the defining property of which is “a religious feeling and consciousness of responsibility for untruths not before blind human justice, but before the all-seeing court of God.” A testimony given under oath receives evidentiary force because it is given “in the name of God, in the name of the most sacred, highest interest of eternal life and eternal justice” 42. In addition, the oath is justified by K.P. Pobedonostsev as a traditional institution of Russian legislation, necessarily required by the religious consciousness of the people: “Are we in particular,” he writes, “is it permissible for the legislator to attach little or secondary value to the religious rite of the oath? Are we, where the strongest, most definite feeling that binds the people is the feeling of religious unity, inextricably fused with the consciousness of national unity?” 43. Therefore, a judicial decision based on unsworn testimony “will become a temptation in the eyes of the people... in which... the entire sphere of concepts rests on religious ideas, which serve... as the root source and unconditional measure of truth.” Ultimately, “the conscience of a believer... will refuse to recognize a judicial decision based on unsworn testimony, and will not cease to protest against its correctness, no matter how much it enters into legal force” 44. K.P. Pobedonostsev is trying to convince the members of the Commission that “such an innovation would be extremely destructive for justice, would sharply and violently contradict people’s rights, people’s religious feelings and would fundamentally undermine trust in the judicial power itself,” while “at the present moment the most important interest of legislation is to strengthen and establish general confidence in the court” 45. However, the arguments of K.P. Pobedonostsev were not accepted by the Commission and on February 15, 1863 K.P. Pobedonostsev writes in his diary: “Today Knierim’s letter excited me. They changed - probably by the grace of Zarudny - the decision on the oath of witnesses. The majority was in favor of interrogating witnesses without taking an oath. A decision worthy of children, not adults. Is it possible to work with them after this!” 46. K.P. Pobedonostsev also opposes the introduction into Russian legislation of the principle of irremovability of judges, in which he saw only another “abstract” rule, incompatible with the “economy of everyday life”: “The beginning of the irremovability of judges other than by a court verdict for crimes can hardly be applied to our circumstances.” Among such circumstances, K.P. Pobedonostsev notes, first of all, the lack of people “who fully satisfy all the requirements of the judicial rank,” which is why “it is often necessary to appoint people who do not fully satisfy these requirements... whose ability and dignity are only still assumed, and not reliably known.” It is obvious that “in such a situation, making a judge irremovable would mean depriving the government of a way to correct the mistake in the appointment of a judge” 47. Among the most “important issues of legal proceedings and judicial system” that had to be resolved in the process of legislative preparation of judicial reform, K.P. Pobedonostsev addresses in his lecture course for students of Moscow University “the question of the separation of the court from power... administrative” 48 . However, stating the need for separation of powers, K.P. Pobedonostsev emphasizes the relativity of any legislative design. He believes that “only long experience makes it possible to grasp the so often fluctuating contours of the boundary drawn by law between these two adjacent... authorities” 49. K.P. Pobedonostsev first of all draws attention to the second aspect of the principle of separation of two powers - the need for independence of administrative power from judicial power, which, in his opinion, was not taken into account by the draft Charter of Civil Procedure. And again presented by K.P. Pobedonostsev’s arguments were not accepted by the Commission, and at the end of 1863, “seeing that he could not reason with people,” he “fled from St. Petersburg to Moscow in disgust” 50 and returned to his current Senate work and teaching at the university. Nevertheless, the activities of K.P. Pobedonostsev’s work on the preparation of judicial reform was highly appreciated by the government, and “for his excellent and diligent service: and as a reward for his special tireless and useful work: in drawing up draft laws relating to the transformation of the judiciary,” he was assigned by the emperor “a special additional salary of two thousand silver rubles per year” 51. During the same period, in the first half of the 60s, K.P. Pobedonostsev at the invitation of Count S.G. Stroganov, who was then entrusted with overseeing the upbringing of the royal children, began teaching law to the heir to the throne, Nikolai Alexandrovich, and his brother, Grand Duke Alexander. K.P. Pobedonostsev became strongly attached to the Tsarevich, whom in the summer of 1863 he accompanied on a mandatory trip around Russia for the heir to the throne. His warm attitude towards the heir can be judged from his letter to A.F. Tyutcheva dated December 14, 1864: “I also love my Grand Duke and everything that concerns him touches me: there are strings in him that could sound, there is a color that could open: may God only grant him health” 52. As a teacher of the Grand Dukes K.P. Pobedonostsev, in whose presentation they became acquainted with the history and features of the system of government in the Empire, was undoubtedly capable of exerting a serious influence on the formation of their political worldview. Apparently, he deliberately set himself such a goal, realizing that the future direction of Russia’s internal policy is being determined now - in lessons with the heir to the throne. Compiled by K.P. himself. Pobedonostsev's notes on his lectures on Russian state and civil law are now stored in the State Archive of the Russian Federation and are of great interest from the point of view of what ideas he considered necessary to communicate to his students 53. K.P. Pobedonostsev tried to explain to the heir the concept of autocracy as a power that acts primarily legally, contrary to the lawlessness of personal government that prevailed in Russia before Peter. In pre-Petrine Rus', believes K.P. Pobedonostsev, “the supreme power: was looking for tools for managing the private economy of the sovereigns and ruled the State as a vast fiefdom, on patrimonial right.” This patrimonial or command management “laid a heavy burden on society, combining all the shortcomings of personal management, that is, arbitrariness, unrest, bribery and impunity” 54 . Peter “tried to give the supreme power a state character” 55: “He wanted to establish in Russia the idea of ​​government, which had previously been completely lost in personal power. Legality is required from the orders of superiors, and obedience is addressed not to the person, but to the law” 56. K.P. Pobedonostsev did not hide before his heir his critical attitude towards the reigns of those of his ancestors, during which “the personal element of trust gained preponderance over the state one, and therefore the highest administration, having lost the character of a state institution, became an instrument and place of private intrigues” 57. As is customary, K.P. Pobedonostsev was to address the Grand Dukes on the day of their coming of age with a word of greeting and parting words. So, in one of these letters to Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich (1857–1905) K.P. Pobedonostsev calls on him to consider his position as a “duty” and a “calling”, “assigned by God,” and this great duty, “no matter how difficult it may sometimes seem,” the prince “does not have the right to take off,” but must constantly remember that “with every word and deed” he is “associated with the honor, dignity and moral strength of the Imperial House.” He instructs the prince to live “by his own mind and his own skill,” and to be “independent of other people’s will and other people’s opinions”: “The rule above all is to do every task: big and small, conscientiously and truly, that is, do it yourself, with your labor, your thought, your interest, your jealousy.” K.P. Pobedonostsev draws the Grand Duke’s attention to the importance of choosing people, explaining to him that “exactly those people who you want to attract to you will come up to you, and you will see good if you look for it, you will see evil and baseness if it seems more convenient for you to be with small and pliable people.” In conclusion of his letter, K.P. Pobedonostsev writes: “If your life is imbued with the consciousness of your position and your duty, if it is inspired by love for Russia, it in itself will serve to strengthen our and your most precious good - the spiritual unity of the people with the Royal House. [:] On the contrary, if you, having loved pleasure most of all in life, dissolved yourself in the benefits, honors and sweets of your title and forgot about duty, your life would be: a sin before God, a crime before the Sovereign, grief and temptation for the love of the people” 58. The early death of his beloved pupil K.P. Pobedonostsev Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich on April 12, 1865 was a severe shock for him. He shares the pain of loss with A.F. Tyutcheva: “Oh, what grief, Anna Fedorovna! What a bitter and terrible grief! What a melancholy! What darkness has attacked my soul - I lived in agony all this bright week, from one telegram to another, and there was still hope lurking, but today the terrible news took away everything, ruined everything - our dear Tsarevich is no more and every minute you see him as if alive. I don’t know how to say who or what I’m mourning. Whether it is his young life, his lost strength and happiness that has just blossomed, or his sweet, dear fatherland, I cannot separate one from the other: Everyone is sad: but we, who knew him, feel most strongly what the loss of our prince means for everyone: I believe, I feel with all my soul: 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 looked for another pole in him: And God took this hope from us. What will happen to us? Let His holy will be done" 59. Service career of K.P. Pobedonostsev's life after 1865 developed in such a way that he had to finally part with Moscow and the university and move to St. Petersburg. After completing the work on preparing the Judicial Statutes of K.P. Pobedonostsev, in November 1863 appointed Chief Prosecutor of the 8th Department of the Senate, continues his service in this already reformed institution, since 1868 being present as a senator in the Civil Cassation Department. From August 1865 and throughout 1866–1867, he taught law to the new heir to the throne, his wife, Grand Duchess Maria Feodorovna, and his brother Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich. St. Petersburg life K.P. Pobedonostsev did not like her. Torn out of his usual Moscow social circle, K.P. Pobedonostsev finds joy in correspondence with his Moscow friends. In a letter to his “friend” B.N. Chicherin dated October 15, 1868 K.P. Pobedonostsev admits: “I don’t like life here - everything was so crushed in the big local market:” 60. “My thoughts are eager to go to Moscow, because there, in the past, lies my leisure, my freedom, and the world of Khlebny Lane,” 61 he again admits to B.N. Chicherin. And even after a long time, K.P. Pobedonostsev was never able to get used to St. Petersburg, characterizing it in a letter to S.A. Rachinsky dated June 30, 1882 as “bedlam and the center of depravity for all of Russia”: “In it: bad juices from everywhere are concentrated, for it is the center” 62. It was by this time, by the mid-60s, that K.P. Pobedonostsev formed a critical attitude towards the reign of Alexander II, as evidenced by his letters to the Tyutchev sisters. He writes to A.F. Tyutcheva on December 14, 1864: “And here we are - you won’t believe how tired we are of the transformations, how we have lost faith in them, how we wanted to stop at something so that we could finally know which wheel is turning and in which place which worker is standing. [:] 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 along with it” 63. “: Everything I see happening around oppresses my soul. Such a process of decomposition is taking place around us 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” 64, writes K.P. with bitterness. Pobedonostsev E.F. Tyutcheva October 18, 1866 His rapprochement with the new heir to the throne, Alexander Alexandrovich, dates back to the end of the 60s. “My lessons continue,” he writes to A.F. Tyutcheva March 21, 1867 – Every morning I go either to Anichkov or to Zimny ​​to see Vladimir. I admit that these activities tire me a lot - they tire me with the uncertainty of the circle in which I must act. But I feel that I need to do something while they leave me. I am generally satisfied with my relationship with the young people: both of them, apparently, trust me, and I love them both. [:] It’s a pity that they don’t have a person around them whom they would trust and who could bring people to them and help them receive and get to know people” 65. K.P. very soon became such a person. Pobedonostsev. The basis for the emergence of a trusting relationship between K.P. Pobedonostsev and the heir to the throne, obviously, became, first of all, the common love for the Church for both of them. As Yu.V. writes Gautier, “Alexander inherited from his mother a heightened religious feeling, which seems to be a distinctive feature of the House of Hesse, a feeling in any case stronger than that of his father and grandfather” 66. In addition, through K.P. Pobedonostsev Alexander, whom Yu.V. Gautier characterizes him as a “Russian man at heart” 67, had contact with a circle of Moscow Slavophiles, whose ideas the Tsarevich, perhaps under the influence of his law professor, treated with great sympathy. Finally, they were brought together by a critical attitude towards the reign of Alexander II, whose policies did not correspond to the national-Slavophile sympathies nurtured by the heir “not without the influence of Pobedonostsev” 68 . The relationship between Alexander II and Princess E.M., which began in 1864 Dolgorukova, who put the empress in a false position, on whose side the heir took and to whom K.P. was close. Pobedonostsev, only fueled the hostile attitude towards the reigning monarch in the crown prince and his teacher. So, in a letter to E.F. Tyutcheva November 28, 1880 K.P. Pobedonostsev is indignant about the Emperor’s marriage to his favorite, which followed 2 months after the death of the Empress, and about the measures taken to legally formalize the position of the new Princess Yuryevskaya: “The air is teeming with gossip of all kinds. Everyone is interested in the newly formed lawless state, which they are trying to transform into legality. The creator of this situation, apparently, has already lost the ability to recognize all its immorality, lies and ugliness. It probably seems easy for him to bring together both his legitimate and illegitimate family in one nest” 69. The rapprochement of K.P. Pobedonostsev and his heir caused discontent in court circles, as he reports in a letter to A.F. Aksakova December 20, 1868: “Occasionally I see the heir. It’s strange to think what a burden awaits this young couple, who for now live carefree. I would like to do good for them, but you know better than many how difficult it is to do good in this area. I fulfill my duty to the extent that I can, but even this modest occupation of mine has long made me a suspicious person in the eyes of the powers that be. I don’t know since when: a vague, but undeserved suspicion hangs over me. I have no doubt that the sovereign is looking at me suspiciously, with a second thought: I am among those who are supposed to interfere and block the road in every possible way” 70. However, despite his assumptions in 1872, Privy Councilor and Senator of the Civil Cassation Department of the Senate K.P. Pobedonostsev is appointed a member of the State Council. With the appointment of K.P. to this position. Pobedonostsev, as he would later write to Nicholas II, “got the opportunity to express out loud to everyone his opinions on state issues - opinions that he never hid from anyone,” as a result of which he “acquired a reputation as a stubborn conservative - in opposing new directions and trends of state liberals” 71. His correspondence is replete with critical remarks about the “fabrication of laws in the State Council” 72. In December 1877 he writes to E.F. Tyutcheva: “: as if on purpose, we have daily meetings, long, filled with meaningless discussions about various projects that have no meaning, and these discussions are so petty and insignificant that melancholy torments the soul. They take one word, one phrase - and they talk about it, talk, talk about it, but no one wants to go to the center, analyze the main idea, pose the question in all its breadth and depth: one goal is to get rid of the matter: and there is not that ugliness and that madness that one would not put up with, just so as not to raise the question, not to incur mental labor, which - alas! too many people can’t do it” 73 . Characterizing in letters to E.F. Tyutcheva members of the State Council, K.P. Pobedonostsev writes that they “sell the truth of life and its solid principles - for... the most vulgar arguments of liberal principles, and every time they look around - if Europe would not consider us barbarians!” “They are ready to destroy anything, refuse anything, accept anything, as long as they shine with the gloss of the European Stock Exchange!” 74, - K.P. is indignant. Pobedonostsev. He writes to E.F. Tyutcheva about “how hard it is” 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 into the so-called society - somewhere - into free space”: “All these tendencies of relaxed egoism are covered up and justified by phrases, formulas of worn-out liberalism” 75. K.P. Pobedonostsev often describes in detail E.F. Tyutchev’s content of the meetings of the State Council, at which he “has to fight without success against the clouding of the mind and the liberal foolishness with which everyone is infected in our country, and the right instinct has been lost at the top” 76 . One of the first such reports is devoted to a discussion of the military reform of 1874. Although in the official journals of the General Assembly of the State Council one can get acquainted with the opinion of K.P. Pobedonostsev on this issue, however, the confidential nature of his letter will tell us much more than his opinion recorded on official paper. “The whole history of the new provision on military service,” he writes to E.F. Tyutcheva in February 1874 is an exaggerated story. It was invented not for necessity, but for fun, for boasting. The first one was invented by Valuev. The main charm of the matter was not to lag behind Europe, and to carry out a complete equalization of classes in the main service. It seemed cheerful that a nobleman would be taken as a soldier in the same way as a peasant. [:] Our army is being distorted - why? Because of the abstract principle of the equation of estates. This principle, in my opinion, is fundamentally false, and here more than anywhere else. But it is in fashion everywhere, and therefore here too. It was impossible to say all this directly. We were not asked whether such a transformation was necessary or possible. This issue was resolved without us; and we were left to talk only about the organization, that is, what sauce to serve the cooked food with. I decided to speak out against the principle of equalization of classes in this matter, to show that in such a great matter as the army it is impossible to go on the principle of equalization. This is my main goal - I did not foresee positive success, but I knew that the same word was on the minds of almost everyone, but no one dared or knew how to express it. Nobody expected me to say this. That’s why my speech struck both the Grand Duke and Milyutin like a blow. They couldn’t even find an objection to me, especially in view of the almost general sympathy. But behind all this, it is curious that no one supported me (although many thanked me) and those who thanked me persuaded, almost begged, not to make a disagreement. It is curious that the Emperor, when my words were conveyed to him, jumped up with sympathy and said: yes, these are my words! These are my thoughts! Is this really not in the regulation? And two weeks later he approved this position” 77. His opinion on the ineffectiveness of consideration of cases in the State Council K.P. Pobedonostsev persistently expressed this in letters to the future Emperor Alexander III. So, in 1876, he wrote to the Tsarevich: “You won’t believe the melancholy that sometimes attacks you when you feel the insignificance of the affairs that we are busy with in the State Council. One provision is introduced after another, and... one is more imperfect... than the other, because they are very often drawn up not by people of action, but by officials who are ready to write any law for Russia, as long as it is new. We analyze all this and talk with importance about a rule that no one believes in, and we know in advance that all these rules will serve no purpose or will only serve to create new confusion and new costs for the treasury or new burdens for the people” 78 . Obviously, the critical attitude of K.P. Pobedonostsev to the State Council was due to the fact that he saw in it a semblance of the European Parliament. Secretary of State A.A. Polovtsov quotes a letter from K.P. on the pages of his diary. Pobedonostsev, where he points out that, in his opinion, “people are critical of the process of fabricating laws in the State Council, the structure of which is very imperfect,” moreover, similar to that which exists “in the West in legislative assemblies” 79. Based on memoir sources, we can conclude that in the 80s, the abolition of the State Council was part of K.P.’s plans. Pobedonostseva. So, A.F. Kony recalls that K.P. Pobedonostsev considered the State Council an institution “that should be locked and the key thrown into the water” 80. The basis of K.P.’s political worldview Pobedonostsev was convinced that “every constitution based on representation is a lie.” “Sooner or later,” he writes to O.A. Novikova in December 1881 - all European peoples, not excluding the British, will be convinced of this. They maintain order: despite the form of government, transactions with it, and the strength of character of the people's and historical sense. But even with them it is already wearing out” 81. At the end of the 70s, when a series of attempts on the life of Alexander II followed, for K.P. Pobedonostsev, the first symptoms of the decomposition of the monarchy become obvious. His letters to friends during this period are full of alarming forebodings. In September 1877 he writes to E.F. Tyutcheva: “Now the thought involuntarily comes to everyone in all of Russia - what a terrible thing autocracy is: Faith in the original royal power is being shaken - nothing can be done against this - and then the soul asks with horror: what will Russia do with itself!” 82. “: What could be more bleak than a feeling of contempt for the ruling power, and this feeling grows and deepens, and the power plunges more and more into the mire of lawlessness. It’s even sadder to think that this feeling is spreading, that it will soon become the same vulgarity and lie in the general imagination, like everything else: I see how that faith in reason and the calling of power, which for us serves as the only support of power, is beginning to waver and fade, and what will happen to us then” 83, he writes with alarm to E.F. Tyutcheva in 1879. The attitude of subjects to power, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, it would change only when “from the side of the authorities a different, dominant force of command, unwavering will and repression would be felt.” "Alas! This force, in which lies the entire moral significance of power, is the one that does not manifest itself. And as a result, people remain vile, swarm in the swamp and serve idols that they have invented and set up for themselves” 84. The internal political situation in Russia gave rise to K.P. Pobedonostsev compared it with the situation in France on the eve of the revolution of 1789: “I am now reading Revolution Tainéa 85, and I am reading with shudder and horror. A few years ago, such books were read simply with curiosity as a story about something alien and strange, but now you inevitably make a painful rapprochement. My God! Who and what has history taught?” 86. In this regard, K.P. Pobedonostsev foresees a situation where the Russian people will “soon: be required to make heavy sacrifices” 87. “You can see for yourself how sad these times are,” writes K.P. Pobedonostsev to the publisher of Moskovskie Vedomosti M.N. Katkov in December 1879 - Phenomena are happening that I would never have believed before. Power in Rus' is already becoming a toy, which pathetic and vulgar ambitious people want to transfer into each other’s hands through intrigue, which does not neglect anything. There is no longer a solid center from which all power would directly emanate and on which it would directly rest” 88 . K.P. Pobedonostsev places the blame for what is happening and what may happen in the future primarily on Alexander II: “And this is a fatal 25th anniversary, and his man is a fatal man: for unfortunate Russia,” writes K.P. Pobedonostsev E.F. Tyutcheva in February 1880 - 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! 89. Having learned about the government's constitutional plans, in January 1881 K.P. Pobedonostsev again conveys his heavy forebodings to E.F. Tyutcheva: “We are drawn by this fatal reign - drawn by a fatal fall into some kind of abyss” 90. The main reproach that K.P. Pobedonostsev addressed Alexander II - his lack of state will: “There is nothing to say about the ruler himself,” he writes to E.F. Tyutcheva in January 1879 - he is a pitiful and unhappy person, and there is no turning back for him. God struck him: he does not have the strength to stand up and control his movements, although he imagines himself alive and active and in power. It is obvious that the will in him has disappeared: he does not want to hear, does not want to see, does not want to act. He wants only the senseless will of the womb” 91. “fatal 25th anniversary”, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, “has exhausted all our people and turned them into eunuchs and idiots.” “In no one: reason and will are not visible: everyone looks like monkeys dressed up in someone else’s dress,” 92 he writes to M.N. Katkov already in April 1881. His premonitions of the imminent fall of the monarchy and his vision of the reasons that led to the “relaxation” of state power, K.P. Po-bedonostsev considered it his duty to inform the heir, with whose accession he pinned hopes for a change in political course: “And this is how everything has turned out for us,” he writes to the Tsarevich in October 1876, “that we are all at the same time with you and we all instinctively feel that the whole earth is lost without you, just as you are lost without the land” 93 . The consequence of the “weakness” and “lack of will” of Alexander II, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, was his detachment from government affairs, which created the danger of the development of usurper tendencies of the government, which has real, actual power: “...The people are deeply convinced,” he informed the Tsarevich in 1879, “that the government consists of traitors who keep the weak tsar in their power” 94. Characterizing the “patented” management techniques that became widespread during the reign of Alexander II, K.P. Pobedonostsev writes to the Tsarevich: “All the concern was directed towards reforms on a new basis, towards the publication of new regulations and provisions: Everyone assured each other and tried to assure the highest authorities that everything would go perfectly, if only such and such a rule was adopted, such and such a regulation was issued - and everyone, under this pretext, relieved themselves of the concern of watching, supervising and ruling” 95 . Therefore, “there is no government, as it should be, with a strong will, with a clear concept of what it wants, with determination to defend the basic principles of government, with a willingness to act wherever necessary” 96. Everyone is accustomed to living “as if the greatness of their power belonged to them, and their work goes on by itself”: “and it is bitter to hear their empty and loud speeches, when you know their pitiful deeds” 97. The danger of removing the monarch from direct control, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, is that it can be elevated to a political principle by a government with real power and a society morally dissolved due to the lack of power: “preachers of freedom and parliamentarism” only expect that “everything will work out by itself without power, if only power would retreat” 98 . “Perhaps the time will come,” warns K.P. Victorious of their pupil - when flattering people... who love to lull monarchs... begin to assure you that all you have to do is give the Russian state... a constitution in the Western style - and everything will go smoothly and rationally, and the government can completely calm down. This is a lie, and God forbid that a true Russian man should live to see the day when this lie can come true.”99 Ultimately, the people, who “do not see or feel a firm government, do not see the unity of power, will and direction,” gradually lose “what is most dear to the people, that is, faith in the government,” which, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev and “constitutes the root cause of general confusion and discontent” that could provoke revolutionary upheavals in the near future 100. In 1879 K.P. Pobedonostsev warns the future emperor: “A moment may come when the people, in despair, not recognizing the government, will renounce it in their souls and will hesitate to recognize as their own the power that, contrary to scripture, carries the sword without mind. This will be a terrible moment, and God forbid we live to see it” 101. The “relaxation” of state power, the resulting political ambitions of the government, seeking to “lull” the monarch, and the people’s loss of trust in the authorities can, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, lead to the fact that “before we have time to look back, a new flattery will arise in the Russian land and in the Russian government, more bitter than all the previous ones, some senseless parliament will appear to the final destruction of Russia and to the joy of our friends the British, Germans, French and especially Poles.” “Something fatal is pushing us into this abyss from all sides, and - alas! - apparently, also on the part of the government, which truly does not know what it is doing” 102, he writes to the Tsarevich in 1879. At the same time, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, “better is the Russian revolution and ugly unrest than a constitution”: “The first can still be overcome soon and order can be established in the land; the latter is poison for the whole organism, corroding it with constant lies, which the Russian soul does not accept” 103. Having explained to the crown prince, using the example of his father’s reign, the mechanism of the disintegration of state power, K.P. Throughout the 70s, Pobedonostsev taught him in his letters lessons about what autocratic rule in Russia should be like. He seeks to convey to the crown prince, a deeply religious man like himself, the idea of ​​power as a sacred service dedicated to God. Thus, in 1876, he wrote to the future emperor: “Oh, what a great burden power is and how happy he is who has escaped this difficult lot.” 104 In 1879 K.P. Pobedonostsev again reminds the heir that “to be a statesman” means “not to be consoled by your greatness... but to sacrifice yourself to the cause you serve” 105. This “burden” of rule obliges the monarch to constantly personally exercise his power in the sphere of government, which K.P. Pobedonostsev reminds the Tsarevich: “No, nowhere, and especially here in Russia, nothing is done by itself, without a ruling hand, without a supervising eye, without a master” 106. In this regard, K.P. Pobedonostsev convinces the heir: “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" 107. In 1878, annoyed by the outcome of the trial in the case of terrorist V. Zasulich, K.P. Pobedonostsev again convinces the future emperor: “Things do not go by themselves, order is not established by itself, chaos by itself does not turn into harmony. There must be people with a strong will, with a consciousness of what they want and where they are going, with constancy of orders and activities. It’s in vain to reassure and deceive ourselves... let’s take this or that measure, and everything will come to order. You must completely, from within, wake up and stand up, and steer the rudder and work with all the oars, day and night, in order to guide the ship through the darkness and storm” 108. K.P. Pobedonostsev considered it utopian to attempt to divert the monarch from moral responsibility to his subjects for the results of his policies, hiding him behind institutions erected for this purpose. According to K.P. Pobedonostsev, only the inviolability of the political significance of the monarchical principle, ensured by the personal action of the supreme power in the sphere of governance, is capable of raising the moral authority of the monarch’s power in the eyes of the people, and maintaining relations of mutual moral trust between them, which he considered the main condition for the viability of the monarchy. “It is my deep conviction,” he wrote to the Tsarevich in 1877, “that in Russia we must value most of all the moral trust of the people, their faith in the government. [:] People become despondent and sad when they do not feel the ruling power - my God, how important this is! We, in Russia, have no other driving force except the unity of the people with the government in moral consciousness" 109. However, K.P. Pobedonostsev is convinced that only that power “works miracles and, feeling itself in unity with the people, is strong with great power,” which “is aware of its strength and knows what it wants, and understands where to lead and how to rule.” “The whole secret of Russian order and prosperity is at the top, in the person of the supreme power,” he writes to the Tsarevich in 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 and the power that is destined for you from God means.” 110 Again and again he convinces K.P. Pobedonostsev Tsarevich: “In Russia, everything can be done only by people, and every task must be carried on, without letting go for a minute: as soon as you let it go in the thought that it goes by itself, the business is ruined, and people disperse and give up” 111. In February 1880, after another attempt on the life of Alexander II, K.P. Pobedonostsev in a letter to E.F. Tyutcheva, foreseeing the imminent possibility as a result of the tragic events of the change of reign, expresses his alarm that the lessons of public administration he taught to the Tsarevich may not be learned by him: “My God! How will he rule? He did not see how men of strength and reason ruled. The rule of his father, which he sees, is the absence of reason, strength and will” 112. In April 1880 K.P. Pobedonostsev is appointed chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, a position he will serve for 25 years, until October 19, 1905. Regarding his high appointment, he writes to E.F. Tyutcheva: “Oh, power is a truly terrible thing, and those who desire it do not know what they are saying. I always looked at her as a disaster, knowing that in power you have to lose your freedom and be a servant to everyone. I am supported by faith in the holiness of my calling and hope in living forces” 113. In the first months of 1881, dissatisfaction with K.P. Pobedonostsev government policy reaches a critical point. “The government abandons any struggle for fundamental principles. On the contrary, every phenomenon of real life, even the most ugly, is presented as an existing fact, which must be taken into account, which remains to be regulated” 114, he writes E.F. Tyutcheva in January 1881. “And from this point of view, nothing is impossible, nothing can be denied - everything can be reconciled with in a certain form” 115. Thus, believes K.P. Pobedonostsev, the government “raises and disbands forces that will be difficult to cope with.” “The recipe for all current state activity,” in his opinion, is “not to delve into the fundamental principles and shy away from the struggle: when there is an opposing movement, take it into account and try to regulate it”: “The students have risen up - we will give them freedom and self-government. The zemstvo is worried - let's give it freedom and structure. The press is going crazy: what to do! Let's free her" 116. “The same [reception. – E.T.] – with the Russian Constitution. We’ll live through our sins even before that” 117. “Oh our grief! – writes K.P. Pobedonostsev E.F. Tyutcheva. – The supreme power, which is so prone to laziness and indifference, has now reached this point, and the point at which in Russia there has always been support for the sound principles of the people’s truth and the people’s good has been moved. And it seems that the time is already coming when the champions of the strong and sound principles of truth and people’s life turn out to be opponents of the government. I’m afraid that I will soon find myself like that” 118. In the first days after the death of Alexander II, K.P. Pobedonostsev uses all his influence on the new emperor in order to prevent the constitutional path of development of Russia, which was envisaged by the project of the Minister of Internal Affairs M.T. Loris-Melikova. K.P. More than once in the first weeks of his pupil’s reign, Pobedonostsev reminded Alexander III that “the fate of Russia on earth is in the hands of your Majesty” 119, and therefore “a new policy must be declared immediately and decisively”: “We must put an end at once, right now, to all talk about freedom of the press, about the willfulness of gatherings, about a representative assembly. All this is a lie of empty and flabby people, and it must be discarded for the sake of the people’s truth and the good of the people” 120. However, letters from K.P. Pobedonostsev to E.F. Tyutcheva for March 1881 are full of fears that his pupil, who ascended the throne, “will not have the will” 121. Knowing about the plans of M.T. Loris-Melikova “to benefit Russia with a constitution or the beginning of it by calling deputies from all over Russia” 122, which were already discussed under the late emperor at three meetings, K.P. Pobedonostsev fears that even under the new sovereign “they will follow this path”: “Nobody wants to join the fight,” he writes to E.F. Tyutcheva March 3. – The power has become weathered and worn out; everyone became not men, “but cold-hearted eunuchs.” They will begin to repeat, as the newspapers are already repeating today: it is necessary to build a lightning rod for personal safety and the irresponsibility of the authorities. For a power that has weakened morally. This is the devil's word of temptation. You have to be a man of strength and truth not to listen to him” 123. Throughout March 1881 K.P. Pobedonostsev spends time in anxiety. On March 28 he writes to S.A. Rachinsky: “Don’t ask me what we have. My soul hurts inexpressibly, and I am ready to say the words of the cowardly Jonah: it is better for me to die than to live. But God knows who to take and who to leave here. Here we have a confusion of languages, heads are shrouded in fog, the will is corrupted, there are many words and few deeds. Ask me what will happen. - Don't know. I am truly unhappy. People are grabbing at me from everywhere - but what can I do? [:] The strength of a lone swimmer cannot endure. I am an Old Believer and a Russian person. I see the path and the truth clearly, and I have never been silent, I have never hidden my thoughts. For this reason I became known as an ominous prophet. And now it’s my calling to expose lies and madness, for which many people hated me and would have destroyed me if they could. [:] Here everyone worships idols - freedom of the press, all guarantees, liberties and deceptive forms. But the church of the living God stands desolate” 124. The situation was resolved only on April 29, when K.P. Pobedonostsev convinced the emperor, “without consulting with the ministers” 125, to issue a Manifesto prepared by him, which solemnly declared his intention to “affirm and protect for the good of the people from any encroachments on it” “the power and truth of Autocratic power” 126. April 29 K.P. Pobedonostsev reports E.F. Tyutcheva: “Everyone, some with delight, others with horror, was waiting for the manifesto on the constitution. All of Russia is in turmoil. It was necessary to stop all talk with a firm word. My name is in the ears of the entire local intelligentsia with curses, with foam at the mouth: “You opened your mouth against me”" 127. Commenting on the publication of the Manifesto and the subsequent resignation of liberal-minded ministers, K.P. Pobedonostsev declares to B.N. Chicherin in May 1881: “The Manifesto was necessary: ​​otherwise people, maddened by the touch of power, would soon lead us to death. We should be glad that neither L. Melikov nor Abaza are any more. The latter completely lost his head and could no longer return to reason” 128. However, even in May 1881, the political situation, due to the fact that there are still no “clear signs of the policy announced in the manifesto” 129, gives K.P. Pobedonostsev has cause for concern. He writes to S.A. Rachinsky: “The life that I now lead is like a sentry at my post: I don’t know when and how the tense state in which we live will end - alas! so far! Truly our destinies are in the hands of God” 130. Another danger to the autocratic power of K.P. Pobedonostsev saw in the project of convening the Zemsky Sobor, presented by the new Minister of Internal Affairs N.P. Ignatiev, whose appointment to this position instead of M.T. Loris-Melikov, he took a very direct part. K.P. Pobedonostsev writes to S.A. Rachinsky on June 18, 1882: “Without consulting any of the efficient and serious people, he, in agreement with the dreamer Aksakov, prepared a draft of the Highest Manifesto for May 6 and secretly presented it to the Sovereign. It was announced that in the spring the Zemsky Sobor would be convened from all classes and from all over Russia, from Poland, Finland, etc., one and a half thousand. It was proposed to this rabble that the structure of provincial and district government be discussed, and that this institution be made permanent. The act is written in phrases reminiscent of leading articles in Rus'. Fortunately, the matter did not succeed." At the insistence of K.P. Pobedonostseva N.P. Ignatiev was dismissed, and on his recommendation Count D.A. was appointed the new Minister of Internal Affairs. Tolstoy. “You are afraid of Gr. Tolstoy, he writes to S.A. Rachinsky in the same letter. - But where is the name that you would call? There is no such name. About Gr. Tolstoy can at least be said to be firm in his opinions and decisive in his measures. Whoever he is, he’s hardly an eunuch – and we’re all eunuchs!” 131. In the first years of the reign of Alexander III, K.P. Pobedonostsev declares the urgent need to revise the Judicial Statutes. Twenty years of operation of the new judicial system convinced K.P. Pobedonostsev is that society was not ready for a reasonable perception of the freedoms granted to it. The reformed court in Russia has become, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, a hostage of the liberal tendencies that dominated society, which, in particular, manifested itself with particular force during the trial of V. Zasulich. In this case, the judiciary, “out of a cowardly fear of allegedly offending public opinion, out of a desire to show off before the intelligentsia, perhaps before Europe, respect for the jury,” thereby betrayed “the state interest associated with this case.” The trial of V. Zasulich, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, showed that the reformed court, being separated from the state, replaces “essential and eternal truth”, the bearer of which is the supreme autocratic power, with “observance of the forms in which it posits freedom and equality, and is afraid of in any way overstepping this formal truth” 132. It was precisely the distrust of K.P. Pobedonostsev to the moral state of society, degraded as a result of the reign of Alexander II, should be explained by his intention to revise the Judicial Statutes. So, in a letter to A.F. Horses in 1879 K.P. Pobedonostsev expresses doubts about the effectiveness of the functioning of the new judicial system in Russian society: “Where is the market, and also our Russian market with all the merchants and traders, women, drunks and taverns, it is difficult to look for truth and harmony there. And unfortunately, our new court is located in precisely such a market” 133. Particular indignation of K.P. Pobedonostsev is summoned to a jury trial, about which he expresses his opinion in a letter to A.F. Koni dated October 24, 1879: “: the institution of juries in Russia, taken with all the conditions - economic, political, everyday, etc., is one of the most false institutions that have ever been introduced in the Russian land by the hand of a German master. Although its ideal beauty and usefulness may appear, in reality it does the greatest harm and multiplies beyond measure the general lie with which our entire official institution is wrapped like swaddling clothes” 134. In 1885 K.P. Pobedonostsev presents the emperor with a personal report “On the need for judicial reforms,” which became the government program for adjusting the Judicial Statutes of 1864. In the report of K.P. Pobedonostsev, in particular, states the need to “stop the demoralization that the publicity of all court hearings, raised to an absolute dogma by the champions of the abstract principles of judicial reform, is spreading in society.” He insists on “decisive measures to curb” the arbitrariness of lawyers who, “exploiting their clients for personal gain: terrorize judges and prosecutors and witnesses, exciting the public with artificial techniques that get on the nerves.” K.P. Pobedonostsev considers it necessary to remove “one by one categories of criminal cases” from the jurisdiction of juries, since jurors, “randomly recruited from weak and dependent people in society, are left to the random influence of all sorts of random influences on them” 135, etc. On how difficult it will be to revise the Judicial Statutes, K.P. Pobedonostsev was warned by the Minister of Public Education I.D. back in 1884. Delyanov: “Something will happen when the current or future Minister of Justice appears in the State Council with a project to change judicial statutes? There is no torment of hell that he will not be considered worthy of." 136 Indeed, having encountered obstacles to the implementation of his intentions in the State Council, K.P. Pobedonostsev complains in a letter to T.I. Filippov: “God punished our statesmen by giving them a chicken soul and sending them night blindness. What a cowardly flock it is that leads it - a small and holy fool - D.N. Nabokov" 137. In 1885 K.P. Pobedonostsev seeks the resignation of his classmate from the School of Law from the post of Minister of Justice, after which he initiates a partial revision of the Judicial Statutes. The given plot clearly indicates that K.P. Pobedonostsev, being the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, due to his close and trusting relationship with Alexander III, was able to influence many other areas of state life that were not directly under his jurisdiction. According to historian A.A. Kiesewetter, K.P. Pobedonostsev managed to become “the central figure in the ruling circles of the era of counter-reforms”: “His personality, imperious, combative, militant, represented the node in which all the threads of state policy converged during the reign of Alexander III. In the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, he wanted and managed to become, in fact, the head of the government, firmly and tenaciously grasping the rudder of the ship of state in his hand” 138. However, as A.I. rightly notes. Peshkov, “it would be an exaggeration to attribute to K.P. Pobedonostsev had a role in the system of public administration that never belonged to him: his influence was significant, but not always decisive” 139. K.P. himself Pobedonostsev wrote about this later in a letter to P.A. Tverskoy dated February 19, 1900: “For a long time, people, both European and Russian, who do not know what and how our administrative springs move, imagine that everything that happens in Russia from the government moves by the will or whim of some one who at one moment or another is considered an influential force, so to speak, “the first person according to the pharaoh.” And so, unfortunately, the fantastic idea that I am such a person was established everywhere, and they made me a scapegoat for everything that one or another is dissatisfied with in Russia: [:] Such a burden of public opinion has to be endured - you cannot refute it, and no one will believe it, so the illusion of ignorance, ignorance and prejudice has already taken root” 140. The policy of Alexander III, who had well learned the lessons of public administration taught to him by K.P. Pobedonostsev, satisfied the aspirations and hopes of his teacher. After the death of Alexander III, K.P. On April 6, 1895, Pobedonostsev gave a speech at the Imperial Russian Historical Society in memory of his pupil, which, according to the poet A.A. Golenishchev-Kutuzov “should be constantly kept before the eyes and in the memory of all Russian (especially government) people” 141. “No matter what happens,” said K.P. Pobedonostsev at a meeting of the society in the presence of the new emperor - everyone knew and were sure what, in important cases of state life, He would give a negative and what a positive answer from His Russian soul. Everyone knew that He would not give up the Russian, bequeathed by history, interest either in the Polish or on other outskirts of the foreign element, that He deeply preserves in His soul the same faith and love for the Orthodox Church with the people: finally, that, together with the people, He believes in the unshakable significance of the Autocratic power in Russia, and will not allow for it, in the ghost of freedom, a disastrous confusion of languages ​​and opinions” 142. Throughout his life, K.P. Pobedonostsev is waging a struggle that began during the reign of Alexander II against the “idol” of freedom of the press, which, as he believed, in a morally disorganized Russian society that has lost the culture of thought, will result in “freedom of all kinds of doing” and “all kinds of speech.” 143 This is how he describes the results of the meeting with P.A. Valueva in a letter to E.F. Tyutcheva on January 26, 1881: “Everyone, as one person, decides to free the press completely, leaving the court to examine complaints against it from the government. Can you think of anything else crazy in Russia? Once again, the government, classifying itself as a rotten intelligentsia, forgets or rejects its main calling - to protect the multi-million people from poison and temptation. I was left alone in the opinion that at least the court should [be] not a public arena, but a closed one. And everyone protested against me about this” 144. His attitude towards the next “ghost” of freedom K.P. Pobedonostsev expresses in a letter to E.F. Tyutcheva on February 8, 1882: “I consider this concept (freedom of the press. - E.T.) an empty and harmful dream, which contradicts Russian common sense and belongs to the realm of many formal freedoms borrowed by our liberals from someone else’s life and someone else’s history. [:] So, if the direction came from me, I would: advise the government to take up the matter of printing with an authoritative hand: then there would be no place left for many of the current publications, positively corrupting the people in the whole of Russia. In this sense, not a single newspaper would be free from warnings” 145. K.P. Pobedonostsev characterizes newspapers as “real plagues of our time” 146, which “have been taken over by the “father of lies” himself” 147. In a letter to S.A. Rachinsky in February 1898. K.P. Pobedonostsev is indignant: “All newspapers are in the hands of industrialists, most of them Jews, and trade in ignorant liberalism, gossip and scandal. Truly, I do not know a single editorial board that is reasonable and cultured” 148. He calls periodicals of the liberal trend “shops,” which “have established themselves under the brand of magazines and which impudently call themselves the Russian press, arrogating to themselves autocracy in the so-called public opinion” 149. Observations of the manipulations with public opinion carried out by liberal magazines lead K.P. Pobedonostsev to an unambiguous conclusion: “I consider public opinion everywhere, and especially in Russia, a deceptive dream, and I see from the experience of my whole life how with its help the truth is not explained, but rather distorted” 150. Already during the reign of Nicholas II K.P. Pobedonostsev writes S.Yu. Witte December 25, 1904 regarding his project to “liberate” the press: “I was horrified when I read your proposal about the press in the evening and could not sleep. Don’t you see that our press is nothing more than a vile rabble without culture, without conviction, without honor and an instrument of moral depravity in the hands of enemies of every order? And you propose to demolish all preventive measures at once, leaving only the ghost of some kind of punishment, ineffective and fruitless, giving only a reason to incite new unrest. After all, this seal will spread poison to all corners to the last village and will finally corrupt the people’s soul” 151. K.P. Pobedonostsev regularly publishes, usually under a pseudonym, his publications and translations of “reasonable articles” from 152 foreign magazines in various organs of the conservative press, primarily in the one published by F.M. Dostoevsky “Citizen” and “Moskovskie Vedomosti” M.N. Katkova. The latter always agreed with K.P. Pobedonostsev edited the most important articles relating to government policy issues. Letters from K.P. stored in the archives. Pobedonostsev allows the chief editors of these publications to judge the methods of his secret influence on the press. Thus, in a letter to the editor of Moskovskie Gazette dated November 21, 1891, S.A. Petrovsky, who replaced M.N. Katkov, he actually orders: “Listen to the advice: it can be very bad if you don’t listen. Beware of articles about hunger. Keep quiet about Finland, keep quiet even about the patriarchs and the Greeks - this is also a delicate subject:" 153. At the beginning of the reign of Nicholas II, K.P. Pobedonostsev, seeing that “all anti-government, pseudo-liberal elements have been revived with new hope” for the constitution 154, writes to the new editor of Moskovskie Vedomosti L.A. Tikhomirov on February 6, 1895: “It would now be useful to have concise and clear indications of the operation of parliamentary government in Europe, of the web of lies and deceit of all kinds with which the elections of representatives are permeated: The mechanics of elections in our zemstvos would also require a factual explanation” 155. K.P. Pobedonostsev advises him to translate articles from the foreign press, which he closely followed throughout his life: “Regarding the system of parliamentary elections and their production, recently there have been quite a few articles in foreign magazines (which no one follows here). Only among us those who have eyes do not see and those who have ears do not hear, and the intelligentsia continues to worship the fetish of the constitution and shout: great is Artemis of Ephesus!” 156. In October 1896 K.P. Pobedonostsev again reminds L.A. Tikhomirov: “Our youth, unfortunately, feed only on Russian rubbish, and therefore, chasing the ghost of truth, they imagine that where there is parliament, there can be no worthless ministers, no bribery and favoritism, but we only have: It would be necessary to destroy this impression with living examples of tyranny, violence, theft and bribery everywhere. It would be necessary to show what the discussion of affairs and laws in parliament is worth: and that all the power goes into responding to the requests and speeches of political and social agitators” 157. Despite the fact that in 1894 another student of K.P. ascended the throne. Pobedonostsev, to whom he taught law during 1885–1888, the change of reign again made him worry about the political future of Russia, which was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain within the framework of the traditional state form. At the beginning of January 1895 he writes to S.A. Rachinsky: “I cannot think indifferently about this confusion of thoughts, ideas and wishes in our elected assemblies, with the leaven of that shameless intelligentsia that now dominates everywhere: The same leaven - alas! and in our press, which creates the so-called public opinion. It is regrettable - but one should have expected the kind of turmoil that arose among these gentlemen and with what lusts, regarding the change of reign. They are testing the soil, making up addresses with hints of the constitution! The Tver meeting composed a vulgar and insolent address. This raises fears - will there be a conscious force that would now say the reasonable - quos ego! 158. The role of such a “conscious force,” as in 1881, was again played by K.P. Pobedonostsev, composing a speech for Nicholas II, delivered by the Emperor on January 17, 1895, in which, in particular, the “dreams” of zemstvo assemblies “about the participation of zemstvo representatives in the affairs of internal government” were qualified as “senseless” and the intention was declared to “protect the beginning of the Autocracy as firmly and unswervingly” as Alexander III protected it 159. However, this speech could no longer bring the desired calm to society, and on January 18, K.P. Pobedonostsev writes to S.A. Rachinsky: “What a chatty talk arose everywhere in the zemstvos: And again crazy, senseless lusts - some kind of constitution” 160. In a letter to L.A. Tikhomirov dated February 6, 1895 K.P. Pobedonostsev draws his attention to “how the Tsar’s speech was received by the foreign, even liberal, press,” and is indignant that “our truly senseless herd of intellectuals and bureaucrats are engaged in parroting in protests against this speech” 161. Fearing that Nicholas II would yield to public opinion, K.P. Pobedonostsev instructs his former pupil in a letter dated February 7, 1895: “The reign of the deceased sovereign had barely ended when the same people and their former associates woke up and were preparing to resume the same agitation. Trouble was immediately unleashed in all parts of Russia. [:] Regarding: the speech arose: a dull murmur among the bureaucrats and the intelligentsia. Unfortunately, it is heard among high-ranking officials in power. That is why now, more than ever, the firmness of the supreme will is necessary in all orders emanating from it” 162. However, already after the first two years of the reign of Nicholas II for K.P. Pobedonostsev, it becomes obvious that “the Russian feeling and historical meaning are being lost in the upper strata” 163. The government, he writes to S.A. Rachinsky on November 8, 1896, lost “all the energy of reasonable power while maintaining the ghost of power”: “In government power there is neither a clear thought nor a firm decision - the eye looks around and settles on a temporary compromise. In the legislation there is an unimaginable confusion of concepts and prejudices, with a complete absence of both instinct and a clear, vital concept of Russia and the people. [:] In all this - both above and below - there is an amazing lack of culture and some kind of recklessness of thought and speech: in the absence of a clear consciousness about what to want and where to go” 164. In January 1899 K.P. Pobedonostsev, in a letter to the Slavophile D. F. Samarin, is indignant at “in what state of disintegration our state thought is now - and how widespread is indifference to the protection of the very foundations of the State [artorial] order” 165 . In the politics of Nicholas II K.P. Pobedonostsev bitterly discovers the same government methods that so outraged the chief prosecutor during the reign of his grandfather: “I am especially struck by the inactivity of the authorities and authorities,” he writes to S.A. Rachinsky February 6, 1900 - As soon as you need to decide on something, no one dares - you need to hold a meeting, draw up and sign a protocol: Finally - you don’t know where to go from legislation and laws” 166. Already in 1900 K.P. Pobedonostsev clearly understands the inevitability of revolutionary upheavals in Russia in the near future. He shares his alarming premonitions with his friend S.A. Rachinsky in a letter dated July 19: “What will society and the government live to see? 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" 167 . In December 1904 K.P. Pobedonostsev writes to the publisher of the Russian Archive P.I. Bartenev, with whom he collaborated for many years: “God took away people’s minds. In 1881 one could have hoped - now there is no one to rely on” 168. “I feel,” writes K.P. Pobedonostsev S. Yu. Witte on December 25, 1904, “that the maddened crowd is carrying me with it into the abyss that I see in front of me, and there is no salvation” 169. K.P. Pobedonostsev is gradually moving away from active participation in meetings of the State Council, as evidenced by his letter to S.A. Rachinsky dated May 15, 1900: “How furiously the now enraged demon of legislation has rampaged! Pounds of printed material lie on the tables, meetings take place morning and evening, the longest and most empty speeches are made by orators who have gone through the depraved school of the Cassac[ion] D-[department]-in the Senate. It's unbearable. I rarely go there, only on those matters and issues that concern me” 170. K.P. Pobedonostsev confesses to his friend: “And I, even now for my work, sometimes feel such a weakening of strength that I ask myself: how much longer will they last! There were hints of this sort from above - but I cannot sacrifice myself when I am sure that the sacrifice will be fruitless, and when I feel that in the fierce and evil struggle that would lie ahead, I will not find strong understanding and strong support: "171. However, before his resignation from the post of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, K.P. Pobedonostsev was destined to fight with another “idol” of freedom - the principle of freedom of religion, under the pretext of which in January 1905 the Committee of Ministers also raised the issue of replacing the existing synodal government of the church with a conciliar one. Back in 1881 K.P. Pobedonostsev wrote to E.F. Tyutcheva that “all the insistence of our idealists to proclaim what they call freedom in the matter of religion” will lead to the fact that “our enemies will snatch away the Russian people from us in masses and make them Germans, Catholics, Mohammedans, etc., and we will lose them forever for the church and for the fatherland.” “What our church is like is what history has shown us and will show again: our church is one with the people – no better than it and no worse. This is its great quality. But the state is obliged to understand him and is obliged to protect her” 172. The danger of proclaiming the “abstract” principle of freedom of religion K.P. Pobedonostsev saw that the preaching of the separation of church and state, “falling into the ignorant crowd, and even into the intelligentsia, becomes a denial of the state and anarchy” 173, which, “unfortunately, our half-educated “intelligentsia” does not understand” 174. The demands for the restoration of the patriarchate and conciliar government of the church, put forward by the liberal intelligentsia and some church hierarchs, who thus seek to assert themselves, in the opinion of K.P. Pobedonostsev, “freedom of autocracy,” were heard back in the early 80s. The main obstacle to the implementation of these demands is K.P. Pobedonostsev even then saw the dysfunctional spiritual state of Russian society, which could lead to the fact that “conciliar government of the church through hierarchs and priests” would turn into the same “zemstvo and peasant elections, from which they dream of forming a representative assembly for Russia” 175. In February 1882, regarding articles by the organ of the Slavophile press “Rus” in defense of the patriarchal management of the church by K.P. Pobedonostsev writes E.F. Tyutcheva: “Articles in Rus' about the patriarchate: I read. The articles are intelligently written in the design of the plan - but what of this? The plan, after all, is based on air and presupposes some kind of ideal state of society, pushed back in thought several centuries ago - and, moreover, into an imaginary state. Would you like to elect a bishop for the whole province? See what happens? And people write all this as if a golden age will come if a new institution is introduced. And it will be new, although they call it old. People forget where we went from the 14th century, from the 15th, from the 16th and 17th: they forget what spiritual power meant at that time - it was - and in the general consciousness - the only and main element of civilization and authority. Wouldn't you like to restore the then moral attitude of secular power to spiritual power? Wouldn't you like to restore the worldview of the spiritual authorities of that time? After all, what happened from that time on! I’ll name one French Revolution, which turned everyone’s heads, including the heads of those very writers who propose their plan!” 176. On the same occasion, K.P. Pobedonostsev wrote to Archbishop Ambrose of Kharkov in April 1882: “What a dream they saw in the depths of centuries in the cathedral administration! Have they tried this self-government, of which they see the grain at congresses, even for a week! They would repent and ask” 177. Previous concerns of K.P. Pobedonostsev’s idea that the conciliar government of the church in contemporary society would turn into a semblance of popular representation was confirmed in 1905, when “all the newspapers of the revolutionary trend seized on this idea of ​​the Council, sensing in it a new source of unrest” 178. K.P. Pobedonostsev wrote to Nicholas II in March that attempts to introduce “radical changes: into our Orthodox church government” threaten “death for both the church and the state in Russia” 179. Therefore, says K.P. Pobedonostsev, “raising this issue is extremely untimely at a time when turmoil is occurring throughout the state” 180. As a result, the Chief Prosecutor ensured that in March 1905, by order of the Highest, the issue of transformations in the church was removed from the discussion of the Committee of Ministers and transferred to the Synod for consideration. This was the last victory K.P. Pobedonostsev victory. Political activities of K.P. Pobedonostsev ended with his resignation from the posts of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and member of the Cabinet of Ministers on the second day after Nicholas II signed the Manifesto on October 17, 1905, although he continued to remain a member of the State Council and a senator until his death. About the activities of K.P. Pobedonostsev’s position as Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod is evidenced by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Volyn who experienced his power, who, by his own admission, “often brought upon himself: the displeasure” of K.P. Pobedonostsev due to differences in views on fundamental issues of church policy. However, in response to the “brazen antics of the newspapers,” the Metropolitan considered it his duty to fulfill the “demand of his heart” and express to K.P. Pobedonostsev “my highest respect and gratitude”: “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 cause, all the more elevating your service 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 Russia, spread the word of God: in all the dialects of the Orthodox tribes of Russia: 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 form of heretical churches: You knew how to appreciate the devouring zeal for God under the peasants’ zipuns, under the beshmets of baptized teachers 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 deed. 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: The form and letter of the law were not the highest argument for you: an ardent and convinced request persuaded you to withdraw 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” 181. At the end of December 1906 K.P. Pobedonostsev writes to the editor of the Russian Archive P.A. Bartenev: “My head refuses to work, and my soul is tired. [:] I finished my last work, and one of these days, I think, a whole book of the entire New Testament will come out of the Synodal Printing House, which is my testament to the Russian reader” 182. March 10, 1907 K.P. Pobedonostsev died in the eightieth year of his life in St. Petersburg in the state house of the chief prosecutor on Liteiny Prospekt, and was buried, according to his will, near the Church of the Entry into the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, located in the St. Vladimir Church Teachers' School for Women, created by his labors and the labors of his wife E.A. Engelhardt. Grave of K.P. Pobedonostsev, like his wife buried next to him in 1932, was found in the abandoned territory of one of the buildings now belonging to St. Petersburg City Hospital No. 21, and was restored only in the late 90s. Candidate of Legal Sciences, senior lecturer of the department theory and history of state and law Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg state university Offered to the reader is the “Course of Civil Law” by K.P. Pobedonostsev, honorary member of the universities of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan and St. Vladimir in Kyiv, is a unique work in pre-revolutionary legal literature, which has gone through several reprints. The first part of the “Course” - “Patrimonial Rights”, published for the first time in 1868, had four reprints (1873, 1883, 1892, 1896), the second part - “Family, hereditary and testamentary rights”, which was published in 1871, was subsequently republished three times (1875, 1889, 1896), the third part of the “Course” – “Treaties and Obligations,” first published in 1880, went through two reprints (1890, 1896). Reviewers, in particular G.F. Shershenevich, noted the frequency of reprints of the “Course” as an “unusual” phenomenon for Russian legal literature, in which “a rare work will receive a second edition” 183. According to contemporaries, all editions of the “Course” quickly sold out and became bibliographic rarities, since “the course of K.P. Pobedonostsev: has become a reference book for every Russian lawyer, be he a theorist or practitioner, a student beginning the study of civil law or a lawyer with experience” 184. Such frequent repetition of publications of the Course, according to G.F. Shershenevich, can be explained, in particular, by his enormous influence on the judicial practice of that time. According to the scientist, the influence of the “Course” was “detected not only on judges and lawyers, but also in the practice of the highest court” - on the decisions of the Civil Division of the Cassation Departments of the Government Senate, in which one could “notice a reflection of the views of Mr. Pobedonostsev, often expressed in his own words” 185. “Civil Law Course” by K.P. Pobedonostsev became second after lectures by D.I. Meyer was a “major” (as many reviewers put it) work, aimed at a systematic presentation of current Russian civil law. However, the course of D.I. Meyer was written at a time when the emerging science of Russian civil law was characterized, according to the famous civilist I. Orshansky, by “strong subordination: to foreign jurisprudence and Roman law, the habit of applying ordinary methods of European jurisprudence to issues of Russian law, without serious research into the peculiarities of our legal life.” Therefore, lectures by D.I. Meyer, who placed “the material of Russian law into a ready-made alien framework,” are distinguished by “great clarity and logic of presentation,” which, however, as I. Orshansky noted, “sacrifices the originality of Russian law, which is erased behind the general schemes of Roman law.” K.P. Pobedonostsev, on the contrary, demonstrates in his “Course” “distrust of the simple transplantation of foreign theories,” as well as “purely historical works on domestic law without practical results for existing law.” Comparing the works of the two authors, reviewers noted the “great advantage” of the “Course” by K.P. Pobedonostsev before the composition of D.I. Meyer in terms of “the development of an independent dogmatic doctrine of Russian law and the desire to study the features of our legal system.” In his “Course” K.P. Pobedonostsev undertook the experience of historical development of many institutions of Russian civil law in order to explain their significance in the contemporary legal life of Russia, and here, as I. Orshansky noted, due to the lack of monographic research, he “had to cultivate almost virgin soil at every step 186. Therefore, “Course” by K.P. Pobedonostsev can be considered the first experience in systematizing Russian civil law in its national-historical characteristics. The basis of the “Course” were lectures by K.P. Pobedonostsev on civil law, which he read at Moscow University in the early 60s. His first publications in periodicals on the history of various institutions of Russian civil law (property rights, guardianship, wills, pledges, etc.) date back to the same time, the experience of studying which was also used by K.P. Pobedonostsev when writing the “Course”. Even then K.P. Pobedonostsev declared himself as a follower of the German historical school of law, conservative in its conclusions, which, according to B.N. Chicherina, “not only pointed out the need to study positive institutions instead of abstract principles, but she herself paved the way for this, presenting the most remarkable examples of scientific work” 187. Since the time of the founder of the historical direction in jurisprudence F.K. von Savigny in legal science receives the rights of citizenship, a historical method that replaced the deductive method of the natural law school. It was the historical method of studying legal institutions that became the methodological foundation for both the historical and legal works of K.P. Pobedonostsev and his “Course of Civil Law”. For K.P. Pobedonostsev, it is obvious that the uniqueness of the historically established traditional institutions of Russian civil law does not lend itself to the unifying effect of rational analysis, and therefore the most adequate way to study them should be a historical description. “The historical method,” believes K.P. Pobedonostsev, has long been recognized as a necessary condition for the study of law” 188. Using historicism as a method of scientific research, he rejects the scientific value of studying law on the basis of the so-called general principles, which are given “unconditional significance” 189. From his point of view, legal science cannot “be content with one ... systematic enumeration of the various provisions of the Code [of Laws],” but must first of all examine “the idea expressed in each provision and ... its historical development.” The main goal of legal research, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, is to trace the historical development of the institution “to the position first recognized and expressed by legislation... to obtain a clear understanding of from what needs of social life it arose, what idea was expressed in it... whether its original spirit was preserved in it and in what ways it changed in accordance with the new needs of life” 190. This is, in the opinion of K.P. Pobedonostsev, an ideal model of the historical method of studying law, which is by no means an archaeological collection of dead legal forms. “The business of the historian,” in his opinion, is to examine “how well the form corresponded to the content in one or another era of its development,” “when the idea emerged and came to consciousness,” and point out the need to “abolish ... or replace with a new one” the old legal form 191. The study of the history of Russian law is facilitated by its “casuistic... origin”, which K.P. Pobedonostsev very characteristically regards him as an “invaluable asset.” Without this, according to the scientist, not only “historical research on any part of civil law seems... impossible,” but also “judicial practice would lose the guiding thread necessary... for a correct understanding of the laws” 192. In this regard, the historical method of studying positive law, believes K.P. Pobedonostsev, “more than anywhere else, is needed here in Russia” not only “for the theoretical lawyer,” but also “for the practical lawyer.” This is due primarily to the continuity of the legal tradition: in Russia, unlike, for example, in France, the “historical connection between the institutions of the old order and the new statutes of civil life” has not been broken. Accordingly, in our country “almost not a single institution... can be torn away from its historical soil; It is only on this basis that it is possible to find the meaning and explanation of every phenomenon of civil law, because each one is deeply rooted in history” 193. That is why “in our country, more than anywhere else, the practical development of a legal issue is closely connected with its historical research” 194. Apparently K.P. Pobedonostsev himself went through that “long and painful” 195 path that he later advised the aspiring lawyer to follow. He strongly advises “anyone who wants to study Russian law seriously” to take up a consistent study, “starting with the first volume,” of the Complete Collection of Laws, which is valuable because in it “every legal phenomenon is presented in connection with the entire situation of everyday life, with all historical data and is explained in conjunction with them.” However, “in a complete collection of laws, you need to make your own way,” without relying on imperfect alphabetical indexes 196. This work, no matter how hard it may be, believes K.P. Pobedonostsev, will reward future jurists “a hundredfold - with solid knowledge, not divorced from their native soil, and maturity of thought, nurtured by observation of actual events and their historical movement” 197. As “detached from life, therefore, from the truth,” characterizes K.P. Pobedonostsev knowledge acquired “from foreign sources”, as a result of which future lawyers “imperceptibly perceive: concepts that arose in the middle of the history of a foreign people, assimilate the principles and forms that were formed on foreign soil and associated with the economy of such a way of life, which is far removed from ours.” The natural consequence of such education is “a false concept of the needs of our legal life and the means to satisfy them” 198. A distinctive feature of the historical and legal research of K.P. Pobedonostsev had an exceptional knowledge of the Complete Collection of Laws and pre-reform judicial practice, noted by all reviewers, not only published, but also stored in the Senate archives, to which he had access while working in the Senate. Thanks to this preliminary work, the Course by K.P. Pobedonostsev, as G.F. emphasized. Shershenevich, “is distinguished by its extraordinary wealth of material.” It represents not only a “complete summary” of the existing civil legislation, which was then extremely scattered, which was “capable of complicating even the most conscientious researcher,” 199 but also common law, popular views on a particular institution of civil law, as well as judicial practice. Reviewers unanimously noted that K.P. Pobedonostsev, thanks to the use of the historical method, “for the first time drew the attention of science to many regulations that had hitherto been dispensed with by scientists due to their inconsistency with Western models” 200, and focused “on such phenomena that before him were not at all involved in the field of civil law research” 201. Therefore, as the St. Petersburg Gazette wrote, “in relation to the material of science, the course leaves nothing to be desired” 202 . However, reviewers noted as “the weak side of this wonderful work” 203 the absence of a strict system into which the richness and diversity of K.P. involved would fit. Pobedonostsev material. Indeed, the Course lacks the seemingly necessary general part that was promised by K.P. Pobedonostsev in the preface to the first edition and which was to constitute the last, fourth, volume of his “Course of Civil Law”. Explaining this unusual sequence of presentation of the civil law system, in which the special part precedes the general one, K.P. Pobedonostsev points out that “the transformations currently taking place in Russia and not yet fully completed largely relate to items that are part of the general part,” therefore “it will be more convenient to postpone its final finishing until a later time” 204. However, the promised K.P. Pobedonostsev never wrote the general part, although he often refers to it in his presentation, and to the last edition of the Course in 1896. he added only “Index and Appendices” designed to make it easier for the reader to find the information he needs in the “Course”. Reviewers reproached K.P. Pobedonostsev that the absence of a general part first of all makes it difficult to clarify his view on the subject and boundaries of civil law, raising the question of whether he includes personal non-property relations in the subject of civil law regulation 205 . The reason for such questions, obviously, was, firstly, K.P.’s repeatedly repeated Pobedonostsev’s statement that “the content of any civil law, in essence, is economic; its goal is economic” 206, and secondly, a refusal to recognize the exclusively legal nature of family relations, which seem to him “essentially natural and moral” 207. In addition, according to reviewers, the inconvenience of the absence of a general part is reflected in the fact that, for example, the general doctrine of conditions is partly set out in the law of inheritance (II, § 53), partly in the law of obligations (III, § 2); the doctrine of the legal capacity of minors is also set forth in various parts of the Course; in property law almost exclusively “land relations” are considered, etc. However, it must be taken into account that the “Course” by K.P. Pobedonostsev was the first experience in generalizing the extremely unsystematized Russian legislation, which even after codification by M.M. Speransky in the 30s was not distinguished by logical harmony, since legal institutions and the legal provisions governing them, as noted by K.P. Pobedonostsev in his studies arose historically, in accordance with the “needs of his time” 208, and were not the product of an abstract theory of civil law. K.P. himself Pobedonostsev points out in another of his works that Russian civil law, due to the historical characteristics of its emergence, “is poor in general guiding rules: it suffers from shortcomings of the system: it contains many contradictions and ambiguities, often putting judicial practice into insoluble difficulties,” inevitable due to the lack of “integrated and systematic legislation on civil law” 209. However, it should be noted that K.P. Pobedonostsev identifies a general part within each volume of his “Course”. Thus, the presentation of “patrimonial rights” precedes the general doctrine of things, property rights and methods of acquiring it, “family, hereditary and testamentary rights” are preceded by discussions about the “general properties of family relations” and the “general principles” of inheritance and testamentary law, in the third volume the general and special parts of the “doctrine of contracts and obligations” are highlighted. Many reviewers also noted “the weakness of the legal structure inextricably linked with the civil law system.” In the "Course" K.P. Pobedonostsev, believes G.F. Shershenevich, it would be in vain to look for “the exact legal difference between property and obligations law, the definition of the essence of inheritance, contracts in general and certain types in particular.” The absence of strict legal definitions, in his opinion, is explained by the “practical direction of Mr. Pobedonostsev,” who is “more practical than taxonomist” 210. Another reviewer also rightfully draws attention to the fact that the “way of explaining” the basic concepts of civil law by K.P. Pobedonostsev “chooses not a systematic construction of concepts, but various images, likenings and descriptions” 211. The features of the “Course” by K.P., rightly indicated by the reviewers. Pobedonostsev - the absence of large-scale generalizations, strict logical definitions and excessive theorizing - can be explained by the properties of the conservative type of thinking of K.P. Pobedonostsev, who is more inclined to a historical description of legal institutions than to the systematic development of legal theory. From the point of view of K.P. According to Bedonostsev, logically systematized legal knowledge in the form of a scientific theory cannot claim an adequate interpretation of legal reality, as well as the right to rationally transform it. Also connected with this is the rejection of legal doctrine, which is merely a subjective product of the individual mind, as a source of law in the Course. In the hierarchy of sources of law K.P. Pobedonostsev gives obvious preference to legal custom, which is a product of the collective mind of the people, imprinting their historical experience in its provisions. Among the formal features of the “Course”, in which the properties of the conservative style of thinking of K.P. Pobedonostsev, in addition to the already indicated lack of a strict logical system of civil law and a clear definition and delimitation of legal concepts, the linguistic stylistics of the “Course” should also be attributed. Already contemporaries noted that “the style of his speech is ancient,” 212 which makes it seem even more archaic to a modern reader. K.P. Pobedonostsev was convinced that “clarity, definition and purity of Russian speech, a quality necessary for a lawyer, a right hand, without which it is impossible for him to do” 213. "Course" by K.P. Pobedonostsev represents a certain stage in the development of Russian legal terminology, the formation of which took place in the second half of the 19th century. “It is known,” writes K.P. in this regard. Pobedonostsev, “what difficulties Russian terminology presents to a legal writer: for many concepts it is impossible to find Russian terms that correspond to foreign ones.” Thus, the word “legal”, which is familiar to us today, which finally replaced the word “legal”, was just coming into use and introduced by K.P. at the end of the 60s, when the first part of the “Course” was published. Pobedonostsev “ugly”. For K.P. Pobedonostsev is characterized by the desire to Russify, if possible, foreign legal and philosophical terms. Thus, instead of the word “subject” he often uses “owner, holder”, instead of “objective” - “external”, instead of “vindicate” - “extract”, instead of “individual” - “special”, etc. At the same time, K.P. himself Pobedonostsev admits that “there are difficulties in these substitutions.” However, such terms as “object”, “succession”, “auctor”, “fact”, in his opinion, should undoubtedly be replaced with Russian synonyms - “object”, “succession”, “transmitter”, “event”, “phenomenon” 214. The originality of the terminology used by the author, which attracted the attention of critics, requires some explanation for the modern reader. Even then K.P. Pobedonostsev expected the reader to be bewildered by the title of the first volume - “Patrimonial Rights”, while for the system of civil rights he described, the word “real”, which had already appeared in the legal terminology of that time, would be much more suitable. The term “patrimonial rights” in its historical meaning meant exclusively the right of ownership of real estate. However, K.P. Pobedonostsev explains that he deliberately refused to use the term “real”, since it seemed to him “very non-Russian in its design,” and therefore called the corresponding rights “a pure and expressive Russian word: patrimonial.” He stipulates that some of the individual subjects that make up the content of the first volume of the “Course”, for example, the right of pledge, copyright, “do not completely fit the meaning of the Russian word still accepted in verbal and written speech: patrimonial, patrimonial right.” However, K.P. Pobedonostsev expresses the hope that, perhaps, “over time they will agree to use this word in the broad meaning” in which the author himself used it, denoting all types of real rights with it 215. Conservative features of the legal worldview of K.P. Pobedonostsev found expression not only in his use of the historical research method instead of the deductive one, in the special way of constructing the course system, the comparative-descriptive manner of presenting the material and the somewhat archaic style, but also in the very content of the “Course”, in solving the problems of civil law that were relevant for that time. Many reviewers reproached K.P. Pobedonostsev’s inability to “go with the times,” that is, to correctly understand what is happening: a turn for the better in the practice of new courts, manifested in the desire to assimilate more rational legal principles than those that prevailed in the old practice.” 216 Indeed, K.P. Pobedonostsev refused to obediently keep up with the times, in particular, in the question raised by the liberal press about the need to secularize the institutions of family law, in order to achieve which it was supposed removal of family and marriage matters from church jurisdiction, as well as the establishment of a mandatory civil form of marriage and the consistent implementation of the principle of freedom of divorce of spouses. In the "Course" K.P. Pobedonostsev develops the Christian idea of ​​marriage as a “sacrament,” emphasizing the insufficiency of the legal definition of the nature of the marriage union. Like any agreement between two wills, marriage can be considered as a contract, but “this idea of ​​contract does not exhaust the content of the marriage union” 217. The difference between marriage and “all other contractual unions” is that it is “the great mystery of the deepest and most complete spiritual and physical union” 218. Therefore, emphasizing that the compulsory civil form of marriage in the West arose as a result of “the long-standing division between church and state there,” K.P. Pobedonostsev is convinced that in Russia, “where the mass of the people belongs to a single religion, deeply fused with the nationality, where the people have not even heard of the political struggle between church and state: there it is impossible to think of anything better and more consistent with the sanctity of marriage and the practical needs of the people’s life, like the existing church form” 219 of concluding a marriage union. He believes that recognizing marriage as a civil contract “is impossible without renouncing the church to which we consider ourselves, without seducing and without violating the popular belief in the authority of the ecumenical conciliar teaching” 220. The danger of approaching a marriage union solely as one of the types of civil contracts, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, is that, like any contract, it can be freely terminated by mutual agreement of the parties, which K.P. Pobedonostsev considers this unacceptable. Insisting on preserving the church form of marriage and preventing the consistent implementation of the principle of freedom of divorce in legislation, K.P. Pobedonostsev advocates the patriarchal structure of traditional society, emphasizing in the Course that “the family is the first support of any social structure” and “the main support of order and welfare in the state” 221. Therefore, his principled position on this issue is determined not only by his religious worldview, but also by the fact that “the most essential interests of the state are inextricably linked with the issue of marriage and that the state weakens itself all the more the further it unties the bonds of the marriage union and weakens its original spiritual idea.” For the state, K.P. is convinced. Pobedonostsev, “it is important that it protects the high idea of ​​integrity and continuity: the family – the moral and cultural nursery of citizens.” The desire of followers of communist and liberal-individualist theories to proclaim in legislation the principles of freedom of marriage, in his opinion, will lead not only to the destruction of the patriarchal structure of society, but also “by virtue of irresistible logic” to the denial of the state, God and religion 222. Understanding the need to preserve the family “in its moral connection and economic integrity” 223, K.P. Pobedonostsev substantiates in the Course the need to preserve large land ownership, which requires government measures aimed at preventing the process of fragmentation of family estates that began after the abolition of serfdom. “Land ownership has always been considered the best way to ensure civil order,” since it has always been associated “with the class or social significance of a person,” therefore, property owners have always constituted “a protective, conservative party in society” 224. He also considers it urgently necessary to have a legislative ban on the free circulation of peasant communal lands, which could lead to the formation of a rural proletariat, and consequently to the “exhaustion” of the peasant class, which also constitutes “the main protective force in the state.” The question of the community, which became extremely relevant in connection with the abolition of serfdom, K.P. Pobedonostsev refers to such “state issues” that “it is dangerous to solve solely on the basis of abstract principles of economic freedom”: “Land,” he writes, “is a commodity that is dangerous to throw onto the free market, like any other commodity. In our country, more than anywhere else, the entire future of the agricultural class is connected with the land, and in Russia it has such an importance that it has nowhere else.” Therefore, in conditions when 15/16 of the total population are rural residents, “to declare for them: land as a free commodity would mean: leaving them without any means to hold the land, to maintain the economy, to provide for poverty and hunger” 225. The conservative features of the civilistic concept were also expressed in the conviction of K.P., repeatedly stated in the Course. Pobedonostsev is that the effectiveness of civil law norms depends on their compliance with the moral instructions contained in the Ten Divine Commandments. According to the reviewer’s fair remark, “in Mr. Pobedonostsev there are, so to speak, two persons”: “He is, first of all, a historian-lawyer, gifted with the right instinct in assessing the phenomena of the past, but sometimes he is also a theologian” 226. According to K.P. Pobedonostsev, civil law should under no circumstances recognize “the moral principle as powerless and illusory, and build its definitions solely on the motives of material interest.” This would mean “denying in the law the very element that “constitutes the highest justification and the root essence of any law, that is, moral, spiritual truth.” Without a doubt, believes K.P. Pobedonostsev, “the law should not ignore the material conditions of the environment and the concepts that dominate it: but to sacrifice these concepts - the highest goal of the law, and its moral norm: would mean to humiliate the law itself and take away from it its main power” 227. He rejects any attempts to agree between civil law and the current level of public morality, which can sometimes “reach extreme decline,” the manifestation of which for him was, in particular, demands to belittle the high Christian ideal of marriage. However, K.P. Pobedonostsev believes that it is absolutely necessary “for the principle of truth to stand high, in the sight of everyone, without being subject to hesitation or doubt: so that in view of it conscience is not forgotten and falls asleep in the public and private consciousness; so that a criminal of the law in his very crime is not deprived of the opportunity to feel that he is committing a lie.” If we lower the “high banner of truth from the law,” “conscience will lose its firm measure, the law will not have that sting that is designed to awaken it,” and thus, “dirt and nakedness will begin to appear without shame and without consciousness” 228. The moral significance of the law, according to K.P. Pobedonostsev, “prevails in power” also in relations arising from civil contracts and built on the principle of mutual material interest. In particular, K.P. Pobedonostsev opposes the lifting of restrictions on determining interest on a loan agreement, demanded by the “doctrinaires of science” in the name of the “abstract beginning of imaginary economic freedom.” He considers the main argument in favor of his conviction to be that “moral opinion... is indignant against a borrowed transaction,” therefore the law limiting the amount of interest does not “go beyond its calling,” since it “does not deviate from moral consciousness” 229. Thus, it serves to protect “the highest interests, united in the state and popular consciousness with the concept of law,” which is that the law should not “give its sanction to such demands that, under the guise of law, hide violence and oppression” 230. If the lawlessness of the usurers is legalized “under the false banner of economic freedom,” then “the monstrous transaction, which did not dare to appear in the face of the law, will appear in the form of a legal right and will entail ruinous penalties, which will no longer be carried out by the autocratic hand of the oppressor, but in the name of law and government.” Therefore, K.P. believes Pobedonostsev, the “imaginary freedom” of charging interest under a loan agreement “will remain only in the imagination of legislators,” but “introduced by the word of the law, will serve only to legitimize slavery” 231. In conclusion, it should be noted that in his “Course of Civil Law” K.P. Pobedonostsev often acts as a guardian of many traditional institutions of Russian civil law. Demonstrating scientific fidelity to the historical school of law, he considers their “hasty” criticism “on the basis of one-sided impressions or so-called “general principles”” to which “unconditional significance” is attached to be deeply erroneous. Each of the institutions of civil law must be examined “in connection with the entire everyday situation and social organization in the midst of which it arose.” “Releasing a decisive verdict on its unsuitability and condemning it to be abolished” can only be answered by answering the question: “have the conditions of our life, the beginnings of our social organization and the requirements of the state idea really changed so much that the rule we condemn seems unnecessary and harmful”? Otherwise, “without posing and resolving this question, we run the risk of introducing into life a rule that does not correspond to it, of removing from the social mechanism the gear that belongs to its entire structure” 232 . As one of the reviewers of the Course, K.P., noted. Pobedonostseva, V. Spasovich, “one could write a whole book about this work, following step by step the opinions and conclusions of the author” 233. We considered it necessary to dwell only on some of the main features of the conservative legal consciousness of K.P. Pobedonostsev, which determined the originality of his civilistic concept and found expression in each of the three volumes of his extensive “Course”. In this way we hoped to demonstrate the extraordinary integrity of K.P.’s worldview. Pobedonostsev, who considers even private issues of civil law in full agreement with “the fundamental and cherished ideas of faith and reason” 234. Following his contemporary K.P. Pobedonostsev, we would like to express the hope that if, when reading the “Course of Civil Law”, “the author’s conclusions seem too exceptional and one-sided, then: readers will treat the author’s views with due respect and will do justice to the sincerity and straightforwardness with which such views are expressed” 235. G.F. Shershenevich. The science of civil law in Russia. Kazan, 1893. pp. 86–102. The first to come to the aid of the practice was Mr. Pobedonostsev, a former teacher of civil law at Moscow University. After several articles on state and civil law, placed in the Kalachov Archive (Some questions arising from spiritual wills, 1859, NN 1 and 2), in the journal of the Ministry of Justice (Patrimonial and Acquired Estate, 1861, N 4, Legal notes and questions on inheritance and testamentary law, about guardianships, 1864, N 11, Odnodvorcheskie lands and the Beginning of special land surveying in Russia, 1863, No. 1), in the Russian Bulletin (Property credit and mortgage law, 1861, No. 6), in the Legal Bulletin (On trans-land ownership, 1867–1868, No. 3), Pobedonostsev proposed to the Russian society a “Course of Civil Law”, compiled from lectures that he gave at Moscow University. The first volume of this extensive work (at least for Russian literature, accustomed to works of small volume, usually one-volume) appeared in 1868, therefore just in time for the beginning of the activities of new judicial institutions, the second volume - in 1871, and the third only in 1880. The first volume, containing patrimonial rights, went through four editions in 1868, 1876, 1883, 1892, the second volume, containing the doctrine of family and inheritance law, appeared in the second edition in 1875, and the third in 1891, the third volume, dedicated to the law of obligations, was published a second time in 1890. Such frequent repetition of editions, so unusual in Russian literature, in which a rare work will wait for a second edition, best demonstrates the importance of the book for practice. Indeed, Mr. Pobedonostsev’s course has become a necessary guide for every lawyer involved in civil cases, and has become part of the most modest legal library. Its influence was found not only on judges and lawyers, but also in the practice of the highest court. In many decisions of the civil cassation department, mainly from the seventies, one can see a reflection of the views of Mr. Pobedonostsev, often stated in his own words. Mr. Pobedonostsev's work was next to Meyer's course in a scientific sense, but in a practical sense it was ahead. With all the theoretical advantages of Meyer's course, which in many ways place it above the course of Mr. Pobedonostsev, it is a work of Western science, mainly Roman law, it does not concern those legal relations that constitute a feature of Russian life and therefore should have been of particular interest to judicial practice. Meanwhile, Mr. Pobedonostsev, understanding the needs of the latter, considered it his duty to dwell in greater detail on issues “of particular importance at this moment for our legislation and for our practice” (prev. to the 1st vol. ed. 1868). Land legal relations develop in an original way in each country, and Mr. Pobedonostsev pays special, even excessive, attention to land law, trying to help practice in resolving the mass of issues of this kind that arose with the opening of new institutions. Comparing the courses of Pobedonostsev and Meyer, the talented lawyer Orshansky says the following. “Both of these works clearly reflected the difference in the general character of the two eras in the history of our jurisprudence to which they belong. Meyer's course was compiled at a time when, thanks to the previous judicial system, the complete absence of freedom of the press and other social conditions, the theory of law was completely separate from practice, the independent science of current Russian law did not exist even in embryo, and few works on Russian law did not leave the vicious circle of pre-Petrine law. Hence the strong subordination of the theory of Russian civil law to foreign jurisprudence and Roman law, the habit of theorists to apply ordinary techniques of European jurisprudence to issues of Russian law, without a serious study of our legal life. Mr. Pobedonostsev’s work dates back to the period of rapprochement between theory and practice on Russian soil, the development of an independent dogmatic doctrine of Russian law and the desire to study the peculiarities of our legal system. Hence the distrust of the simple transplantation of foreign theories, on the one hand, and an indifferent attitude towards purely historical works on domestic law without practical results for the law in force, on the other hand” 236. 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 237, stubborn conservatism in matters de lege ferenda - these are the distinctive features of Mr. Pobedonostsev as a scientist. In terms of the type of legal thinking, one can notice some similarities between Mr. Pobedonostsev and Nevolin, with the only difference being that the latter is a taxonomist, while the former is a practitioner in the best sense of the word. If the entire work is not systematic, if the presentation does not comply with the scientific requirements of consistency, then in resolving certain controversial issues Mr. Pobedonostsev has no equal. The reader is given not only the solution itself, but the entire logical process through which the author came to this conclusion appears before his eyes. 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 embeds the system of civil law into the reader’s memory, which is undoubtedly of great importance for a lawyer, then Pobedonostsev’s course accustoms him to civilistic thinking and in this regard it is the best school for a dogmatist. The value of his dogmatic conclusions in the field of family law is hampered to a large extent by the fact that in his person, as Mr. Spasovich put it, “there are two persons: he is primarily a historian-lawyer, gifted with the right instinct in assessing the phenomena of the past, but he is sometimes also a theologian” 238. The theological point of view often clashes with the legal point of view and this results in inconsistency. Therefore, family law constitutes one of the weaker parts of Pobedonostsev’s course, while the most outstanding places are the presentation of family property, allocation and dowry (I, pp. 51–102), the strengthening of rights to real estate (I, pp. 238–275), the relationship of property law to land law (I, 671–718), and inheritance by law (II, pp. 236–444) 239 . In his presentation of civil law, Mr. Pobedonostsev resorts to a comparative method, a dogmatic explanation of Russian law, precedes a historical outline of the development of the institution, turns to an economic explanation of legal provisions, and raises questions de lege ferenda. “In my 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” (prev. to volume I). Indeed, the author for the first time introduces Russian society to the most important regulations of French, Italian, English and German legislation, providing the reader with full opportunity “to judge in what way the Russian law of institution corresponds or does not correspond to its general type, as it was expressed in history, in economics and in the law of Western Europe” (prev. to volume I). But still, the main goal of this comparative method remains little achieved in Mr. Pobedonostsev’s course. The author avoids general definitions and constructions, and therefore the “idea of ​​an institution” eludes the reader’s attention, leaving him only with an interesting comparison of Russian and Western legislation. Such a comparison does not clarify the essence of the institution, but only raises questions of legislative policy, indicating where Russian legislation lags behind Western ones. Much higher is the historical method of Mr. Pobedonostsev, which reveals a thorough knowledge and deep understanding of the history of Russian civil law. The author, apparently, has imbued with the spirit of the past and clarifies many features of the past that have escaped the attention of legal historians. Particularly remarkable is the clarification of the history of the strengthening of property rights. The author attaches great importance to political economy for a civilist. “The close connection of the subjects of civil, especially patrimonial, law with economics makes it impossible, in our time, to study the former without studying the latter” (vol. I, p. 744). However, the author's knowledge in the field of political economy is not thorough and only opens up the possibility of referring to economic laws as preventing legislative reform. The highest dignity of Mr. Pobedonostsev’s work lies in dogmatics. However, the author does not remain on this soil characteristic of him, but, unfortunately, moves into the field of legislative politics. This aspect of his work seems to be the weakest, because the author on all issues firmly adheres to the existing order and denies any usefulness of any changes in civil legislation. The only case when Mr. Pobedonostsev was critical of the current law in the sense of recognizing the inexpediency of its regulations and the need to abolish them was on the issue of redemption of family property (II, p. 437). In addition, recently, the author has raised the issue of the indivisibility and inalienability of small plots, to which he attaches such importance that he places an article on family plots, first published in the Russian Bulletin, twice in his course (I, pp. 728–737, II pp. 346–359). The introduction of questions de lege ferenda positively spoils the pleasant impression made by the author's reasoning de lege lata. The author expresses a decisive “no” to all proposals to repeal the decrees, which have clearly lost all significance for modern life in the eyes of everyone and even Mr. Pobedonostsev himself. The main reason for the denial is the consideration of the unpreparedness of our economic life - “one can still doubt whether such a restructuring of the law would be timely today, and how consistent it would be with the current economic state of our possessions,” - this is the main and often the only objection of the author. Mr. Pobedonostsev expresses such a negative attitude on the following issues: on the abolition of the distinction between ancestral and acquired property (I, p. 63), on the addition of statutes of limitations (I, p. 180), on the introduction in our country (and not in the West) of a civil form of marriage (II, p. 62), on the admission of broader grounds for divorce (II, p. 88), on the secularization of the church court in marriage matters (II, p. 102), on compulsory public education (II, p. 161 and 175), on the abolition of the law requiring the baptism in Orthodoxy of a child born in a mixed marriage in which one of the spouses belongs to the Orthodox faith (II, p. 169), on the introduction of an inheritance tax (II, p. 411), on the introduction of a specified part for immediate heirs (II, p. 479), on the abolition of the passport system (III, p. 400). Regarding Mr. Pobedonostsev’s reasoning de lege ferenda, one of his critics notes: “In these views, he is a defender of the statù quo, its ideal: the patriarchal system of the family and the absolutely patrimonial principles of property relations. This is one of the dark sides of his major work, and therefore one cannot help but express pleasure that the author’s views de lege ferenda are given a very insignificant place in the course” 240. “Clarity, definitiveness and purity of Russian speech,” says Mr. Pobedonostsev, “is a necessary quality for a lawyer, a right hand, without which it is impossible for him to do” (vol. I, p. 746). Mr. Pobedonostsev himself sins most of all against this undoubted rule. His style cannot be called literary Russian, his style of speech is ancient, and yet he writes for his contemporaries. “In some places in the book the reader will notice a desire to replace, if possible, other legal and philosophical terms with Russian words. I sometimes allowed myself to write (!) instead of the word subject - owner, holder; instead of objective - external, instead of vindicate - extract, instead of individual - special” (vol. I, ed. 1868, preface). One cannot help but join this author’s desire to introduce Russian terminology, one cannot but approve of the replacement of words in the genus succession, auctor, with the words succession, transmitter, but, firstly, it is necessary to strictly adhere to the once chosen expressions, and, secondly, not to cross the boundaries beyond which the denial of foreign words that have already accustomed our ear to them begins. Meanwhile, Mr. Pobedonostsev does not adhere to strict terminology, for example. uses the word possession in the sense of ownership, prossessio, detentio and use. Why reject such commonly used words as object, fact, which have received the right of citizenship in Russian speech, and certainly replace them with the words object, event, phenomenon. In this desire for purely Russian terminology, Mr. Pobedonostsev eliminates the word “material” and substitutes the word “votchinny” instead. If the first word seems to the author “very un-Russian in its design” (preface to the first volume of the 1868 edition), then the second word in the meaning given to it does not correspond to the historical meaning, because a) it applies only to real estate and b) it covers only the right of ownership. Mr. Pobedonostsev’s very concept of patrimonial right is not distinguished by clarity and accuracy. On the one hand, “inheritance (the right of inheritance?) in its entirety is classified as patrimonial rights” (I, p. 7), on the other hand, “not only the right of ownership, patrimonial right, but also any right in general, both real and personal” (I, p. 81) is classified as acquired property. Mr. Pobedonostsev's course is distinguished by the extraordinary wealth of material contained in it. The author did not limit himself to those norms contained in Volume X, Part I, but turned to the entire Code and looked for private law regulations everywhere. In this regard, Mr. Pobedonostsev's course presents a complete summary of legislative material on civil law. Taking into account the absence at that time of collections similar to those of Gozhev and Tsvetkov, we must recognize in the author an extraordinary familiarity with Russian legislation, which is distinguished by its scattered nature, which can complicate the most conscientious researcher. G. Pobedonostsev was the first to draw the attention of science to many regulations that had hitherto been dispensed with by scientists due to their inconsistency with Western models. The author dwelled on peasant land ownership, on the community, on the question of land surveying, on various forms of land ownership that were formed purely historically, on the grounds and evidence of patrimonial rights, etc. Moreover, the author does not limit himself to legislative material and turns to common law, reveals popular views on this or that institution (for example, marriage), and points out the deviation of practice from the provisions of positive legislation. Therefore, one cannot but agree that “in relation to the material of science, the course leaves nothing to be desired” 241. But this mass of new material, the originality of the author, and a somewhat disdainful attitude towards science were reflected in the course system, which constitutes the weakest side in this wonderful work. “By the very essence of the task,” says Orshansky, “Mr. Pobedonostsev’s work cannot but suffer from significant shortcomings, since the author at every step had to cultivate almost virgin soil,” or, as he puts it somewhat harshly, in another place, “the area of ​​information captured by the author’s presentation is large and abundant, but there is no order in it” 242 . Mr. Pobedonostsev's course consists of three volumes, of which the first contains property law (patrimonial rights), the second volume - family and inheritance law, the third - obligation. In the preface to the first edition of the first volume, the author promised a fourth volume, which was supposed to “constitute the so-called general part of civil law, i.e. the doctrine of persons, legal relations and the general properties and categories of things.” But such a general part has not appeared so far, although the author often refers to it in his presentation (I, pp. 30, 104, 152, II, p. 163) and there is reason to think that it will not appear at all. Meanwhile, the inconvenience of the absence of a general part was felt at the very beginning of the presentation and was repeatedly revealed later during the course. Thus, “due to the connection between the article on things or objects of civil ownership with the article on patrimonial rights,” the author decided to isolate the doctrine of the object from the general part and place it at the beginning of the first volume (preface to the 1868 edition). Due to the absence of a general part, the author sets out the doctrine of condition partly in inheritance law (II, p. 453), partly in liability law (III, p. 8). The same reason explains that the doctrine of the legal capacity of minors is scattered across various departments of the course, in guardianship, in inheritance law, and obligations. The lack of systematicity explains the extreme insufficiency of the presentation of the law of obligations, which constitutes the weakest part of the essay, while the law of obligations most of all requires a system. “The subjects of trade law are so closely in touch and intertwined with the subjects and concepts of civil law that it is very difficult, speaking about one, not to touch on the other at the same time; and it is often necessary, in order to fully explain the concept of the institution of civil law, to consider it in connection with the forms that the same institution took in the field of trade relations” (vol. III, p. 323). After this, we might expect the author to give us a joint exposition of civil and commercial law. Meanwhile, in property law the author, having in mind almost exclusively land relations, completely ignores those changes that were made by trade law in absolute rights, and in the law of obligations the author is extremely superficial about trade transactions, bills of exchange, commissions, and insurance contracts. The absence of a general part makes it difficult to clarify Mr. Pobedonostsev’s view of civil law and its boundaries. The content of the course gives reason to assume that the author understands civil law as it is usually understood in German textbooks; the course contains property, obligations, inheritance and family law, therefore the author includes purely personal relations in the circle of private law relations. But, on the other hand, we come across passages in Mr. Pobedonostsev’s work that can instill in the reader the idea that the author considers only property relations to be civil law. “The content of any civil law, in essence, is economic, its purpose is economic” (vol. I, p. 108, vol. III, p. 185); Mr. Pobedonostsev looks at obligations in the same way as at property relations (vol. III, pp. 3, 6, 19). We have already indicated that the main advantage of Mr. Pobedonostsev’s course lies in the solution of individual issues, that Mr. Pobedonostsev is more of a practitioner than a taxonomist. In connection with this, there is certainly a weakness in the legal structure, which is inextricably linked with the civil law system. We would look in vain for the exact legal distinction between property and obligations law, the definition of the essence of inheritance, contracts in general and certain types in particular. Introducing the doctrine of the Russian community into his course, the author makes no attempt to clarify its legal nature, limiting himself only to the unsubstantiated remark that the “possession” (?) of a community is not the ownership of an ideal, legal person” (I, p. 532), but instead goes into discussions about the economic and state significance of the community. It cannot be considered a scientific establishment of the difference between property rights and obligatory rights when the author offers the following reasoning. “I have money. As long as they are my property, I can say without mistake: my money, my thousand rubles; but as soon as I lent it, I no longer have the right to say: my money, in the strict sense. Now my demand, my loan letter, and the money passed into the power of my debtor and became his thing” (vol. I, p. 4). It is known how difficult it is in practice to distinguish a purchase agreement from a purchase agreement and a delivery agreement, a personal hire from a contract, an order, a power of attorney. Meanwhile, Mr. Pobedonostsev does not make the slightest attempt to define the boundaries between them. The main advantage of the special part of compulsory law, as well as the special part of criminal law, is to establish the exact characteristics of each of the contracts and crimes - this is something we do not see in Mr. Pobedonostsev’s course. In civil law, the concept of property is very important. Meanwhile, Mr. Pobedonostsev gives the following definition: “external goods are the so-called property (bona, facultates), constituting, in relation to a person’s personality, its external accessory, its external addition or its property” (vol. I, p. 1). The construction of the competition cannot be considered correct: “from the declaration of insolvency, all of his (the debtor’s) property is legally considered not to belong to him, but to belong to the creditors, i.e. masses" (Vol. I, p. 221), meanwhile Mr. Pobedonostsev knows that the same law provides the remainder, upon certification of creditors, to the debtor, "as his property." Without establishing the concept of endorsement, Mr. Pobedonostsev says the following: “the signers are liable to the holder of the bill for payment in the aggregate, just like the holder of the bill himself, even if even the bill itself was declared invalid, because, regardless of this (?), upon transfer it was assumed and counted as its actual value” (III, p. 245). It is difficult to understand what is the basis of the responsibility of the signers and why there is a difference in the transfer of a bill of exchange and a loan letter? The construction of the share is also incorrect: “the owner (?) of such an act is not a creditor of the company, not a creditor, for example. society of the railway, but an accomplice in the property” (vol. III, p. 250). What kind of property is this when the author himself claims that there is no common property in a joint-stock partnership? G. Pobedonostsev refers to purchase and sale not as contracts, but as methods of acquiring property, because “according to the idea of ​​our law, sale is an action by which one party transfers something to another for a certain price” (vol. I, p. 314, vol. III, p. 324). But a similar idea can be found in the purchase and sale of real estate, where a deed of sale is required. Do these considerations apply to the purchase and sale of movables, does it also constitute an action and not an obligation? If not, then Mr. Pobedonostsev should have separated the presentation of the purchase and sale of real estate and movables, placing the first in the methods of acquiring property, and the second in contracts. If yes, then why does Mr. Pobedonostsev look for the moment of transfer of ownership when purchasing movable property (vol. I, pp. 689–690)? This is already an obvious inconsistency. Among the cases of beneficium competentiae found in Russian law, the author includes the inviolability of manuscripts that constitute the literary property of the debtor (i.e. III, p. 223)? The weakness of the legal structure is determined by the practical direction of Mr. Pobedonostsev. It is even more strange to encounter direct errors in understanding the laws in the course of such an expert on Russian legislation. Thus, the author claims that in order to terminate the right to enter state-owned forests, it is necessary to allocate plots of land to the owners according to the size of the arable land plot, 20 quarters per 100 (I, p. 469), when in reality it is about 20 dessiatinas per 100 quarters; as if the demand of parents for the imprisonment of their children is satisfied directly by government authority without a judicial sentence (Vol. II, p. 171, ed. 1891); as if all retired officials are deprived of the right to petition in other people’s affairs (vol. III, p. 35); as if the law requires that a bill of exchange must be written in several forms (vol. III, p. 54), as if the word “solidarity” does not appear in our legislation (vol. III, p. 101), while in the Charter on bills of exchange even the Roman expression in solidium is given; as if the prohibition to write bills of exchange to the bearer is the same as the prohibition to give bill forms (vol. III, p. 224), as if personal detention is currently combined with collection of bills (vol. III, p. 344). The author encounters gaps in his knowledge of foreign law, such as a completely incorrect interpretation of the Italian copyright law (Vol. I, p. 644), and unfamiliarity with the English law of 1882, which established property separation between spouses (Vol. II, pp. 125 and 449), and the French law of 1885, which opened up freedom for transactions for differences (Vol. III, p. 568). The author says that “the Roman expression re contrahitur obligatio is no longer important, because all current contracts are consensual, i.e. based on mutual agreement” (Vol. III, p. 108), as if real contracts in Roman law were not based on mutual agreement. If the author wanted to come to the aid of new judicial practice, and this was indeed his intention, then he should have had in mind first of all the new judicial statutes, and, as an addition, provide rulings concerning the old institutions. Meanwhile, Mr. Pobedonostsev in most cases (vol. I, pp. 167, 184, 274, 601, 662, vol. II, pp. 142, 505, vol. III, p. 408, etc.) refers to the old order, and adds the new one. This circumstance is probably due to the fact that the lectures were compiled during the operation of the old institutions, but this order of presentation should be changed when printing the work, because it makes it difficult to use the book. It is also impossible not to reproach the author for the omission in the latest editions of some new Russian laws, for example. speaking of warrants, he does not mention the warehouse provision of 1889 at all, as if it did not exist. The merits of Mr. Pobedonostsev’s work include his reference, quite detailed, to foreign literature. During the first edition of the course, Russian society did not have the opportunity to find literary references due to the lack of legal journals. But in subsequent editions, Mr. Pobedonostsev stopped following Western literature, refers to old editions, long ago modified by several new ones, omits new works that are more or less important for the theory of civil law, so that using literary instructions on the latest editions of Mr. Pobedonostsev is completely impossible. The appearance of Mr. Pobedonostsev’s course, which coincided with the public’s demand for such works, could not help but be noticed in Russian literature. Leshkov was the first to respond in the Legal Bulletin. “It is not permissible to remain silent when works similar to the first part of the civil law course that lies before us in two volumes appear in Russian legal literature, compiled by the well-known lawyer-writer and practitioner K.P. Pobedonostsev. The living need felt by everyone in our time for guidelines for understanding legal principles, regulations, concepts, should arouse among specialists a keen interest in the book and active participation in the matter of clarifying legal truths, through criticism of this book, its analysis and analysis” (1868, book III, p. 51). However, criticism of Leshkov himself could not have much significance because he was a very weak civilist, as can be seen, for example. from his advice to Mr. Pobedonostsev to replace the name “thing”, as a physical concept, with the legal term “property”, and call the property right property (Yu.V. 1868, book III, p. 53). Apart from a brief note by Mr. Malyshev in the Judicial Bulletin for 1868, No. 68, Leshkov’s review remained almost single until 1871, when Mr. Spasovich criticized it in the Journal of Civil and Trade Law, so that he could say that “the work, not equally developed in all its parts, is very rich in content, has not yet received critical assessment in our literature, although it has taken place among the most necessary books for any of our civilists” (1871, book I, p. 134). In the same magazine, Orshansky made criticism, no less thorough (1876, book II). A brief but correct assessment of the course was made in the St. Petersburg Gazette (1876, No. 75). While disagreeing with the author on certain issues, all critics recognized that Mr. Pobedonostsev’s course represents a major work of Russian legal literature. Recent reviews found in general journals have no scientific significance. The publication of the Civil Law Course has so far been published in separate volumes, of which the first was published in 1892 as the fourth, the second in 1889 as the third, and the third in 1890 as the second edition. This procedure was fraught with difficulties for the public, who did not always have the opportunity to purchase the entire work when some volumes were no longer on sale. As a result, all three volumes of the Course are now being published together in a single edition, with the addition of a fourth volume containing appendices and alphabetical indexes to the entire Course. In presenting this work, the main goal of the publisher was to contribute to the fullest possible explanation of the concepts of the main subjects of civil law. For this purpose, a comparative method of presentation has been chosen: at the beginning of each article the main idea of ​​the institution is indicated, then the institution is explained, in its distinctive features, according to Roman, French and German law. Then, when the reader’s mind has the most complete and rounded image of the institution ready, it is presented according to Russian law, with a preliminary outline of its origin and historical development on our soil. Thus, the reader is 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. Regarding the current Russian legislation, it was intended to provide the reader with a presentation that is as complete as possible. In our laws, especially on patrimonial law, there are many private and local decrees scattered across different volumes of the Code of Laws, which took place at different times and for different, often random and temporary reasons. Where it was difficult to reduce the fractional features of such decrees to a general principle, it was desirable to at least combine references and indications of them in notes to the text. Anyone who knows our laws knows how difficult it is sometimes to fit some of the individual decrees and resolutions into their place in the strict system of civil law; for this reason, it was difficult to avoid repetitions in other places, and sometimes repetitions were deliberately allowed when they could serve to better explain the subject. Those subjects which are of the most practical importance for our legislation and for our economy and practice are expounded at greater length; Moreover, it was necessary to understand, as far as possible, those general principles and concepts of law that should serve as a guide for a thinking lawyer and which, it seems, are not always understood with sufficient clarity in our judicial practice. Legal education everywhere is the property of only specialists; But here, and between lawyers, and even more so between practical lawyers, legal information is distributed very unevenly. Few are happy to have had time to go through a smooth and strictly consistent school of legal knowledge and experience; In the academic teaching of law, teachers are distinguished by such a variety of techniques and methods - information obtained in practice and from reading is acquired so unevenly and so accidentally that it is not uncommon for us to meet people who combine with a rich knowledge of details and particulars a lack of elementary information and concepts that constitute, so to speak, the ABC of civil law. This book was intended not only for readers with mature knowledge and experience, but also for students in legal science. Because of this, some pages written in order to explain concepts to beginners and those who do not know may seem unnecessary to a reader with strong knowledge and experience. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // Department of Manuscripts of the Russian National Library (hereinafter referred to as OR RNL). F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1895. May-June. L. 112 vol. Gauthier Yu.V. K.P. Pobedonostsev and heir Alexander Alexandrovich (1865–1881) // K.P. Pobedonostsev: pro et contra. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 451. This is evidenced by the fact that in the 90s, for the first time after S.L.’s dissertation. Evenchik (1969) defended four dissertations, which covered various aspects of K.P.’s worldview. Pobedonostseva: Zhirovov V.I. Political views and government activities of K.P. Pobedonostsev in the 80–90s. XIX century: Diss. ...cand. ist. Sci. Voronezh, 1993; Ivannikov I.A. The problem of state structure in Russian political and legal thought (M.A. Bakunin, K.D. Kavelin, K.P. Pobedonostsev): Author's abstract. Ph.D. diss. Rostov-n/D., 1995; Peshkov A.I. K.P. Pobedonostsev as an ideologist of Russian Orthodoxy: Diss. ...cand. Philosopher Sci. St. Petersburg, 1993; Timoshina E.V. Political and legal views of K.P. Pobedonostseva: Diss. ...cand. legal Sci. St. Petersburg, 1998. See, for example: Zubov A.B. Political and legal views of K.P. Pobedonostsev and their interpretation by foreign researchers of Russian thought // Russian political thought of the second half of the 19th century: Coll. reviews / Reply ed. N.N. Razumovich. M., 1989. S. 158–208; Peshkov A.I. K.P. Pobedonostsev as an ideologist of Russian Orthodoxy: Dis. ...cand. Philosopher Sci. St. Petersburg, 1993. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1884. September-December. L. 170. Nolde A.E. Review of scientific legal activities of K.P. Pobedonostseva: Obituary // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. St. Petersburg, 1907. Part X. August. P. 84. All dates are given according to the Julian calendar (“old style”). Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1893. March-April. L. 43. Pobedonostsev K.P. Feasts of the Lord // Pobedonostsev K.P. Op. St. Petersburg, 1996, pp. 221–222. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III / With a preface. M. N. Pokrovsky: In 2 volumes. M.: New Moscow, 1925–1926. T. 2. M., 1926. P. 330. A lithographed copy of his lecture course is now kept in the Russian National Library: Civil proceedings: Lectures by prof. Pobedonostsev, read at Moscow University (lithographed manuscript). [M., 1863]. 534 pp. K.P. [Pobedonostsev K.P.] About university teaching // Moscow Gazette. 1899. No. 173. P. 1. Koni A.F. From the years of youth and old age // Koni A.F. Collection cit.: In 8 vols. T. 7. M., 1969. P. 99–100. Nolde A.E. Review of scientific legal activities of K.P. Pobedonostseva: Obituary. pp. 85–86. Nolde A.E. Review of scientific legal activities of K.P. Pobedonostseva: Obituary. P. 87. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters from B.N. Chicherin (1864–1903) // Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library (hereinafter referred to as OR RSL). F. 334 (Chicherins). K. 4. Unit. hr. 4. L. 6 rev. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1882. August-December. L. 142. Pobedonostsev K.P. On reforms in civil proceedings // Russian Bulletin. 1859. T. 21. June. Book 2. P. 545. Pobedonostsev K.P. On reforms in civil proceedings // Russian Bulletin. 1859. T. 21. June. Book 2. pp. 548, 549. Diaries of K.P. Pobedonostseva (1846–1893) // Russian State Historical Archive (hereinafter referred to as RGIA). F. 1574 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). Op. 1. Unit hr. 2 b. L. 7. Diaries of K.P. Pobedonostseva (1862–1866) // Ibid. Unit hr. 1. L. 7. Diaries of K.P. Pobedonostseva (1862–1866). L. 12. 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). [SPb., 1862]. P. 25. Diaries of K.P. Pobedonostseva (1862–1866). L. 12 rev. Diaries of K.P. Pobedonostseva (1862–1866). L. 20 rev. [Pobedonostsev K.P. ] Modern chronicle, Moscow, November 8 // Modern chronicle. M., 1861. No. 45. P. 9. Diaries of K.P. Pobedonostseva (1862–1866). L. 14–14 vol. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letter from V.V. Grigoriev // OR RNB. F. 608 (I.V. Pomyalovsky). Op. 1. Unit hr. 2532. L. 4 vol. Note on civil proceedings (Compiled by K. Pobedonostsev in December 1861) // Materials on judicial reform in Russia in 1864. T. 26: Notes on the development of the main provisions of the transformation of the judicial part. Part 6 (1861–1863). St. Petersburg, 1863. P. 30. 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). Pobedonostsev’s objection // 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). [SPb., 1864]. P. 77. Note on civil proceedings... P. 29. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letter from V.V. Grigoriev. L. 4, 4 vol. Note on civil proceedings... pp. 29, 30. Diaries of K.P. Pobedonostseva (1862–1866). L. 36 rev. Pobedonostsev K.P. Preliminary remarks about the plan and the main grounds of the Charter on the Judicial System... P. 22. Civil proceedings: Lectures by prof. Pobedonostsev... P. 15. Pobedonostsev K.P. Leading articles on judicial reform // Pobedonostsev K.P. Op. P. 55. K.P. Pobedonostsev and his correspondents: Letters and notes / With a preface. M.N. Pokrovsky. T. 1: In 2 half-volumes. M.-Pg.: State Publishing House, 1923. Semi-volume 2: Letters of 1884–1894. pp. 485–486. Quote by: Peshkov A.I. “He who destroys is small in the Kingdom of Christ...” // Pobedonostsev K.P. Op. S. 5. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to A.F. Aksakova (ur. Tyutcheva) (1864) // OR RSL. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). K. 5273. Unit. hr. 2. L. 12 rev. Pobedonostsev K.P. 1) Lectures on Russian state law, read to Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich and Vel. Prince Alexander Alexandrovich [after 1864] // State Archives of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the GA RF). F. 728 (Collection of documents from the manuscript department of the Winter Palace Library). Op. 1. Book. 6. Units hr. 3132. Part 15. 82 sheets; 2) Lectures on civil law, given in 1862 to Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich // Ibid. Unit hr. 2725. 206 l. Pobedonostsev K.P. Lectures on Russian state law... L. 38 vol. Pobedonostsev K.P. Lectures on Russian state law... L. 39. Pobedonostsev K.P. Greetings from the old teacher to the Grand Duke on the day of his coming of age // Pobedonostsev K.P. Op. pp. 116–122. Quote by: Gauthier Yu.V. K.P. Pobedonostsev and heir Alexander Alexandrovich (1865–1881). P. 456. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters from B.N. Chicherin (1864–1903). L. 7. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1882. January-July. L. 167. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to A.F. Aksakova (ur. Tyutcheva) (1864). L. 12 rev. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1866) // OR RSL. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). K. 4408. Unit. hr. 1. L. 6. Quote by: Gauthier Yu.V. K.P. Pobedonostsev and heir Alexander Alexandrovich (1865–1881). P. 457. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1880) // OR RSL. F. 230. K. 4409. Unit. hr. 2. L. 84 rev.–85. Quote by: Gauthier Yu.V. K.P. Pobedonostsev and heir Alexander Alexandrovich (1865–1881). P. 462. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. T. 2. P. 331. Diary of Secretary of State A.A. Polovtsova / Ed. P.A. Zayonchkovsky: In 2 vols. T. 1. M., 1966. P. 390. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1877) // OR RSL. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). K. 4408. Unit. hr. 12. L. 66 vol. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva. (1878) // OR RSL. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). K. 4408. Unit. hr. 13. L. 68–68 vol. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1880). L. 79 rev.–80. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1874) // OR RSL. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). K. 4408. Unit. hr. 9. L. 14. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1874). L. 9–10. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. T. 1. M., 1925. P. 53. Diary of Secretary of State A.A. Polovtsova / Ed. P.A. Zayonchkovsky. T. 1. P. 390. Quote by: Zayonchkovsky P.A. Russian autocracy at the end of the 19th century. M., 1970. P. 100. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to O.A. Novikova (1878–1882) // OR RSL. F. 126 (Kireevs). K. 8479. Unit. hr. 6. L. 5–5 vol. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1877). L. 48. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1879) // OR RSL. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). K. 4409. Unit. hr. 1. L. 69–69 vol. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1881) // Ibid. K. 4410. Unit. hr. 1. L. 135 vol. K.P. Pobedonostsev is referring to I. Taine’s book “The History of the French Revolution” (Russian translation: Parts 1–6. Kharkov, 1906–1913). Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1878). L. 24 rev. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters from M.N. Katkov (1862–1887) // OR RSL. F. 120 (M.N. Katkov). K. 9. Unit. hr. 47. L. 19 vol. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1880). L. 11 vol. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1881). L. 1. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1879). L. 3. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters from M.N. Katkov (1862–1887). L. 32 rev. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. T. 1. P. 53. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1881). L. 135. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. T. 1. P. 54. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. T. 1. P. 67. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1880). L. 12. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1880). L. 31. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1881). L. 14. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. T. 1. P. 318. The first weeks of the reign of Emperor Alexander III: Letters from K.P. Pobedonostsev from St. Petersburg to Moscow to E.F. Tyutcheva // Russian Archive. 1907. Book. 2. Issue. 5. P. 89. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1881. January-August. L. 62–62 vol. The first weeks of the reign of Emperor Alexander the Third... P. 100. The Highest Manifesto // Moscow Gazette. 1881. No. 120. P. 1. The first weeks of the reign of Emperor Alexander the Third... P. 99, 100. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters from B.N. Chicherin (1864–1903). L. 30. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. T. 1. P. 338. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1881. January-August. L. 104–104 vol. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1882. January-July. L. 145 rev.–146. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1878). L. 68. Letters to K.P. Pobedonostseva A.F. Horses (1876–1900) // GA RF. F. 654 (A.F. Koni). Op. 1. Unit hr. 2892. L. 17. Pobedonostsev K.P. Report on the need for judicial reforms (1885) // OR RSL. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). K. 4394. Unit. hr. 3. L. 3–5. K.P. Pobedonostsev and his correspondents. T. 1. Half volume 2nd. P. 462. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters from T.I. Filippov (1879–1896) // GA RF. F. 1099 (T.I. Filippov). Op. 1. Unit hr. 2414. L. 92–92 vol. Kizevetter A.A. Pobedonostsev // On the wrong side. 1924. No. 4. P. 258. Peshkov A.I. “He who destroys is small in the Kingdom of Christ...” pp. 6–7. Tverskoy P.A. From business correspondence with K.P. Pobedonostsev (1900–1904) // Bulletin of Europe. 1907. Book. 12. P. 654. K.P. Pobedonostsev and his correspondents. T. 1. Half volume 2nd. P. 999. Pobedonostsev K.P. Sovereign Emperor Alexander Alexandrovich: We are talking about him K.P. Pobedonostsev at the meeting of the Imperial Russian Historical Society on April 6, 1895 // Pobedonostsev K.P. Op. pp. 167–168. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1900. July-August. L. 2. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1881). L. 14 rev. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1882) // OR RSL. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). K. 4410. Unit. hr. 2. L. 17. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1881. January-August. L. 5. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // Ibid. 1898. January-February. B.l. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters from M.N. Katkov (1862–1887). L. 19 rev. Letters from various persons to P.I. Bartenev (1887) // Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (hereinafter referred to as RGALI). F. 46 (P.I. Bartenev). Op. 1. Unit hr. 579. L. 265 vol. Quote by: Talberg N.D. Pobedonostsev: Essays on the history of Imperial Russia. M., 2000. pp. 123–124. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters from M.N. Katkov (1862–1887). L. 73. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters from S.A. Petrovsky (1890–1896) // OR RSL. F. 224 (S.A. Petrovsky). Op. 2. Unit hr. 24. L. 47 vol. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. T. 2. P. 334. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to L.A. Tikhomirov (1890–1906) // GA RF. F. 634 (L.A. Tikhomirov). Op. 1. Unit hr. 113. L. 48–48 vol. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to L.A. Tikhomirov (1890–1906). L. 50–50 vol. Right there. L. 73, 77 rev.–78. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1895. January-February. L. 29. The word of the Russian autocrat // Moscow Gazette. 1895. No. 18. P. 1. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1895. January-February. L. 68 rev. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to L.A. Tikhomirov (1890–1906). L. 47 rev.–48. Letters from Pobedonostsev to Alexander III. T. 2. P. 305. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1897. November-December. L. 106 vol. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // Ibid. 1896. November-December. L. 44–44 vol. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to D.F. Samarin (1878–1899) // OR RSL. F. 265 (Samariny). K. 198. Unit. hr. 21. L. 49–50. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1900. January-February. L. 132 vol. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // Ibid. 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. pp. 123–124. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1900. May-June. L. 1 vol. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // Ibid. 1896. November-December. L. 84 rev. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1881). L. 140. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // OR RNB. F. 631 (S.A. Rachinsky). 1901. September-October. L. 166. From letters from K.P. Pobedonostsev to Nicholas II (1898–1905) / Publ. M.N. Kurova // Religions of the world. History and modernity. Yearbook. M., 1983. P. 179. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1881). L. 75–75 vol. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to E.F. Tyutcheva (1882). L. 18 rev. Pobedonostsev K.P. Letters to Ambrose, Archbishop of Kharkov (1882) // OR RSL. F. 230 (K.P. Pobedonostsev). K. 9804. Unit. hr. 5. From letters from K.P. Pobedonostsev to Nicholas II (1898–1905). P. 186. From letters from K.P. Pobedonostsev to Nicholas II (1898–1905). P. 185. Quote by: Glinsky B.B. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev: Materials for biography // K.P. Pobedonostsev: pro et contra. pp. 405–406. P.B. [Bartenev P.A. ] K.P. Pobedonostsev: His Obituary with excerpts from his diary // Russian Archive. 1907. No. 4. P. 635. K.P. Pobedonostsev is referring to his latest book: The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the new Russian translation by K.P. Pobedonostseva: Experience to improve the translation into Russian of the sacred books of the New Testament. St. Petersburg: Synodal Printing House, 1906. Shershenevich G.F. The science of civil law in Russia. Kazan, 1893. pp. 86–87. Chronicle of Russian legal literature for 1889 // Legal Chronicle. 1890. February. P. 133. Shershenevich G.F. The science of civil law in Russia. P. 87. Orshansky I. [Review]: Civil law course. Essay by K. Pobedonostsev. Part two: Family, hereditary and testamentary rights. Second edition with changes and additions. St. Petersburg, 1875 // Journal of civil and criminal law. St. Petersburg, 1876. Book. 1. February. pp. 259–260. Chicherin B.N. History of political doctrines: At 5 hours M., 1869–1902. Part 4. M., 1877. P. 439. Pobedonostsev K.P. Criticism of M. M. Mikhailov’s essay on Russian civil proceedings before the publication of the Code of Laws in 1832 // Archive of historical and practical information relating to Russia, ed. N. Kalachov. St. Petersburg, 1859. Book. 1. P. 1. Pobedonostsev K.P. Course of civil law: In 3 volumes. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1896. P. 65. Pobedonostsev K.P. Criticism of the essay by M.M. Mikhailov on Russian civil proceedings before the publication of the Code of Laws in 1832, pp. 1–2. Pobedonostsev K.P. Indexes and appendices to the “Civil Law Course”. St. Petersburg, 1896. P. 89. Pobedonostsev K.P. Indexes and appendices to the “Civil Law Course”. pp. 87–88. K.P. [Pobedonostsev K.P. ] Regarding the article on replacing priestly and ecclesiastical positions // Day: Weekly newspaper published by Iv. Aksakov. M., 1864. No. 22. P. 7–9. Shershenevich G.F. The science of civil law in Russia. P. 93. Nolde A.E. Review of the scientific legal activities of K.P. Pobedonostseva: Obituary // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. St. Petersburg, 1907. Part X. August. P. 107. St. Petersburg Gazette. 1876. No. 75. P. 8. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1868. pp. I–II. Shershenevich G.F. The science of civil law in Russia. P. 95. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1896. P. 109. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1896. P. 5. Pobedonostsev K.P. Acquisition of property and land books // Russian Bulletin: Literary and Political Magazine, ed. M. Katkov. M., 1860. T. 28. July. book 2. P. 210. Pobedonostsev K.P. Judicial Manual: A collection of rules, regulations and examples drawn from the theory and practice of civil proceedings with a complete index to judicial and administrative decisions on this subject of the cassation departments of the Senate. St. Petersburg, 1872. P. II. Shershenevich G.F. The science of civil law in Russia. pp. 95, 97. Kr. M. [Review]: Civil law course. Part 1: Patrimonial rights. 1868; Part II: Family, hereditary and testamentary rights. 1871. Op. K. Pobedonostseva // Judicial Bulletin: Legal and political newspaper. St. Petersburg, 1871. No. 4. P. 1. Shershenevich G.F. The science of civil law in Russia. P. 92. Pobedonostsev K.P. Indexes and appendices to the “Civil Law Course”. P. 88. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1868. S. V. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1868. pp. V–VI. Orshansky I. [Review]: Civil law course. Essay by K. Pobedonostsev... P. 280. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. T. 2. P. 13. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. T. 2. pp. 69–70. Right there. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1896. P. 731. Right there. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1896. P. 743. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1896. P. 11. Spasovich V. Analysis of the 2nd part of the “Course of Civil Law by K. Pobedonostsev”: On family rights // Spasovich V. Over many years (1859–1871): Articles, excerpts, history, criticism, polemics, court speeches, etc. St. Petersburg, 1872. P. 150. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. T. 2. pp. 79–80. Right there. T. 3. St. Petersburg, 1896. pp. 81–82. Pobedonostsev K.P. Civil law course. T. 3. P. 84. Right there. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1896. P. 65. Spasovich V. Analysis of the 2nd part of the “Course of Civil Law by K. Pobedonostsev”: On family rights... P. 145. Letters to S.A. Rachinsky // Manuscript Department of the Russian National Library. F. 631 (S. A. Rachinsky). 1896. May-June. P. 154 vol. N. [Review]: Civil law course. Op. K. Pobedonostseva. Second part, second edition // Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1875. No. 277. P. 3. Orshansky, journal. Citizen and Angle. Rights, 1876, book. II, p. 259. It is interesting that Mr. Pobedonostsev, whose presentation is characterized by extreme monotony, reproaches Nevolin for the dryness of his presentation (vol. I, p. 745), and Nevolin reproaches Reitz for the same. Spasovich, journal. Gr. and Torg. Rights, 1871, vol. I, p. 140. Quotations from the latest edition. St. Petersburg Gazette, 1876, No. 75. St. Petersburg Gazette, 1876, No. 75. Journal Citizen and angle. rights, 1876, book. II, pp. 260 and 261.