Utopias are always substituted for the correct “national idea. Dissent during the reign of Catherine II and the activities of state authorities to suppress it: a historical and legal study A dissident person who does not recognize the existing order

As a manuscript

Elmurzaev Imaran Yaragievich

Dissent during the reign of Catherine II

and activities of public authorities

on its suppression: historical and legal research

Specialty 12.00.01 -

theory and history of law and state;

history of the doctrines of law and the state

degree of candidate of legal sciences

Krasnodar, 2010 2 The thesis was completed at the Kuban State Agrarian University

scientific adviser:

Stories L.P. - Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Worker of Science of the Russian Federation

Official Opponents:

Tsechoev Valery Kulievich - Doctor of Law, Professor Uporov Ivan Vladimirovich - Doctor of History, Candidate of Law, Professor

Lead organization- South Federal University

The defense of the dissertation will take place on March 3, 2010 at 16:00, in the room. 215 at the meeting of the dissertation council for the award of the degree of Doctor of Law DM 220.038.10 at the Kuban State Agrarian University (350044 Krasnodar, Kalinina st., 13).

The dissertation can be found in the library of the Kuban State Agrarian University (350044 Krasnodar, Kalinina st., 13).

Scientific Secretary of the Dissertation Council Doctor of Law, Professor Kamyshansky V.P.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

Relevance dissertation research topics. In the socio-political history of Russia, the years of the reign of Catherine II in. First of all, they are characterized by the fact that the intensity of transformations in the state sphere has noticeably increased (after the era of Peter the Great). Catherine II of the Enlightenment, which was reflected, for example, in her well-known Order of the laid commission. In this sense, his reign is often called the era of enlightened absolutism. During the long reign of Catherine II, a course of reforms was carried out in the socio-political life of Russia, aimed at modernizing it and strengthening state power in the country. In particular, the legislative activity of the empress corresponded to the spirit of the time, new European trends and ideas that she brought with her in the 18th century. new era. At the same time, the years of the reign of the empress are filled with very contradictory events and processes. The “golden age of the Russian nobility” was at the same time the century of frightening chvshchina and strengthening serfdom, and the “Instruction” and the Legislative Commission, formed from representatives of different classes, were associated with the persecution of opponents of political power. Thus, speaking approvingly of many liberal ideas in correspondence with Voltaire, Diderot and other thinkers, the empress did not allow their spread in Russia. The official state ideology of Russian absolutism under Catherine II remained the same. However, a kind of “thaw”, which arose as a result of the development of education, science, publishing, as well as the influence of bourgeois revolutions in Western Europe, led to the generation of representatives of fairly high classes who began to publicly express political and ideological considerations that did not fully agree with state ideology, to criticize (as a rule, indirectly, often through satire) the existing order.

A certain confrontation arose between the authorities and these representatives (Novikov, Radishchev, Fonvizin, and others), who together there are grounds to consider the first dissidents in Russia. In this context, these and other contradictions have not yet found sufficient coverage in the historical and legal literature. In particular, the question of the reasons for the emergence of dissent, the types and forms of its manifestation is unexplored. The political and legal views of the first dissidents require additional study, given that they did not directly call for a revolution and, moreover, most of them did not consider it necessary to change the monarchical system, but at the same time they expressed ideas associated, as a rule, with the need for a more just active social relations, changes in legislation in the direction of expanding human rights and freedoms. In connection with the development of dissent, the methods of the state's struggle with this phenomenon began to change, while the actions of those who thought differently were regarded as crimes against the state (such was qualified, for example, the publication by Radishchev of the book Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow). Accordingly, the activities of the state punitive mechanism to combat this kind of state crimes require additional reflection in the context of the confrontation between the official state ideology and dissent, bearing in mind that this kind of confrontation for the first time began to take on forms that would much later be called the phenomenon of dissidence. The historical and legal analysis of the stated issues also requires clarification of a number of theoretical positions that have an ambiguous interpretation, in particular, this concerns the concept and content of such categories as state ideology and dissent. In these historical and legal aspects, this issue has not yet been studied at the dissertation level.

The degree of development of the topic. Separate aspects of the issue related to the struggle of absolutism against state crimes during the reign of Catherine II, which included dissent, were the subject of research in the works of various authors and different eras - both the period of the Empire, and the Soviet and modern periods. Various aspects were touched upon in the works of such scientists as Anisimov E.V., Golikova N.B., Barshev Ya.I., Berner A.F., Bogoyavlensky S., Bobrovsky P.O., Brikner A.G., Veretennikov V.I., Golikov I.I., Esipov G.V., Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F., Kistyakovsky A.F., Sergeevsky N.D., Sergeevich V.I., Dmitriev F.M. ., Belyaev I.D., Bobrovsky P.O., Vilensky V.B., Linovsky V.A., Foinitsky I.Ya., Chebyshev Dmitriev A.O., Semevsky M.I., Sokolsky V.V. , Eidelman N.Ya., Samoilov V.I., Plugin V., Petrukhintsev N.N., Pavlenko N.I., Ovchinnikov R.V., Lurie F.M., Kurgatnikov A.V., Korsakov D. A., Kamensky A.B., Zuev A.S., Minenko N.A., Efremova N.N., Eroshkin N.P., Golubev A.A., Vlasov G.I., Goncharov N.F.

etc. However, the authors of the studies, as a rule, studied only certain issues of the criminal-political process, leaving out of sight the essence and forms of confrontation between the official state ideology and dissent. In addition, the relationship between substantive and procedural law, the system of investigative and judicial bodies, and other aspects of criminal proceedings in political cases related to dissent in the Catherine era was not subjected to historical and legal analysis. Accordingly, there have been no special and generalizing historical and legal studies on dissent during the reign of Catherine II and the activities of state authorities to suppress it in modern legal literature.

Object and subject of dissertation research. The object of the study is the process of emergence and development of dissent during the reign of Catherine II and the activities of the state to suppress it. related to the criminal political sphere, the decisions of political investigation bodies in specific cases against dissidents, the practice of conducting individual investigative actions, the procedure for issuing and executing sentences, as well as scientific works on this topic.

The chronological framework of the dissertation research basically covers the Russian history of the period 1762-1796, that is, the years of the reign of Catherine II. At the same time, the work touches upon certain aspects of the development of the origins of dissent and the practice of the state punitive apparatus to suppress it in the earlier period of the 18th century, which is necessary for a better understanding of the laws of the socio-political relations under consideration and given that the main legislative acts regulating criminal -political process, were developed in the first half of the XVIII century.

Purpose and tasks research. The main goal of the dissertation research is to comprehensively study the features of the emergence and development of dissent during the reign of Catherine II and the activities of the state to suppress it and, on the basis of this increment, to obtain historical and legal knowledge that allows more effective use of the experience of the relationship between power and opposition in modern Russia.

To achieve this goal, the following research tasks have been set:

To reveal the political and legal characteristics of dissent in Russia of "enlightened" absolutism;

To refine the concepts of state ideology and dissent, to reveal the concept of their relationship in the 18th century;

Explore the types and forms of expression of dissent;

Analyze the socio-political views of dissidents (Radishchev, Novikov, Fonvizin, Shcherbatov, Desnitsky);

To characterize the state repressive mechanism and show the features of its implementation in the suppression of dissent;

To study administrative-criminal measures to combat dissent and their procedural consolidation;

Investigate the status of political investigation bodies and investigative judicial activities to prosecute dissent;

To study the criminal-political trial of Radishchev as the most typical representative of dissent during the reign of Catherine II.

The research methodology is based on the methods of materialistic dialectics, historicism and systematic scientific analysis, which are generally accepted in historical and legal research. The nature of the dissertation research also led to the use of such methods as statistical, comparative legal, analysis and synthesis, etc. In the process of research work, the dissertation researcher used the results of research contained in the scientific works of pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern authors. The author used materials from archives, as well as a number of literary and public works, where, to one degree or another, the issues under study were reflected. The legal framework for the dissertation research was laws and other legal acts that regulated various aspects of publishing activity, which allowed dissidents to convey their ideas to society, as well as legal acts regulating responsibility for committing state crimes, including the publication of "seditious" books, for which, fundamentally, dissidents were subject to legal liability.

Scientific novelty research is determined by the fact that for the first time a monographic comprehensive scientific historical and legal study of the features of the emergence and development of dissent during the reign of Catherine II and the state's activities to suppress it was carried out. In the work, from the historical and theoretical positions, the concepts of official state ideology and dissent are clarified. The reasons for the appearance and the main trends in the development of dissent in the period under review are revealed. Types and forms of dissent during the reign of Catherine II are classified. The political and legal views of dissidents are summarized from the point of view of their opposition to the state ideology (absolutism) of that time. An assessment of the position of the authorities in relation to dissidents and their published works is given and its transformation of this position is shown. The content of criminal proceedings in political cases is revealed, including the study of the norms of both substantive and procedural law, the structural development of the main punitive bodies of political investigation, the features of the production of certain investigative actions, the content and execution of sentences for state crimes. The author analyzed a number of legal acts that have not yet been the subject of scientific research in terms of identifying patterns in the development of criminal procedural procedures in the commission of crimes against state power. The work shows the role of Catherine II in the implementation of specific criminal and political cases. The author of the dissertation reveals that many criminal-political processes in the period under review were predetermined for the sake of the supreme power.

As a result of the study, the following main provisions were developed, which the author submits for defense:

1. The concept of "state ideology" came into circulation from the second half of the nineteenth century, while its presence is an objective phenomenon, since the authorities in any state in their activities are guided by quite specific principles that are reflected in the decisions made by the state, regulatory legal acts , which outline the contours of the state ideology. In democratic states, the legal opposition opposes the official ideology within the framework of political competition. In Russia, for a long time, there was an institution of dissent, characteristic of authoritarian totalitarian states, an expression of points of view other than official ones regarding the development of socio-political relations, as well as criticism of the existing order, which entailed the use of repressive measures. Dissent as a socio-political phenomenon in its modern sense was formed during the reign of Catherine II (the final third of the 18th century), when intellectuals appeared, as a rule, people from high-class strata, who distributed essays in society that criticized the activities of state power. And at the same time, the concept of interaction between state ideology and dissent was formed and operated until the collapse of the USSR, which consisted in the fact that the authorities were intolerant of dissidents and regarded the spread of a different socio-political ideology as a crime.

2. Dissent in the final part of the XVIII century. subdivided into the following main types: journalism (including satire);

fiction;

works of a scientific nature, that is, the main criterion for classification was literary genres. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that these species were often intertwined, since at that time there was no clear separation between them. In addition, to some extent, everyday conversations in which their participants discussed political issues can be considered as a variety of dissent. The forms of expression of dissent also did not differ in variety (printing of individual books;

printing of articles and other works in journalistic periodicals). Rallies, leaflets, "sam izdat", which are also associated with dissidents, will appear in Russia much later. It was in books and magazines that dissidents placed their views using various literary genres. In this regard, a situation is quite clearly manifested in which the appearance of dissent corresponds to the development of printing in Russia.

3. The manifestation of dissent in the period under consideration in the history of Russia as a whole did not represent a radical opposition of the positions of dissidents to the official state ideology. This was largely due to the fact that dissidents, by virtue of their social origin, carried within themselves the psychology of “normal” social inequality. At a certain stage of their lives, their worldview began to be corrected, and they began to disseminate their views, diverging from the state ideology, in society. It was mainly a criticism of the existing socio-political and socio-economic situation in the country on certain issues with an emphasis on injustice with an indirect blame for the existing shortcomings on the ruling elite, and Catherine II personally was not directly criticized.

4. Catherine II, by virtue of her personal qualities, in the first years of her reign allowed dissent to develop, but later, especially after the Pugachev uprising, she would change her position almost to the opposite. It seems that this is primarily due to the fact that she, according to the status of an absolute monarch, at a certain stage had to make a choice - either maintaining and strengthening absolutist power with all the ensuing privileges, or following Western European liberalism, to which she had certain sympathies - the combination could not be could, by definition, due to completely different, conflicting socio-political concepts. And the choice was made, and quite expected, given the established autocratic relations in Russia.

5. The socio-political views of representatives of dissent during the reign of Catherine II differed both in the depth of their justification and in the ways of expression. The most radical was A.N. Radishchev, who believed that the absolutist system had outlived itself and should be replaced by a republic. Radishchev acted both as a theoretician and as a publicist, sharply criticizing the existing situation in Russia. The formation of his views was significantly influenced by French liberal thinkers, and above all Rousseau. In the works of Radishchev, the empress found a call to rebellion, an encroachment on her power, which explains the extremely harsh repression against Radishchev. Unlike Radishchev, Novikov focused on journalistic literary activity, and also criticized, mainly in a satirical, allegorical form, the current order in Russia, and so much that he was subjected to criminal repression. At the same time, according to his views, he was not an opponent of the monarchy, but stood up for the equality of people.

Other dissidents (Fonvizin, Shcherbatov, Desnitsky, and others) were more moderate in their criticism, but they were all united by ideas that provided for limiting “autocracy” within the framework of a monarchical form of government, strengthening the representative component in power relations, the existence of natural rights for people, ensuring justice in the content of laws and in the administration of justice.

6. During the reign of Catherine II, as before, the authorities waged an active and tough struggle against encroachments on the existing political system.

Dissent was part of such encroachments. Accordingly, the authorities took a number of steps to counter dissent. Among the administrative measures to combat dissent, censorship was in the first place - by that time it was already functioning, although it was not legally enshrined at the system level. In the criminal law procedure, the actions of those who thought differently were qualified as state crimes, and the norms of acts were applied, starting with the Council Code of 1649.

7. The Secret Expedition, which acted under the personal and direct control of Catherine II, was engaged in political investigation and preliminary investigation in cases of dissidents, and in this she retained the approach of her predecessors. The bodies of political investigation were given a special status in the system of state authorities, which made their activities virtually uncontrolled. In particularly important political cases, the proceedings were carried out according to a carefully thought-out procedure, which was never fixed by law. At the same time, only officials loyal to him were selected personally by the monarch to the composition of the commissions of inquiry specially established for this purpose, first, and then to the judicial panels. The investigation itself and the trial proceeded according to the given directions, and the outcome of the cases was clear in advance, although the verdict could differ from the intended one, but not significantly. Left face to face (the institution of the bar has not yet appeared) with the investigators of the Secret Expedition, the accused dissidents, despite the abolition of torture, invariably admitted their guilt, repented and asked for mercy, which testifies to the traditional Russian fear of the secret police.

8. During the consideration of the case of Radishchev in the Chamber of the Criminal Court and in the Senate, he was not asked a single question on the essence of the charge related to the “seditious” content of his book “Journey from St. not a single fragment of the book was mentioned, and the materials of the preliminary investigation were not submitted to the court, which actually investigated the case from scratch, focusing all attention on finding accomplices and finding out the addressees of the distributed copies of the book. The question arises: on the basis of what did the court conclude that the content of the book itself was criminal, if there was no discussion about this, and Radishchev's confession was of a general nature? The answer lies in a short decree of Catherine II on bringing Radishchev to the court of the Chamber of the Criminal Court of July 1790, in which Radishchev, without any justification, was already declared a criminal, while no specific charges were contained. Such a move was not made by the Empress by chance - she did not want to bring for public discussion the negative facts of Russian reality, described by Radishchev in a very sharp form and with a clear hint at the responsibility of the Empress herself, that is, it could turn out to be a discussion of the political system, and the resonance could be serious, and along with it, the preconditions for shaking the political foundations could appear. Such a position indicates that the authorities began to seriously fear dissent, so much so that the elementary principles of justice enshrined in the law were rejected, and the dissident Radishchev, based only on the personal opinion of the empress, was initially sentenced to death, with its subsequent replacement with exile.

The theoretical significance of the study. The results of the dissertation research make it possible to significantly expand knowledge about the history of Russian social and political thought, Russian law in general, and criminal justice in particular. The theoretical provisions contained in the dissertation research may be of some scientific interest in studying the history of relations between the authorities and the opposition, as well as in studying the development of forms of judicial activity in our country.

Practical significance dissertation is that the collected and generalized historical and legal material can be used in the educational process in the study of historical and legal disciplines, as well as the relevant sections of a number of other legal disciplines (history of political and legal doctrines, criminal procedure, etc.). It will also be of interest to the legislator when improving the political system in Russia.

Approbation of results research. The most important results of the dissertation research are reflected in author's publications.

Scientific, pedagogical workers, employees of law enforcement agencies, public organizations could get acquainted with the main provisions of the dissertation at scientific and practical conferences in Krasnodar, Ufa, Rostov-on-Don, Stavropol, in which the dissertator participated.

Thesis structure determined by the nature and scope of scientific research and includes an introduction, two chapters, combining six paragraphs, a conclusion and a bibliographic list.

BASIC THE CONTENT OF THE WORK

First chapter"Political and legal characteristics of dissent in Russia "enlightened" absolutism" includes three paragraphs.

In the first paragraph "State ideology and dissent: the concept and concept of relationships in the XVIII century." at the beginning, the conceptual apparatus is considered, namely, the concepts of “dissent” and “state ideology” are clarified. This must be done because the concept of “dissent” has only relatively recently begun to enter into scientific circulation, and the concept of “state ideology” has been debatable for a long time, starting from the second half of the 19th century. The author analyzes different points of view and formulates his own position. It is indicated, in particular, that dissent is associated with the political component of public relations. Another important sign of dissent is that dissent implies the existence and publication of views that differ from the official state ideology, as well as its public criticism.

Dissent in this sense appears under Catherine II. As for the state ideology, it has always existed - since the emergence of the state in general, and the absence of theoretical developments in any era does not mean that the state ideology was absent: in any case, the monarch, who most personified the state, in his activities guided by certain principles. For example, Peter I, in his interpretation of the Military Article of 1715, gave such a clear definition of the autocratic absolute power of the monarch that it remained for the entire subsequent existence of absolutism in Russia: and in an obscene way he will talk about it, he will be deprived of his stomach, and he will be executed by cutting off his head. Interpretation. For His Majesty is an autocratic monarch who must not give an answer to anyone in the world about his deeds. But he has his own states and lands, like a Christian sovereign, to rule according to his will and goodwill. And just as His Majesty himself is mentioned in this article, of course, so is His Majesty the Caesar's wife, and his state heritage ”(art. 20). The dissertation author believes that the essence of the state ideology of Russian absolutism of the early 18th century is reflected here quite clearly and rigidly, despite the absence of an equally clear theoretical justification (in its modern sense). At the same time, the author, on the whole, agrees with the approach according to which the state ideology is usually fixed in constitutions or other laws. During the period under review, the eighteenth century Other documents emanating from the monarch and characterizing the state ideology were also of significant importance, in particular, the well-known “Order” of Catherine II of 1767 very clearly characterizes the official state ideology of that time.

Further giving a general description of the 18th century from the standpoint of the then dominant state ideology, the dissertator notes that in Russian history this century is characterized by the fact that the coming to power of monarchs after Peter I occurred, as a rule, as a result of intrigues among the highest aristocracy and those close to the throne of high-ranking officials with the active participation of the guards, which served as the basis for calling this century the era of "palace coups". An obligatory consequence of the palace coup was the criminal and political persecution of the rivals of the winners in the struggle for power. Here it is very important to emphasize the fact that the change of monarchs on the throne did not at all change the essence of absolutism as a form of state government, that is, the state ideology remained the same in its essence, although the rule of each monarch had its own features, and they are revealed in the work.

After the formation of absolutism in the Petrine era, in the second half of the 18th century, the political system stabilized, new forms of relations between the monarchy and society were developed. Was it not some kind of written mutual obligations in the form of a constitutional law, rather, the imperial power was aware of the limits of its capabilities, which it tried not to cross, realizing that otherwise the throne could be shaken. It was this need for self-restraint that determined the relative success of the reign of Catherine II, which ended without another palace coup. The need to reckon with public opinion became an integral feature of the state system and formed the basis of the state ideology, which was called "enlightened absolutism." Its noticeable political and methodological difference from traditional absolutism was the duality of the activities carried out. On the one hand, the government actively opposed attempts to change the existing system, but on the other hand, it was forced from time to time to make partial concessions to the demands of society. So, in the first years after coming to power, Catherine II organized the convocation and work of the Legislative Commission (1767–1769), which, however, limited itself to only reading orders, sanctioned the creation of a Free Economic Society. And yet, the main direction in domestic policy remained the desire to preserve the existing relations unchanged, for which they used, and very harshly, all the punitive power of the state, which is described in the dissertation.

Then the author reveals the origins of dissent in the 18th century, naming, in particular, the names of Pososhkov and Prokopovich and substantiating the position according to which the era of such thinkers was a kind of transitional period, since it was during these decades that the ground was prepared for the emergence of an already fundamentally new wave thinkers who did not exist before and who can already be classified as dissidents in the modern sense of the term. The “new thinkers”, who became the personification of the initial period of the formation of dissent in the history of Russia, appear under Catherine II, who unwittingly contributed to this, showing interest in Western liberal ideas and striving to appear before Europe in a more attractive, modern form - here we can see the influence of those who attacked Europe of bourgeois revolutions. Against this background, critics of the existing system were formed, and above all N.I. Novikov and A.N. Radishchev, who, however, avoided directly pointing to the Empress as the object of their criticism (this time in Russia would come later, along with the Decembrist movement). In addition to these dissidents, intellectuals also appeared, and in sufficient numbers, who, with a certain degree of conventionality, can be considered dissidents (M.M. Shcherbatov, D.I. Fonvizin, S.E. Desnitsky, I.P. Pnin, N. I. Panin, Ya.P. Kozelsky and others). In their works, the idea of ​​the need for political restructuring sounded, since absolutism clearly hampered the development of Russia. This was also confirmed by the Pugachev uprising. However, as before, the ruling elite did not heed the new trends - dissidents were persecuted, and the uprising was brutally suppressed.

In the second paragraph "Types and forms of expression of dissent" it is noted that, since dissent in its modern sense arose during the reign of Catherine II, the classification of types of dissent was then relatively small. Proceeding from this, the author substantiates his classification, which is presented in a concentrated form in the provisions. submitted for protection. The most convex dissent manifested itself primarily in journalism - typical were, for example, the works of M.M. Shcherbatov (“On the damage to morals in Russia”, etc.). In fiction, dissent manifested itself through images, for example, in D.I. Fonvizin in his comedies. S.E. stands out from the scientific type of dissent. Desnitsky (“The Idea of ​​the Establishment of Legislative, Judicial and Punitive Power in the Russian Empire”, etc.). And A.N. Radishchev, for example, all kinds of dissent were present in one work (“Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow”), while he also had works of other genres separately. At the same time, according to the dissertator, dissent does not include discussions of current problems of government activity with the participation of high-ranking officials, during which different opinions were also expressed. So, in the initial period of the reign of Catherine II, when she, obviously, was most inclined towards liberalism, noble projects for the creation of a “third rank” were quite actively discussed - due to the fact that the urban population was increasingly involved in entrepreneurial and economic relations. . For this, a Commission on Commerce was created, which included well-known statesmen Ya.P. Shakhovsky, G.N.

Teplov, I.I. Neplyuev, E. Munnich and others. In particular, Teplov proposed to give certain privileges to the townspeople. The discussion on this problem assumed different points of view, but all of them did not go beyond the framework of absolutism, that is, no one questioned the very essence of state ideology.

The same thing happened a little later with the above-mentioned Legislated Commission.

Dissidents, on the other hand, raised the bar of criticism somewhat higher, since they touched upon the existing foundations of power relations, for which, in fact, they fell into disgrace and were subjected to repression. But this (raising the bar) happened gradually and, moreover, as a rule, dissidents, expressing ideas diverging in content from the official state ideology, remained in their positions for a certain time. At the same time, the forms of expression of dissent, like the types, did not differ in diversity then. Actually, there were only two main forms: 1) printing of individual books;

2) publishing articles and other works in journalistic periodicals. Rallies, leaflets, "samizdat", which are also associated with dissidents, will appear in Russia much later. It was in books and magazines that dissidents placed their views using various literary genres. In this regard, a situation is quite clearly manifested in which the appearance of dissent corresponds to the development of printing in Russia.

Further, the paper examines the state of book publishing and the use of these opportunities by dissidents. Thus, the publishing business received a new stage in its development after the decree of Catherine II "On free printing" (1783), which gave permission for the creation of private printing houses, which was subsequently used by Radishchev, who published his "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow" in own printing house, located in his own house. A special merit in the development of publishing belonged to the largest cultural figure, publisher, editor, journalist N.I. Novikov, who also became a dissident and who, like Radishchev, will be convicted of dissent as a political criminal. The work covers in detail the publishing activities of Novikov, in particular, he undertook the publication of the newspaper "Moskovskie Vedomosti" and a series of magazines. Among them: the morally religious "Morning Light", the agricultural one - "Economic Store", the first children's magazine in Russia - "Children's Reading for the Heart and Mind", the first women's magazine - "Fashionable Monthly Edition, or Library for the Ladies' Toilet", the first bibliographic - "Saint-Petersburg scientific journals", the first natural science - "Shop of natural history, physics and chemistry" and a number of satirical ones - "Drone", "Painter", "Riddle", "Purse". Each of the periodicals created by Novikov was a noticeable phenomenon in public life and remained in the history of Russian journalism and Russian culture as a significant event. In addition, Novikov published many books of a scientific, educational and educational nature. The most famous was the journal Truten. As an epigraph to the magazine, Novikov took a verse from Sumarokov's parable "Beetles and Bees", namely - "They work, and you eat their work." "Truten" armed himself against the abuses of power by the landowners, against injustice and bribery, and spoke out with denunciations against very influential (for example, courtiers) spheres. On the question of the content of satire, Truten entered into polemics with Vsyakoy Vsyachina, the organ of the empress herself;

other journals, divided into two camps, also took part in this controversy. "Vsyakaya Vsyachina" preached moderation, indulgence to weaknesses, condemning "any offending of persons." "Drone"

stood for bolder, more open denunciations.

This was a unique and, in fact, the only open polemic in Russian history between an absolute monarch and his opponents (this was not a political opposition in its modern sense, but it was a different than official position on certain issues of public life). In a manner characteristic of those times, the controversy was conducted, as a rule, in a somewhat mocking, ironic tone and on behalf of various fictional authors, but it was no secret to anyone who was behind this or that pseudonym (Novikov often used the pseudonym Pravdorubov, which is remarkable in itself). Pretty soon, Novikov became more daring in his reasonings, allegedly written to him by his correspondents, although in reality he himself wrote them. So, in October 1769, the following remark appears: “G.

Publisher! With the current recruitment, due to the prohibition to repair the sale of peasants into recruits and from the land until the end of the recruitment, a newly invented trickery appeared. The landlords, who had forgotten honor and conscience, with the help of a sneak, invented the following: the seller, agree with the buyer, orders him to beat himself with his forehead in taking possession of the dachas;

and this one, having gone through that case several times, will finally file a peace petition together with the plaintiff, giving way to the claim of the man whom he sold as a recruit. G. publisher! here is a new kind of swindle, please write a remedy for the aversion of this evil. Your servant P. S. Moskva, 1769, October 8 days. And later he sent a letter to "Vsyuyuyu all rank", where it remained unpublished. The letter stated: “Madam paper-scriber All sorts of things! By your grace, this year is excellently replete with weekly publications. It would be better to have an abundance of earthly fruits, rather than the harvest of words that you caused (it seems that this thesis is very relevant at the present time - author). If you ate porridge and left people alone: ​​after all, thunder would not have killed Professor Richmann if he had sat at cabbage soup and did not take it into his head to joke with thunder. The hell would eat you all." Catherine II could no longer endure such an attack. The controversy ended, the journal was closed, and Novikov would be convicted some time later.

Further, the work reveals manifestations of dissent in other forms and forms. Thus, dissent in the form of journalism of the period under consideration was most characteristically manifested by M.M. Shcherbatov. If we have in fiction as a type of dissent of the last quarter of the 18th century, then the famous writer D.I. Fonvizin, who wrote a number of interesting and topical works. Another representative of dissent from the sphere of fiction was the fabulist I.A. Krylov. Attention is drawn to the circumstance that progressively minded intellectuals are beginning attempts at co-organization on the basis of common social and political views, although, probably, not yet clearly expressed. Such an approach will be characteristic of subsequent generations of dissidents, whose cohesion of unity will gradually increase. It should be noted that the development of science in the period under review could not but lead to the fact that scientific treatises would become one of the forms of dissent. An example of this is professor of law S.E. Desnitsky. The dissertation also touches upon the problem of Pugachevism as a protest movement of the lower class, which contributed to the development of dissent in the period under review.

The third paragraph, “The Social and Political Views of Dissidents (Radishchev, Novikov, Fonvizin, Shcherbatov, Desnitsky)”, analyzes the main views of representatives of dissent from the time of Catherine II in comparison with the official state ideology.

Considerable attention is paid to the “main” dissident of the era of enlightened absolutism – A.N. Radishchev. It is noted that Radishchev outlined his socio-political views in publicistic, literary works, as well as in the drafts of those documents in the development of which he took part. Among them are both the early works “The Life of Fyodor Ushakov” (1773), the ode “Liberty” (1781-1783), “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” (1790), and works written after the exile - “ On the Right of the Defendants to Reject Judges to Choose their Defense Counsel”, “On the Prices for People Killed”, “On the Legal Regulations”, “Draft for the Division of the Russian Code”, “Draft Civil Code”, “Draft of the most merciful letter, complained to the Russian people”, “Discourses member of the State Council, Count Vorontsov, on the non-sale of people without land”, etc. It is noteworthy that some of the views, for the dissemination of which he was convicted as a dissident, later, after exile, no longer constituted the reason for applying repressive measures against him. In general, Radishchev belonged to the most radical wing of European enlightenment.

While still studying at the University of Leipzig, where he was sent along with other Russian students to study law, Radishchev got acquainted with the works of Montesquieu, Mably, Rousseau, and Helvetius. The peculiarity of Radishchev's social position consisted in the fact that he managed to connect enlightenment with the political system of Russia and its social system - with autocracy and serfdom, and, as was usually stated in Soviet literature, called for their overthrow. However, in the opinion of the dissertator, one should be more careful with regard to the “overthrow” since Radishchev did not make any direct subversive appeals. Another thing is that his criticism of Russian reality, assessments of those in power, freely loving reasoning contained a vector aimed at the need to change the existing system - autocracy, absolutism, bearing in mind the values ​​​​of European bourgeois revolutions. Radishchev expounded his views in the most concentrated form in the book Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow (1790), remarkable for its depth and boldness. The book was immediately noticed by the authorities. One of its copies fell into the hands of Catherine II, who immediately wrote that “the writer is filled and infected with the French delusion, he is looking for ... everything possible to belittle respect for the authorities ...

to lead the people into indignation against the rulers and authorities. Here the conflict between dissent and the official state ideology was sustained quite visibly. If we keep in mind the general concept of Radishchev's views, then it is expressed as follows. The term "autocracy" Radishchev uses in the sense of the concentration of unlimited power in the hands of the monarch, and in this sense, apparently, he is quite modern. Radishchev considers the state itself as a state "the opposite of human nature." Unlike Montesquieu, who distinguished between enlightened monarchy and despotism, Radishchev put an equal sign between all variants of the monarchical organization of power. In Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow, he put his thoughts into the monologue of one of the wanderer heroines, where, in particular, it was indicated that the tsar is “the first killer in society, the first robber, the first traitor.” Radishchev also criticizes the bureaucratic apparatus on which the monarch relies, noting the lack of education, depravity and venality of officials surrounding the throne. In the field of law, Radishchev adhered to democratic principles, asserting the “equal dependence of all citizens on the law” and the requirement to carry out punishments only in court, with everyone “tried by equal citizens.” He represented the organization of justice in the form of a system of zemstvo courts elected by the citizens of the republic.

Another notable dissident during the reign of Catherine II was N.I. Novikov. Above, he was mentioned mainly as a publisher. However, in addition to publishing, Novikov thought a lot, and not only in terms of journalism, economics, pedagogy and other areas, but also about the political being of his time and history. And although the depth of his theoretical reasoning, of course, was inferior to Radishchev, but his main views, contained mainly in articles and correspondence with various correspondents, as well as in works of art, deserve attention. Thus, in a number of Novikov’s works (primarily in Peasant Replies, the cycle of Letters to Falaley and Letters from Uncle to Nephew, in the Fragment of a Journey), the established serfdom is disastrous for Russia. Novikov, however, does not believe that serfdom is connected with absolutism. As an educator, he believed in the power of enlightenment, believing that the main and only way to destroy the evil of serfdom was education;

satirically depicting Catherine II, fighting against her specific policy, against despotism and favoritism, he never opposed autocracy in general. The idea of ​​equality of estates, according to Novikov, was to form the basis of a new social system created through enlightenment and education. In general, Novikov's role in the development of dissent during the time of Catherine II consisted primarily in his criticism (mainly in a satirical form) of the current activities of the state apparatus, including the monarch himself, that is, in other words, it was practical dissent - in contrast to dissent Radishchev, which, obviously, can be considered theoretically dissent. But in any case, it was these two public figures and writers who were the most repressed by the authorities for their writings, which gives reason to consider them the most prominent representatives of dissent in the period under review.

Further, the paper examines the political and legal views of other, less radical dissidents of the Catherine era, respectively, they were not subjected to criminal repression, but this does not detract from the significance of those modernizing intellectual innovations with which they enriched Russian socio-political thought. So, D.I. Fonvizin is best known as a fabulist and playwright. Nevertheless, a number of works belong to his pen, in which he sets out his ideas about the essence of state power and law and his attitude to the justice that existed in Russia at that time;

at the same time, Fonvizin's judgments on these issues do not constitute a coherent system. Fonvizin's state-legal views are based on the idea that humanity should provide assistance to the individual, assistance, respectively, the starting point of the activity of the state, as a form of organization of society, and its bodies, the main purpose of law is to ensure the rights of the individual. Regarding M.M. Shcherbatov states, in particular, that autocracy, in his opinion, “destroys the power of the state at its very beginning”. Republican government also does not arouse the sympathy of the thinker, since, according to his ideas, it is always fraught with the possibility of riots and rebellions. Shcherbatov's sympathies are on the side of a limited monarchy, and he makes no distinction between hereditary and elective organization. In the legal environment of the period of the reign of Catherine II, one of the first professors of law, S.E. Desnitsky. The project of state reforms proposed by Desnitsky, which was based on a political and legal concept, provided for the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Russia. As principles of the organization and activity of the judiciary, Desnitsky substantiated the legality, openness, competitiveness and equality of the parties, the oral trial, the independence and irremovability of judges, collegial decision-making, a comprehensive study of the truth, the right to use the native language in the judicial process, immediacy , the continuity of the trial. In general, Desnitsky, remaining a monarchist in his convictions, believed that the representative component in power had to be strengthened. And this automatically meant a decrease in the power of the absolute monarch, and in this sense his theory met with resistance from the adherents of absolutism.

Second chapter"State repressive mechanism and its implementation in the suppression of dissent" includes three paragraphs.

The first paragraph "Administrative-criminal measures to combat dissent and their procedural consolidation" indicates that measures to counter dissent were divided, to use modern terminology, into administrative measures and criminal measures - depending on the severity of the offense, which was expressed either in the dissemination of "seditious" ideas, or in criticism of the supreme power. Further, the paper considers the issues of legal regulation and law enforcement of these measures.

If we have in mind measures of an administrative nature, then we should first of all name the action of the institution of censorship. In this regard, it should be noted that a feature of the period under review is that, along with the development of journalism and book publishing, this institution developed quite actively and quickly strengthened. Catherine II began her censorship policy by improving the structure of censorship that had already taken shape even earlier. In 1763

the Decree "On refraining from obscene titles, interpretations and reasoning" is signed by everyone. However, this decree has not yet been systemic. However, as the publishing industry developed, the need for appropriate censorship legislation became increasingly urgent for the authorities. So, when deciding the issue of allowing a native of Germany, I.M. Gar Tung to start typographical business in Russia by the decree of the Senate of March 1, 1771 was allowed “to print on his own or someone else's dependency the books of Gar Tung and other works in all foreign languages ​​except Russian;

however, those who are not reprehensible either by Christian laws or by the government are lower than good morals. In the Decree “On Free Printing” of 1783, the limits of “freedom” were generalized and defined: “In these printing houses, books are printed in Russian and foreign languages, not excluding Oriental ones, with the observation, however, that nothing in them is contrary to the laws of God and it was not civil, for the sake of the Council of Deanery, the books given for printing to testify, and if something contrary to our instruction appears in them, to prohibit;

and in the case of the autocratic printing of such seductive books, not only the books should be confiscated, but those responsible for such unauthorized publication of unauthorized books should be reported to the right place, so that they would be punished for crimes of the laws. Where it should be is, of course, the organs of political investigation.

In the future, these prohibitive norms (among others) will be used to repress dissidents of that time, and above all N.I. Novikova and A.N. Radishchev. In September 1796, that is, shortly before her death, Catherine II, seriously frightened by the active development of book publishing in the state and the rapid growth in the number of “free printing houses” and “the resulting abuses”, signed the “Decree on the restriction of freedom book printing and the importation of foreign books, the establishment of censors for this end and the abolition of private printing houses. The noted documents on control over publishing activities show that Catherine II’s attempts, within the framework of her declared liberalism, to obtain, as a result of publishing activities, the works of intellectuals exclusively for her support, turned out to be unjustified - by no means all intellectuals took advantage of some freedom of the press to exalt the monarch, and, more Moreover, they plucked up the courage to criticize many decisions and actions of the government – ​​the authorities could not stand such things, and accordingly the decree of 1796 appeared. different from the official state ideology, which subsequently become a prerequisite for the emergence of constitutional ideas in Russia (the decree of 1796 ceased only in 1801 with the publication of the first censorship charter). Moreover, in the process of the decline of liberalism at the very end of the 18th century. censorship played a significant role.

Another type of administrative measures to combat dissent was the early resignation of officials, including high-ranking ones, in relation to which the empress could have reason to suspect them either of writing (publishing) “lewd” (in the terminology of that time, anti-government) publications or assisting dissidents. So, Count A.R.

Vorontsov, who held high positions under four emperors (beginning with Elizabeth and ending with Alexander I), favored Radishchev. Largely due to his intercession (and, in the opinion of some researchers, to a decisive extent), Radishchev's death penalty was replaced by exile. Undoubtedly, Catherine II knew about the relationship between Vorontsov and Radishchev, as well as the fact that he refused to participate in the Senate meeting when discussing the sentence of Radishchev, and that, after the conviction of the latter, Vorontsov helped him financially. And in 1792, Catherine II could not stand it - the outstanding abilities of Vorontsov as a statesman receded into the background, and the fact of his support for Radishchev became more important - Vorontsov was resigned. The measure applied by the authorities to Gerasim Zotov can probably also be considered as administrative. This merchant bookseller was friendly with Radishchev and helped him a lot in publishing and distributing Journey and Petersburg to Moscow. He himself is a "writer"

was not, did not emphasize his political views. However, based on the proximity of his relations with Radishchev, it can be assumed that he probably shared the latter's positions in many respects. When clouds gathered over Radishchev, Zotov was summoned to the Secret Chancellery, interrogated, trying to get the details connected with the appearance of the seditious book. Zotov gave contradictory testimonies, not wanting, on the one hand, to aggravate the fate of Radishchev, and, on the other hand, thinking about his own fate. He was arrested twice, but no charges were brought. And in the end, Zotov was released from the fortress, warning that, under pain of punishment, he would not tell anyone about where he was and what he was asked about.

In general, administrative measures did not have any system, and were determined to a decisive extent mainly by the personal position of the empress and other high officials. The next section deals with criminal measures. The system has already been operating here, and quite stable. It is enough to say for sure that the criminal legislation of the 18th century. It is characterized primarily by the fact that its foundation was laid by the norms of the first Council Code of 1649. (Ch. I, II, XX, XXI, XXII) and then the Military Article of 1715. and the Maritime Charter. These normative-legal acts (in terms of criminal-legal relations) were purposefully criminal-legal in nature, and they formed a quite definite attitude towards crimes against the state, which included the acts of dissidents, namely, the extremely severe punishment for any encroachment against the existing government, and in the system of these punishments were the death penalty, exile and corporal punishment. It is important to note that after the adoption of the Military Article of 1715, throughout the 18th century. no full-scale criminal laws were adopted, therefore, the norms of the Code and the Article were the legislative basis for the judiciary when sentencing for crimes against the state (references to the norms of the Code and the Article are contained, in particular, in the verdict in the Pugachev case, the verdict in the Radishchev case , the verdict in the Novikov case, etc.).

So, one of the many norms imputed to Radishchev was contained in art. 149:

“Whoever secretly composes libelous or abusive letters, beats and distributes it, and to whom in an obscene way what passion or evil he considers, through which some shame may be inflicted on his good name, it should be punished with such a punishment, with what passion he wanted to encircle the cursed a thread. Moreover, the executioner has such a letter to burn under the gallows. Then the author examines the norms of the criminal procedure applied to dissidents in the framework of the investigation and judicial decision of criminal and political cases. It is noted that the legal framework laid down under Peter the Great also operated here.

At the same time, torture was abolished in the Age of Enlightenment. Widely used general indiscriminate searches by the middle of the 18th century. gradually dropped out of practice. Under Catherine II, the reorganization of the courts was also carried out, which is considered in the work, in particular, the Chambers of the Criminal Court were created, one of which sentenced Radishchev.

In the second paragraph "Status of political investigation bodies and investigative and judicial activities for the prosecution of dissent" it is indicated that during the 18th century. bodies of political investigation in Russia underwent certain changes in organizational and legal terms. However, the goals and objectives of these secret state institutions remained unchanged - strengthening the supreme power, ensuring its security from potential conspirators and traitors, this also applied to the era of Catherine II. The Empress, having ascended the throne, duplicated some of the decrees of her predecessor (we do not touch upon the motivation for such a decision), and, following Peter III, she abolished the Secret Investigation Office by Decree of October 16, 1762). However, the Secret Expedition with the same functions was soon created. This is not surprising - Catherine II, who gained power as a result of a conspiracy, was fully aware of the need for an agency to protect the state, and she herself needed a reliable support. The secret expedition was the highest body of political supervision and investigation in Russia. The head of the Secret Expedition A.A. Empress Catherine considered Vyazemsky a man devoted to himself and irreplaceable. All activities of the Secret Expedition of the Senate took place under the direct control of Catherine II. The secret expedition, having entered the First Department of the Senate, immediately took an important place in the system of power.

In fact, the Expedition received the status of a central state institution, and its correspondence became secret. At the same time, on especially important cases, Catherine II personally observed the course of the investigation, delved into all its subtleties, compiled question sheets for interrogations or written answers from those under investigation, analyzed their testimony, substantiated and wrote verdicts. In particular, historical materials testify that the empresses showed unusual active interference in the affairs of E.I. Pugachev (1775), A.N. Radishcheva (1790), N.I. Novikov (1792). So, during the investigation of the Pugachev case, Catherine II strenuously imposed her version of the rebellion on the investigation and demanded proof of it. A well-known political case, which was initiated at the initiative of the Empress, was the previously repeatedly mentioned case about the book of A.N. Radishchev Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow. Catherine II indicated to find and arrest the author, after reading only the pages of the essay. Two years later, Catherine II led the investigation into the case of N.I. Novikov. In addition, such political processes as the case of Archbishop Arseny Matsievich of Rostov, who spoke out against secularization in 1763, passed through the Secret Expedition;

the case of officer Vasily Mirovich, who tried in the summer of 1764 to free Ioann Antonovich, imprisoned in the Shlisselburg fortress;

a number of cases related to talk about the fate of Peter III and the appearance of impostors under his name (even before E.I. Pugachev);

the mass trial of participants in the "plague riot" in Moscow in 1771;

the case of the impostor "Princess Tarakanova";

many cases related to insulting the name of Catherine II, condemnation of laws, as well as cases of blasphemy, forgery of banknotes and others. A feature of the organization of the activities of political investigation bodies under Catherine II was the fact that an important place in the sphere of political legal proceedings was occupied by the commander-in-chief of Moscow, to whom the Moscow office of the Secret Expedition was subordinated - P.S. Saltykov (later this position was occupied by Prince M.N. Volkonsky and Prince A.A. Baryatinsky). The commanders-in-chief of St. Petersburg, Prince A.M., were also engaged in political investigation. Golitsyn and Count Yakov Bruce, as well as other trusted officials and generals who acted both alone and in commissions - General Weimarn, K.G. Razumovsky and V.I. Suvorov. A.I. Bibikov and P.S. Potemkin. Reports on their work, as well as other documents of political investigation, Catherine II read among the most important state papers. In general, in the Catherine era, virtually all the current affairs of the Secret Expedition from the day it was founded for 32 years were led by S.I. Sheshkovsky, who, before reaching the age of 35, already had vast experience in detective work and served as an assessor of the Secret Chancellery, becoming the second person in a political investigation.

In the confrontation between the suspects (accused) and the Secret Expedition, of course, all the advantages were on the side of the latter, since the person who got into its network was already initially considered a state criminal and was absolutely defenseless - there was no institution of advocacy, as well as norms guaranteeing the procedural rights of suspects (accused). ). And in this sense, the investigators of the Secret Expedition could do whatever they wanted with their “client” - it is no coincidence that almost all the defendants in criminal political cases confessed to the crimes against them, if the investigators wanted it. Further, the paper considers some examples of law enforcement activities of the Secret Expedition. In particular, in the case of Novikov, Sheshkovsky developed several dozen “question points”, which answered them in writing within several days. Many of the responses were long and voluminous (up to 10 pages). This testifies to the thoroughness of the written interrogation. One should pay tribute to Sheshkovsky - from the investigative-technological point of view, the questions were posed quite consistently, logically and quite correctly. Novikov, as can be seen from the answers, repented of most of the charges brought against him, asked the Empress for mercy, and at the same time did not try to transfer the blame to other persons. As the analysis of other cases shows, those accused of dissent also admitted their guilt and asked for leniency.

In the third paragraph "The criminal-political trial of Radishchev as the most characteristic representative of dissent during the reign of Catherine II" it is noted that this criminal-political case was typical for understanding the essence of the relationship between the bearers of the official state ideology (represented primarily by the Empress herself). , as well as representatives of aristocratic circles) and dissent. This case shows that the absolutist government, while taking certain positive steps in terms of some modernization of Russian society (the development of science, education, the emergence of "philanthropic" legal acts), at the same time categorically did not accept public ideas, reasoning, and even more so practical ones. steps associated with a possible change in the strengthened estate system in general and the system of power relations in particular.

This is evidenced by the fact that the very fact of the appearance of only one book (“Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow”) and its partial distribution caused Catherine II a genuine fright - she, with a pencil in her hands, leaving everything to do, read it “from the blackboard to boards”, making numerous comments along the way, which will become a common plan for the repressive authorities in relation to the author, who was immediately declared a criminal. And in the future, Catherine II controlled and directed the course of the entire Radishchev case. As noted above, the body of political investigation at that time was the Secret Expedition. She was at the first stage and took up Radishchev, after conducting a preliminary investigation. Then, in accordance with the then existing case, the case was considered in the St. Petersburg Chamber of the Criminal Court, which issued a death sentence (at the same time, the materials of the preliminary investigation were not transferred to the court, and this is one of the features of this process, which will be discussed below). This sentence was further considered in the Senate, where it was reduced (instead of the death penalty - a reference to ten years). Then the case was considered by the Permanent (State) Council, which found no reason to change the verdict, and, finally, Catherine II herself, who had the last word, sanctioned the punishment in the form of exile. It was a full-fledged criminal-political case - with the arrest of a suspect, interrogation of him and witnesses, face-to-face confrontations, material evidence, and rather voluminous official correspondence. The paper examines in detail all the stages of this criminal-political case.

The secret expedition did not have to rack their brains over the political assessment (and, following it, the legal one) of Radishchev's work - the vector for the investigation was determined by Catherine II in her comments on Radishchev's book. In particular, she notes that the author “relies hope on a rebellion from the peasants ... From 350 to contains, by chance, as if to poetry, an ode, committed and clearly and clearly rebellious, where the kings are threatened with a scaffold. Kromlev's example is given with praise. These pages are the essence of criminal intent, committed rebellious.

As can be seen, the political position of Catherine II is extremely clear. And then the repressive mechanism began to work quite clearly. Already on June 30, 1790, the commander-in-chief of St. Petersburg, Count Ya. A. Bruce, with reference to the empress, signs a warrant for the conclusion of A.N. Radishchev to the Peter and Paul Fortress.

Not later than the next day, on July 1, Radishchev was offered the first question points, of a general installation nature with an emphasis on spiritual relations (“Where did you live in the parish and at which church”, “Who is your spiritual father and your family” , “When you and your family were at confession and holy communion”, etc.). At the same time, the materials of the case do not contain records of the oral dialogue between the investigator and the accused, but, of course, such a dialogue could not but take place, and with a high degree of probability it can be assumed that Sheshkovsky talked in detail with Radishchev, and, most likely, during these conversations the position of Radishchev himself was determined, in particular, there are grounds for the hypothesis that Sheshkovsky invited Radishchev to admit his guilt and repent - counting on the leniency of the Empress. In general, this is a common technique of most investigators, and Sheshkovsky is unlikely to be an exception here. In any case, in the initial testimony, Radishchev, almost from the very first lines, indulges in repentance and self-flagellation. Then Radishchev was offered “question points” in which the hand of Catherine II is clearly felt, especially in those where the author of the question does not hold back, and not only asks the question itself, but also attaches an objection-reasoning designed to refute Radishchev’s thoughts contained in in his Journey... Characteristic is the most voluminous question point 20, which stated: “On the page, the landowner was clearly judged, so that the peasants would put them to death for actions that were not allowed with their girls, leading to reason that the former Pugacheva rebellion occurred according to the parable of the landowners with their ill-treated peasants;

but as this maxim of yours is boldly stated, and, moreover, instead of judging by the government, you give free rein to people who do not have complete enlightenment, such can be said to be a terrible and inhuman punishment, contrary to not only state, but also divine laws, for no one in one cannot be a judge of one's own offense, and by this the whole position of judicial proceedings is lost. Radishchev, of course, did not enter into polemics, and answered, as before, in accordance with the chosen line of defense (he repeated many times that he wrote the book in order to "be known as a famous writer"

and make a profit from the sale of the book): “I confess the audacity of my sayings, but I wrote this truly without any indignation of intention, or to teach the peasants to kill their masters, I did not think of that at all;

and he wrote these lines filled with rational impudence (here the clerk switched to the answer from the third person - ed.) in the opinion that by bad deeds with the peasants of the landowners from this writing, to shame, and not less and instill fear. It is unlikely, of course, that Catherine II believed in the sincerity of this and other answers of Radishchev. Then the case of Radishchev was considered by the Chamber of the Criminal Court. It is noteworthy that the Empress personally makes an important procedural decision to bring Radishchev to this very court. Moreover, the corresponding decree can be regarded as a brief indictment. Moreover, this conclusion was mandatory for the court, since the supreme authority gave an unambiguous assessment of what Radishchev had done. And in this sense, this conclusion acquires the features of a sentence - but without a measure of punishment. And thus, the Chamber of the Criminal Court, formed at the personal discretion of Catherine II, was left not so much to judge, but to determine only the measure of punishment (however, here, too, the likelihood of the death penalty was obvious), and properly legalize it. The paper examines in detail the litigation, as well as the features of the decision-making by the Senate and the Permanent (State) Council. One of the features of the process should be noted the search by the Chamber of the Criminal Court of legislative norms, on the basis of which Radishchev should have been sentenced. In this regard, no doubt, a lot of work has been done - suffice it to say that the extracts amounted to no less than 10 pages of modern book text in small print, starting with the Cathedral Code of 1649 and ending with the Charter of the Deanery of April 8, 1782, from the time of Catherine II . In "Excerpt from the Laws"

all these norms (several dozens) are described in the most detailed way - with an indication of the legal act, the numbers of articles, the texts of these articles, interpretations to them, if any. And although some norms duplicated each other, it is impossible not to note the huge legal array that the Chamber of the Criminal Court brought down on Radishchev for his book, almost completely repeating the "Extract" in the verdict. On the purely legal side, there was, in the author's opinion, a clear overkill. But, apparently, the dissent was so frightened by the absolutist authorities that the latter decided not to save legal material for accusing Radishchev.

In the paragraph, the author identified and substantiated the hypothesis related to the fact that in the court session Radishchev was not asked a single question about the essence of his "seditious" reasoning in the book, and in the very voluminous court verdict and the Senate's ruling there is not a single mention of any fragment of the ill-fated book. The author's version is reflected in the provisions submitted for defense.

*** The following works have been published on the topic of the dissertation research:

Articles in leading peer-reviewed state publications recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation for publishing the results of dissertation research.

1. Features of the socio-political development of the Russian state in the 16th century: confrontation between the official ideology of absolutism and dissent / / History of State and Law. No. 21. 2009. - 0.35 p.l.

2. Pugachevshchina as a political anti-state phenomenon and the action of a repressive mechanism to suppress it // Society and Law. No. 5 (27).

2009. - 0.2 p.l.

Other publications.

3. The development of the institute of political investigation in the 1111th century. and its features in the period of "enlightened absolutism" // All-Russian scientific and practical conference February 14-15, 2008 "Actual problems of the legal system of society" Ufa branch of the Ural State Law Academy. - 0.2 p.l.

4. Political and legal views of A.N. Radishcheva as a source of the subsequent development of dissent in Russia // Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference "Legal Policy as a Way of Forming the Russian Legal System" February 3-4, 2009. Ufa branch of the Ural State Law Academy. - 0.2 p.l.

5. Judiciary during the reign of Catherine the 11th and features of legal proceedings in political cases // Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference "Actual problems of the legal system of society" April 15, 2009, Ufa branch of the USLA, Ufa. - 0.25 p.l.

The topic “Dissident movement in the USSR” remained closed for a long time, materials and documents related to it were inaccessible to the researcher. It is difficult to understand the essence of the movement and the fact that it was not subjected to any objective analysis during the period of its emergence and self-development. But with the changes taking place in society, new opportunities open up for studying this problem. In this regard, it is necessary to start with the very term "dissident", to consider the existing interpretations of the concept.

"Dissident" is a word of foreign origin. It came into the Russian language from Western sources. According to dictionaries, you can trace the evolution of the term. The Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary and the Atheistic Dictionary, published before perestroika, interpret this concept exclusively in its original sense: “dissidents” (from Latin Dissidens - disagree) are Christian believers who do not adhere to the dominant religion in states where the state religion is Catholicism or Protestantism. Transfer. - "dissenters"; 75 “dissidents” are literally dissenters who hold different views than what the mainstream church requires. In this sense, the term was used already in the Middle Ages, but especially widely - from the 16th-17th centuries, when, in the course of bourgeois revolutions and the formation of modern nations, the question of dissidents, their civil rights in England (dissenters), in France (Huguenots) sharply arose and in Poland (all non-Catholics, that is, Protestant and Orthodox Poles under the dominance of Catholicism). Later - all those who stand outside the dominant (state) church in a given country or free-thinkers, who generally broke with religious faith. Transfer. - "dissenters". 76 Thus, the term “dissident” had only a religious connotation. The dictionaries published during the years of perestroika give a broader interpretation of the concept of a dissident. Thus, the "Concise Political Dictionary" (1988) contains the following definition: "dissidents" (from Latin Dissidere - disagree, disperse) - 1) persons who deviate from the teachings of the dominant church (dissenters); 2) the term "dissidents" is used by imperialist propaganda to designate individual citizens who actively oppose the socialist system and take the path of anti-Soviet activity. 77 With the help of this term, an equal sign is incorrectly put between open opponents of a socialist society and persons expressing a different opinion on certain social problems (compared to generally accepted ones), the so-called dissidents. This definition already highlights the difference between dissent and dissent. Dissidents are defined as active opponents of socialism and the Soviet system, which made it possible to justify the repressions against them. The collapse of the USSR changed the ideological orientation of society throughout the post-Soviet space. And the meaning of the term "dissidents" has also changed. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Political Science published in 1993, 78 as well as the Concise Political Dictionary of 1988. 79 gives two meanings to the concept of "dissident": in relation to the history of religion and in relation to Soviet history. If the original meaning of this word is explained in the same way as before, then the second meaning is interpreted in a new way. The dictionary says that “from the mid-70s. 20th century this term began to be applied to citizens of the USSR and other states allied with it, who openly opposed their beliefs to the doctrines prevailing in these countries. The dictionary gives a brief description of the dissident movement. This characterization and explanation of the term "dissident" is neutral. It has no negative ratings. The distinction between dissent and dissidence is not made here.

It should be noted that the dissidents themselves, their opponents, independent researchers and authors gave their interpretations of the concept.

I would like to start with how the participants in the movement themselves understood dissidence. They did not adhere to a single point of view either regarding the definition, or regarding the classification and social composition.

According to the well-known human rights activist, historian A. Amalrik, the dissidents “did an ingeniously simple thing - in a not free country they began to behave like free people, and thereby began to change the moral atmosphere and the tradition governing the country ... Inevitably, this revolution as a whole could not have been fast" 80 .

Larisa Bogoraz believes that the words “dissidents” and “dissenters” came to us from foreign lands. "Dissenters" (English Dissenters, from Latin dissidens - disagree) - one of the most common in England in the 16th - 17th centuries. names of people who deviate from the official religion... So, dissidence is a phenomenon not only in Russian history and not only in the 20th century” 81 .

Yulia Vishnevskaya gives the following definition: "Dissidents are people who have nothing behind them except steadfastness in defending their ideas and a certain moral capital earned on this..." 82 .

HELL. Sakharov treated dissidents in our country as "a small group of people, but very weighty in moral and ... historical terms" 83 .

Among the dissidents, there were not so many anti-Soviet people demanding the overthrow of the communist regime. For the most part, they advocated the fulfillment of human rights and freedoms provided for by the Soviet Constitution. The dissidents demanded: equality of citizens (art. 34,36), the right to participate in the management of state and public affairs (art. 48); the right to freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc. (Article 50). They did not propose anything that was not already proclaimed by the authorities. The party called for sincerity - they were telling the truth. Newspapers wrote about the restoration of the "norms of legality" - dissidents observed the laws more carefully than the prosecutor's office. From the stands they repeated about the need for criticism - the dissidents consistently did this. The words "cult of personality" became swear words after Khrushchev's exposure of Stalin - for many, the path to dissent began with the fear of a repetition of the cult 86 .

D. Kashinskaya, a Moscow lawyer, a participant in a number of political processes in the 1960s, notes: “The terms “dissidents”, “dissenters”, which have now become familiar, then only acquired the right to citizenship. They, of course, were united by respectable courage, readiness to sacrifice their well-being and even freedom. However, they were different people. But when I thought that it would suddenly happen that they would be in power, I didn’t want to” 87 .

The dissident movement was a moral, spiritual resistance to the regime. Its participants did not seek to seize power. As A. Sinyavsky wrote: “Soviet dissidents by their nature are intellectual, spiritual and moral resistance. Now the question is: resistance to what? Not just because the Soviet system in general. But resistance to the unification of thought and its mortification in Soviet society” 88 . The dissidents wanted non-violent changes in the country's political order. Not all of them were ready to enter into conflict with the Soviet authorities, but disagreement itself then meant a threat to the existing system.

B. Shragin, a well-known participant in the dissident movement, believed: “Dissidents know the same thing as the majority of people who are at least aware of something. But unlike most, they say what they know. They do not stop at a completely, however, rational argument that you can’t break a butt with a whip. They focus on those aspects of the existence of modern Russia, from which the majority considers it prudent to digress. This is the source of their strength, the reason for their growing, in spite of everything, influence” 89 .

Yu.V. Andropov, who was an ardent opponent of dissidence, both by virtue of his official position (KGB chairman) and by conviction, called dissidents people "prompted by political or ideological delusions, religious fanaticism, nationalist dislocations, personal grievances and failures, and finally, in a number of cases, mental instability » 90 .

The authorities used various types of repression against dissidents:

Deprivation of liberty in the form of imprisonment or a corrective labor colony (camp);

Conditional sentence to deprivation of liberty with the obligatory involvement of the convict in labor and conditional release from the camp with the obligatory involvement of the convict in labor (at the same time, the place of work and place of residence were determined by the internal affairs bodies);

expulsion;

Correctional labor without imprisonment - work at your own enterprise (or at the specified police department) with a deduction from wages of up to 20%;

Compulsory (as determined by the court) placement in a psychiatric hospital (formally not considered a punishment). 91 The court “released from punishment” and sent them to indefinite (until “recovery”) treatment. The court also determined the type of mental hospital: general or special, i.e. prison type. In 1984, 11 mental hospitals of a special type were known to exist. 92 In Moscow, for example, this is the Psychiatric City Clinical Hospital No. Kashchenko, PBG No. 3 - "Matrosskaya Tishina".

The actions of dissidents were brought under the relevant articles of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. The most commonly used Art. 64 Treason to the Motherland, art. 65 "Espionage", Art. 66 "Terrorist act", Art. 70 "Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda", Art. 72 "Organized activities aimed at committing especially dangerous state crimes, as well as participation in anti-Soviet agitation", Art. 79 "Riots", etc. In accordance with the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR "On making additions to the Criminal Code of the RSFSR" in Chapter 9 "Crimes against the order of government" additional articles were introduced into the Criminal Code: art. 190-1 "Dissemination of deliberately false fabrications discrediting the Soviet state and social system", Art. 190-2 "Desecration of the State Emblem and Flag", Art. 190-3 "Organizing or actively participating in group activities that violate public order." According to L. Koroleva, more than 40 articles of the Criminal Code could be used to persecute dissidents. 93

From the general mass of dissidents, dissidents differed not only in the way of thinking, but also in the type of behavior. The motive for participating in the dissident movement was the desire for moral and civil resistance, helping people suffering from the arbitrariness of power.

It should be noted that dissidence and dissent are somewhat different things. And the fundamental difference, in our opinion, is that dissent is also a social phenomenon, the opinion of dissidents did not coincide with the dominant ideology, but it was not always expressed. In the 1960s-1980s, many were dissidents, but not all of them declared it. Their number could be calculated not only in the millions, but, especially in the 1980s, in the tens of millions of people.

The definition of the term “dissent” given by A.A. Danilov: "Dissent is a social phenomenon, expressed in a special opinion of a minority of society about the official or dominant ideological system, ethical or aesthetic norms that form the basis of the life of this society" 94 .

The dissident movement began with dissent, which always existed in Soviet society, despite all the prohibitions and repressions, but, as an open spiritual and moral opposition to the authorities, declares itself only in the second half of the 60s, although individual manifestations of dissent after the XXth Congress of the CPSU , which took place in 1956, became noticeably more frequent.

In the official press of those years, dissidents were called "renegades", "slanderers", "parasites", "traitors", etc. In society, they were practically isolated. The ordinary consciousness of the Soviet people as a whole accepted the official version of events, at best showed complete indifference to them. Even in the circles of the intelligentsia, their actions often did not receive approval, far from everyone and not always understood and accepted people who challenged the system.

The philosopher A. Zinoviev believed that the dissident movement had a huge impact on the party-state elite and the privileged strata of society ... A. Zinoviev's view of the dissident movement as inspired from the West prevails. He emphasizes its artificiality, man-made 95 .

With a share of irony, the writer Y. Miloslavsky saw the problem, who considered dissidence in the context of the legacy of the Russian intelligentsia. Considering the influence of the phenomenon of dissent on "Russian destinies" to be small, Y. Miloslavsky urges not to pay serious attention to dissidence 96 .

Zubkova E.Yu. defined Soviet dissidence as "a movement initially in opposition to the government and its policies" 97 .

Thus, the social base of dissidents, according to Anglo-American authors, is the intelligentsia, which, as it were, “spawned various “subcultures” in Russia that were in opposition to the ruling regimes, including the revolutionary strata.” As R. Pipes argued, “belonging to the intelligentsia meant be a revolutionary."

M. Schatz, characterizing dissidents, wrote: “Soviet dissidents, represented by the civil rights movement, have reached the stage of development at which Radishchev and ... the Decembrists were. They understood that protecting the interests of the individual from the encroachments of the state required not so much moral appeals to the authorities as fundamental legal and even political reforms; but at the same time they tried to realize their ideas gradually and legally, without destroying the existing policy” 99 .

The English historian E. Carr, discussing the meaning of history and the role of dissidents in it, noted that any society, not being completely homogeneous, is an arena of social conflicts. Therefore, "individuals who rebel against existing authorities" are products of this society, and to the same extent as conformist citizens 100 .

The French scientist R. Aron, when characterizing totalitarianism, drew attention to the transformation of any activity under it into a kind of state and subject to ideological dogmas. Moreover, each deviation from the accepted norms immediately became an ideological heresy. As a result, "politicization, ideologization of all possible sins of an individual, and, as a final chord, terror, both police and ideological" 101 .

Foreign journalists began to call dissidents those who openly expressed disagreement with the generally accepted order.

During the years of Khrushchev's "thaw", and especially during the period of Brezhnev's "stagnation", there were quite a lot of people dissatisfied with the existing order. This manifested itself in the violation of industrial and labor discipline, in a negligent attitude towards the performance of their duties at enterprises and institutions, in the desire of Soviet citizens to freely travel abroad, to speak publicly about what they care about, in the creation of works of literature that could not be published according to ideological content, in writing pictures that were not allowed in exhibition halls, in staging performances that did not have premieres, in shooting films that were not allowed on the screen, in composing songs that were not included in the official concert program, etc. However, only a few who sought freedom, truth and justice became dissidents.

It is not always easy to unambiguously determine the line beyond which a nonconformist turns into a dissident, since a person’s internal protest is more a personal state than a social phenomenon. Nevertheless, several criteria can be distinguished that more or less clearly distinguish a dissident from an internal rebel. The first is the subject of disagreement. As soon as the question concerns certain socially significant values, and the position of a person goes against these values, this person turns into a dissident. The second way of expressing disagreement is an open, honest, principled position that does not meet the moral standards that are imposed by the authorities, but those that guide the individual. “Dissidence,” according to L.I. Bogoraz, - begins with a refusal to play by their rules”, 102 referring to the rules prescribed by power structures and party bodies. The third is the personal courage of a person, since an open declaration of one's disagreement on fundamental socio-political issues most often ended in prosecution, imprisonment in a psychiatric hospital, and expulsion from the country. The feeling of fear was the biggest obstacle on the way from free thinking to open opposition. Powerful propaganda campaigns, accompanied by streams of lies, slander and abuse in the media, at meetings of labor collectives, in the mass public consciousness portrayed dissidents as morally corrupt individuals who had lost honor and conscience, despised by the renegades people. Few people were able to withstand such pressure of purposeful political and moral discredit.

Due to the fact that the moral protest of the most honest and courageous people against the infringement of civil rights and the suppression of intellectual freedom did not at first have clearly expressed organizational forms and a political program, some former dissidents believe that there was no dissident movement as a socio-political movement. Thus, the writer V. Aksenov claims that "the dissident movement in the USSR was a literary rather than a political phenomenon." 103 E.G. Bonner emphasizes the moral and ethical nature of the movement, and if we call it liberation, then only in an effort to free ourselves from the lies that have penetrated into all spheres of society. 104 L.I. Bogoraz believes that this movement can be called "Brownian, more psychological than social." 105 S.A. Kovalev recognizes only the human rights movement and opposes the concept of a "dissident movement", arguing that there could be nothing in common between the Crimean Tatars who fought for their return to their homeland, the Jewish refuseniks who sought permission to emigrate, between liberals and socialists, between communists and nationalists. -soilers, etc. 106

But the struggle against state lies as an integral part of the ideological sphere is not so much a moral task as a political one.

There are no exact statistics on the social affiliation of dissidents. Dissident views were held by the most dissatisfied and “de-ideologized” citizens of the Soviet Union. There were good enough reasons for this: in their worldview, aspirations and way of life, many of them were those who in the West are called representatives of the “free professions”. They depended on the nomenklatura, since this system determined the positions they occupied, but still the party did not directly interfere in their daily activities. Openly dissident views were professed, first of all, either by scientists or writers.

Vail P. and Genis A., who emigrated from the USSR in 1974, write: “Dvornikov were not seen among the dissidents. And, they weren't very well received. Dissenters have become convinced that the Soviet authorities, and Western radio stations, and ordinary citizens are interested in "professors" and react only to them" 107 . Although, not only the intelligentsia was dissatisfied.

According to Andrey Amalrik, among the participants in the dissident movement at the end of the 60s there were 45% scientists, 22% artists, 13% engineers and technicians, 9% publishing workers, teachers and lawyers, and only 6% workers and 5% peasants. However, these calculations are incomplete, since Amalrik was guided by his own criteria in determining the members of the opposition 108 .

These groups had a common feature: a high social position. Professional features formed from them an independent point of view and independent thinking. But they constantly faced political or ideological oppression that prevented them from realizing their full potential. If they wanted to be promoted, they also had to take part in political life.

Scientists and researchers had every reason to be disappointed. They worked in those areas of knowledge where the rapid exchange of ideas between scientists from different countries is vital, and therefore they were outraged by the difficulties that accompanied their meetings with foreign colleagues, reading foreign periodicals and access to foreign equipment. Party members - and this was a necessary condition for a successful career - spent a huge amount of time on "public" work.

Some areas of science, especially the humanities and the public, were especially vulnerable to direct political interference, primarily because of the specifics of their subject.

Those scientists who were able to rise above the narrow confines of their disciplines and to capture the relationship between science and society as a whole were extremely disturbed by the trends that emerged in the late 1960s. Only ten years earlier, the Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite, and it seemed that in the field of technology it was ahead of the whole world. And now the country has not only not surpassed the United States, as Khrushchev promised, but has actually fallen behind in most advanced areas of technology, especially in automation and cybernetics.

Literature was another source of the dissident movement. Like scientists, writers had the opportunity - both moral and social - to make their opinions feel quite tangible even in a very repressive social system. In addition, literature was the only force capable of resisting the most dangerous weapon of the Soviet state - its ability to paralyze the creative thinking of a person with the help of terror, apathy, fear and "doublethink". The Soviet government tried to prevent any possibility of this happening by creating its own monopoly on literature with the help of the Writers' Union.

Magazines played an important role. Their newsrooms became discussion centers where people met and discussed not only the latest literary news, but also exchanged ideas and opinions on current events.

P. Volkov distinguishes the following groups among the participants in the dissident movement:

1. Officially legalized members of commissions and committees, editorial boards, as a rule, who later paid with arrest or emigration.

2. Less known and not included in the groups, but also active and affected by this people. They became known at the time of arrest, search, dismissal from work or expulsion from the university.

3. The signatories - who did not hide their names under the sporadically appearing letters of protest, the regular participants in the meetings - were well known to the KGB, but were not specifically persecuted by it. (In the early period of the dissident movement, signatories were also persecuted, but more often through party organs).

4. Permanent assistants who did not advertise their names, but provided secret connections, storage of funds, printing equipment, providing their addresses to receive letters from the camps through random well-wishers.

5. People who made up a wider circle of contacts, moral support, who occasionally supplied information for dissident publications.

6. A circle of curious people who want to be aware of the extravagances of public life, but who have emphatically distanced themselves from practical participation and concrete obligations. 109

The dissident movement cannot be called numerous, although there are differences on this issue.

Gorinov M.M. and Danilov A.A. claim that according to the KGB, in 1968-1972, 3,096 groups of “nationalist, religious or anti-Soviet orientation” were identified 110 .

V. Bukovsky believes that during the 24 years of operation of articles 70 and 190 of the USSR Criminal Code, 3,600 criminal cases were initiated for anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda, most of them undoubtedly fell on dissidents 111 . Dictionary "Political Science" (1993), speaking of dissidents, gives figures of no more than 2 thousand people 112 .

The dissident movement was not a party or class movement. It was not sufficiently organized, and this may be one of its distinguishing features.

Dissidence is a social phenomenon, as a rule, manifested in a different worldview of a smaller part of society. The qualitative difference between the dissidence of the 1960-1980s in the USSR, and other forms of opposition throughout history, is that dissidents grew up in a totalitarian system and are, as it were, its offspring. The movement, according to the participants themselves, did not claim power, although the implementation of their demands would contribute to fundamental changes in the USSR.

“Dissidence is not a movement, but a whole range of movements, persecuted religious denominations, art schools, literary trends, a great many human destinies and individual “dissident” actions. The only common thing was the disgust inspired by the so-called "Soviet reality", the realization of one's own moral incompatibility with it, the impossibility of living life, constantly submitting to this stupid and unkind force ... And, perhaps, this was what was common: the understanding of what is so stupid and it is immoral to oppose this force with violence, in all its forms. Our business was the word,” 113 recalls Sergei Kovalev.

The dissidents have achieved the main thing: a new moral potential has been created in our society. “As for the direct impact of dissident propaganda on perestroika, I don't think it was great. Perestroika was initiated by the top of the party apparatus,” 114 said the former dissident S. Kovalev. In our opinion, one can disagree with this, since it was precisely the dissident movements that were the prehistory of the changes that took place in society in the late 1980s.

Monograph

CenterresearchOrthodoxculture and traditions GRACHEV Andrey Borisovich MONOGRAPH ... mainly as decorations Orthodox crosses and encolpions. In this way, research 70s–80s...

Center for Research on Orthodox Culture and Tradition BAIKOVSKY Konstantin Yurievich

Monograph

State Trade and Economic University CenterresearchOrthodoxculture and traditions BAIKOVSKY Konstantin Yuryevich MONOGRAPH..., Moscow: Comparative-Historical studycenters ideology and culture until the 17th century VI International...

Center for Research on Orthodox Culture and Traditions Vladimir Delvig

Monograph

State Trade and Economic University CenterresearchOrthodoxculture and traditions DELVIG Vladimir Sergeevich... c. in the transformation of the Russian political culture// Kolomenskoye: materials and research/ Ed. E.A. Verkhovskaya...

Center for Research on Orthodox Culture and Tradition Russian history (2)

Document

Russian State Trade and Economic University CenterresearchOrthodoxculture and traditions S.D. Dolaeva I.O. Prince S.N. Kozyreva ... friendship with the Poles and inappropriate dignity Orthodox sovereign's marriage; Shuisky, let ...

UDC 94(470)

DISSENT AND POWER

© 2008 S.I.Nikonova Kazan State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

Dissent was widespread in the USSR and was much more significant than dissidence. This is a fairly wide circle of citizens who are dissatisfied with certain phenomena of the spiritual and political life of society. Dissidents are a rather narrow circle of people who expressed open protest.

The last decades of Soviet power were characterized not only by the aggravation of economic and socio-political contradictions. A small but noticeable social phenomenon appeared in Soviet society, which was called dissidence. Dissidence hardly fits into the usual idea of ​​social movements: it is unusual in its content, forms of manifestation, scale of influence on public consciousness, on the mood of society. Dissidence was an organizationally unformed, politically heterogeneous movement of open ideological and moral protest of the advanced layer of the Soviet intelligentsia against the Soviet system. This protest, public, open or latent, passive, covered, in fact, many forms of social and spiritual life of the country, played a special role in the moral and psychological preparation of society for the realization of the need for democratic reforms.

The term "dissident", which can be regarded as "dissenting, contradictory", appeared initially in a religious sense. Dissenters were called schismatics who deviated from the dogmas of the dominant church. In a figurative sense, "dissident" means "a dissenter, an apostate."

It was in this sense that the concept of "dissident" appeared in the socio-political lexicon of Soviet society in the 1970s. Dissidents included people who disagreed with the general line of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the policy of the Soviet state, the official party-state ideology, with morality generally accepted in Soviet society, aesthetic norms in the field of artistic creativity, etc. Moreover, the non-acceptance of even individual norms of the existing order was recognized

dissidence. Synonyms for the concept of "dissident" were the concepts of "dissenter", "freethinker". Well-known dissidents themselves had different attitudes to this definition, perhaps because in the Soviet mass media it sounded, as a rule, in the meaning of "renegade", "traitor to the motherland" and almost "enemy of the people".

So, A.D. Sakharov never called himself a dissident, preferring the old Russian word "freethinker". Well-known human rights activists L. Bogoraz and S. Kovalev see a certain negative connotation in the word "dissident", since this term was used by power structures. At the same time, the emigrant writer A. Amalrik called his autobiographical notes "Notes of a dissident".

Of particular interest is the opinion of P. Weill and A. Genis: “The phenomenon, which was later called dissident, arose imperceptibly. Actually, when its participants received this foreign name, everything ended ... Dissent has no history in the traditional sense: there are no founders , theorists, the date of the founding congress, the manifesto... It is impossible even to determine (especially in the early stages) who was a member of the protest movement." .

For the most part, Soviet people did not even know who the dissidents were. A cleverly chosen foreign word created the impression that the people who are so called are connected with something hostile: with the intrigues of Western intelligence services, with NATO and the CIA, with something threatening the Soviet system. In the mass consciousness, dissidents were identified with individuals and their destinies. They were assessed purely subjectively, while the assessment of a person can only conditionally be transferred to a phenomenon, just as the assessment of a phenomenon must be very carefully extended to a person.

In our opinion, it is still necessary to separate these two concepts: dissidents and dissidents. Indeed, philologically they are almost identical, but their political meaning is different.

So, dissidents are a fairly wide circle of Soviet people, who, on the whole, remain loyal to their country and its state system, critically thinking individuals, artists thirsting for creative freedom, dissatisfied with some individual phenomena in the spiritual or material sphere. Dissidents are conscious opponents of the WHOLE political and ideological system, showing their protest openly, both within the country and abroad. Actually, there were relatively few dissidents in the USSR, and they were known to a wide range of people, primarily "thanks" to the Western mass media, as well as as a result of accusatory revelations in the Soviet mass media.

Contrary to popular belief, even in the most severe years of political repression in the totalitarian Soviet state there was no universal and unquestioning submission to the ideological system; there was an unofficial social thought and people who were carriers of a different worldview. The atmosphere of society and the mood in it contained two layers: from above - toasts in honor of the leaders, mass rallies in support or in protest, and deep below - disagreement with ideological dogmas, criticism of the existing regime based on common sense, dissatisfaction with the conditions of life, work, creativity .

The processes that took place in 1953-1964 had a great influence on the growth of freethinking in the country. In the future, the gradual curtailment of a few democratic achievements, taking a course towards the rehabilitation of Stalinism, and the violation of human rights in the country caused ideological resistance from a new population of Soviet people who no longer wanted to live in fear. Individuals appeared among the intelligentsia, who bravely opposed the regime and went to open protests.

The increase in the number of cases of resistance to the regime in 1965 - 1985: protest actions, appeals to public opinion not only in the country, but also abroad - testifies to

exacerbation of internal contradictions, as well as a change in society itself, its social structure, proportions and, as a result, moods and atmosphere.

Numerous facts of manifestations of dissent among different social strata are known, expressing their disagreement in various forms. So, the Leningrad translator-orientalist E. Lalayants in the late 1960s. wrote anonymous letters to various authorities, including international ones, signing them "The Leading Center of the Russian Political Party." The anonymous person was identified and convicted under article 190-1 of the Criminal Code (sentence - 3 years in prison). At the same time, in Leningrad, M. Mozhaikin, a shift foreman of the Avtovsky construction plant, was prosecuted for sending "threatening letters to various Soviet public organizations on behalf of the workers of the Kirov plant."

In 1970, a worker V. Vekshin and a pensioner P. Saburova were convicted under article 70 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in Kemerovo. Vekshin tossed a leaflet of his own composition into the smoking room of the Yuzhnaya mine, during a search they confiscated the Encyclopedic Dictionary and a set of the journal Tekhnika Molodyi with numerous notes in the margins. Saburova wrote and distributed dozens of letters "defaming the Soviet system" interspersed with religious phrases.

In Penza, the "anti-Soviet" A. Lakalov was convicted, whose fault is that he sent letters under the pseudonym A. Karpov to the radio station "Freedom". Under the same pseudonym, he tried to take part in a discussion on a political topic in Komsomolskaya Pravda.

In Mordovia, at a university conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of V.I. Lenin, a certain teacher expressed "politically unhealthy" judgments about the CPSU, its role and significance in building a communist society. During the demonstration, the head of a division of the Elektrovypryamitel plant (Saransk) told jokes that discredited one of the leaders of the Soviet state and discredited the coat of arms of the USSR. A laboratory assistant at an instrument-making plant (Saransk) "made statements discrediting the Soviet system. She considered the level of

life of Soviet people, the reaction of the Soviet government to the events taking place in Czechoslovakia. "One of the VNIIS engineers, while on a business trip in Moscow, visited the embassy of a capitalist country with a request to be allowed to travel there.

In the Yaroslavl region, dissidence manifested itself, just as in other provinces of Russia, mainly in the form of anonymous threats in letters to high authorities, leaders of the party and the country, and acts of vandalism. Thus, one of the anonymous writers wrote to Komsomolskaya Pravda: "Down with Soviet fascism! Long live multi-party socialism! Long live the free choice of a socialist system!" During the investigation, the anonymous person was identified. It turned out that during 1969-1974 he sent over 40 letters of similar content to various institutions in Moscow, Leningrad, Yaroslavl and other cities of the country.

In his book, S. Chertoprud gives the following statistics: in 1977, 16,125 documents were received and the authorship of 2,088 people was established. In 1985 similar figures were 9864 and 1376 respectively. Chekists almost always identified anonymous authors, for this work a special department was created in the 5th Directorate of the KGB: it was possible to identify from 60 to 90% of anonymous authors. Of these, up to 50% were subjected to prophylaxis, while the rest were sent to camps or for compulsory treatment in mental hospitals.

Unconscious or semi-conscious forms of discontent were widespread. This was connected, first of all, with a clear discrepancy between official propaganda and the realities of life, sometimes with everyday difficulties. Such unconscious forms of discontent include folklore (chastushkas, anecdotes), and spreading rumors, and listening to Western radio voices, reading "forbidden" literature, attending certain cultural events (semi-official exhibitions or performances, concerts of amateur authors or rock music).

The above "acts of protest" do not give grounds to believe that there was a mass opposition movement in the Soviet Union. Citizens who attended semi-underground concerts and exhibitions, read Solzhenitsyn, listened to radio voices, were overwhelmingly

The vast majority are quite law-abiding, many did not believe that they were doing something illegal. The dissidents themselves confirm that their community began with friendly companies, home circles - the circle of contacts is rather limited. R. Orlova writes about the first societies in the late 1950s: "People were drawn to each other. Cells of a new social structure were formed, as it were. For the first time, real public opinion arose. Newborn public opinion broke out of circles, from the sidelines into more numerous audiences" .

In the days of the Czechoslovak events of 1968, R.I. Ilyasov showed himself - the own correspondent of the "Teacher's newspaper" in Tatarstan. He was well versed in international relations and saw in the Czechoslovak events, first of all, a violation of international norms. R.I. Ilyasov clearly expressed his civic position in letters sent to the newspapers Rude Pravo and Yumanite. Realizing that these letters would not reach through official channels, he decided to pass them on through a French journalist who turned out to be a KGB informant. The letters ended up in the relevant authorities, their author was expelled from the party, his journalistic career was put to rest.

Single romantics who could not live a lie can also be classified as dissidents. In this sense, the first dissidents in Russia were A.N. Radishchev, N.I. Novikov, P.Ya. Quite consonant with these sentiments is the position of some "disagreements" with Soviet reality.

So, A.A. Bolonkin, a scientist, doctor of technical sciences, in 1973 prepared several copies of the article "On the results of the implementation of the 8th five-year plan for the development of the national economy", in which he summed up his own results, which very negatively characterize the development of the national economy of the country. The scientist saw the reason for the negative phenomena in the absence of democratic freedoms in the country. A.A. Bolonkin was condemned, and, speaking about the motives of his act, he answered: "Only in one thing did he experience growing, oppressive discomfort, he could not achieve one thing - the inner consent of the soul." And another romantic - V. Belikov, a school teacher of literature. He wrote in

lead and stories, attracted his students to this, tried to teach them to think, reflect, analyze. V. Belikov was arrested and convicted, he was accused of "distributing among his students his opuses discrediting the Soviet system."

An. Yakovlev, a prominent political figure of the 1980s, characterizes dissidents in this way: “At one extreme are creators, thinkers, artists. , every village or town and, of course, in cities ... Depending on how harshly they are treated in official circles, such a person arouses sympathy for himself, and regret, and sometimes hostility of those around him ... Of these various ideas of life and the image of dissidents is formed in the public mind - people marked by abilities and knowledge, morality and civic activity... People who really had something to say to their fellow citizens, but just for this reason they were persecuted ".

There is a widespread misconception that the policy of persecution was directed only against the free-thinking part of writers, artists, scientists, artists, and creative intelligentsia. State and party organs adhered to the general line of suppressing any form of dissent. The attitude towards dissidents in the country was very complicated. Society trusted official propaganda and press reports that portrayed dissidents as "renegades", "CIA agents", and anti-Soviet. There was a widespread opinion about the mental illness of dissidents, especially after the inclusion of psychiatry in the arsenal of means of suppressing dissent in the country.

The diversity of thoughts, ideals, goals of people who are considered dissidents is the subject of study by modern researchers who, relying on available materials, are trying to draw up a reliable picture. Despite the efforts of scientists, many aspects of this phenomenon remain unclear. It is quite difficult to figure out what the dissident movement (if you can call it a movement) was, all the more, it was impossible to do this in the Soviet period. On the general

a stream of information came crashing down on the property, in which it was difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood, ideological "agitation" from the facts of real betrayal and immoral behavior of individuals.

A serious problem of dissidence was the search for a "foothold", a basic foundation. What is the meaning of activity, in the name of which all the ordeals and tragedies of dissidents? The people, in the eyes of dissidents, are unable to understand, let alone share and support their ideas. The authorities take a sharp and uncompromising position towards dissidents. Thus, they felt real support and understanding only from the West, feeling that they were part of an international democratic movement. Orientation towards Western public opinion, appeal to foreign mass media to some extent supported the image of traitors and renegades created by the authorities, justified the use of force in the fight against dissidents.

In the country, the struggle of dissidents was mainly in the nature of a moral struggle for the dignity of the human person. However, participation in the struggle required special qualities that were not present in everyone. The realization of this created among the dissidents a belief in their superiority over the rest of the Soviet population. They distanced themselves from the average Soviet person, opposing themselves not only to the authorities, but also to the majority of Soviet people.

Thus, the activity of active dissidents has a certain connotation of sacrifice, self-sacrifice, which is also reflected in their understanding of the state of their voluntary and forced isolation in an essentially hostile environment. Interesting in this regard are the documents on the stay of dissidents in places of deprivation of liberty. In the reports of ITU officers, attention is focused on the distinctive qualities of these prisoners in comparison with the rest of the "contingent". “These were extremely complex, contradictory, psychologically difficult people. There were university teachers, writers, poets, artists, journalists, musicians, military personnel, workers, etc. The vast majority of anti-Soviet people had higher and incomplete higher education, some owned foreign language-

mi. And, nevertheless, in the zone they continued to constantly engage in self-education, subscribed to various literature, newspapers, magazines.

The peculiar aristocracy, or rather, the elitism of the dissidents did not give them the opportunity to expand their ranks by attracting representatives of different segments of the population. The disposition towards isolation became one of the important features that formed the structure of the dissident movement. Dissent (in the broad sense of the word) was widespread in the country, and was much more significant than dissidence. This range includes informal organizations of a non-political nature, extraordinary thinking creative people, mass movements of a cultural direction, representatives of an elite culture.

In a broad sense, a fairly large circle of people who think extraordinary can be attributed to the number of dissidents, which, undoubtedly, goes beyond the small movement of dissidents, which can be very carefully identified with the political opposition. Unfortunately, today it is rather difficult to draw up a complete picture of protest manifestations; it is rather difficult to trace the mechanism for obtaining information by state security agencies. It can be assumed that it came not only from employees and so-called informants, but from ordinary people who sincerely, as a rule, out of patriotic motives, signaled the manifestation of "anti-Sovietism."

A fairly new phenomenon in the social life of Soviet society was the "signatories campaign": the compilation and collection of signatures against the arbitrariness of the authorities, in defense of human rights activists, in which famous people, scientists, cultural figures, and artists participated. Thus, there were petition campaigns in defense of

that of A. Sinyavsky and Y. Daniel, Y. Galanskov and Y. Ginzburn, against the persecution of A. Sakharov and A. Solzhenitsyn.

The authorities made attempts to influence the signatories through labor collectives, creative organizations, through "prevention", through confidential conversations. These measures had some effect, and the number of signatories was reduced, and in the 1970s, the practice of open letters to party and state bodies in protest against the state's domestic and foreign policy practically disappeared. However, latent opposition persisted, manifesting itself in other forms.

The ideological uniformity of Soviet society turned out to be just a myth. The diversity of opinions and worldviews was openly manifested in 1965-1985. among different segments of the population, different social groups. Dissatisfaction with the entire system, with the entire existing political order, was the lot of a very few, but there were many dissidents in the country, which, in general, testifies not only to a systemic crisis, but also to the more complex social structure of Soviet society.

NOTES

1. Weil P. and Genis A. 60s: The World of the Soviet Man. -M.: 1998. - P.176.

2. TsDNI RM, F.269, Op.7. D.696, L.47 - 48.

3. Chernoprud S. Yuri Andropov. Secrets of the Chairman of the KGB. - M.: 2006. - P.220.

4. Orlova R., Kopelev P. We lived in Moscow 1956 - 1980.

M.: 1997. - P.20.

5. CGA IPD RT. F.15. Op.35. D.199. L.1 - 7.

6. Yakovlev A.N. The Bitter Cup: Bolshevism and the Reformation in Russia. - Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh.kn.izd-vo, 1994.

7. From the Cheka to the FSB. History and modernity of the Department of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Mordovia. - Saransk: 2003. - P.329.

DISSENT AND AUTHORITY

© 2008 S.I.Nikonova Kazan State University of Architecture and Building Construction

"Another way thinking" was widely spread in the USSR and it was more significant than the dissident movement. While dissidents composed a small group of people openly protested against the existing regime, those who "thought different" belonged to a wide public and expressed critical opinions about particular traits of cultural and political life.

I quote a fragment of the letter P.L. Kapitsa Chairman of the State Security Committee of the USSR Yu.V. Andropov:

“... dissidents must be treated very thoughtfully and carefully, as did Lenin.

Dissent is closely connected with the useful creative activity of man, and creative activity in any branch of culture ensures the progress of mankind.

It is easy to see that dissatisfaction with the existing lies at the origin of all branches of human creative activity. For example, a scientist is dissatisfied with the existing level of knowledge in the field of science that interests him, and he is looking for new research methods. The writer is dissatisfied with the relationship of people in society, and he tries to influence the structure of society and the behavior of people using an artistic method. The engineer is dissatisfied with the modern solution of a technical problem and is looking for new constructive forms to solve it. A public figure is dissatisfied with the laws and traditions on which the state is built, and is looking for new forms for the functioning of society, etc.

Thus, in order for the desire to start creating to appear, the basis must be dissatisfaction with the existing, that is, one must be a dissident. This applies to any branch of human activity. Of course, there are many dissatisfied, but in order to productively express yourself in creativity, you must also have talent. Life shows that there are very few great talents, and therefore they must be valued and protected.

This is difficult to accomplish even with good leadership. Great creativity requires great temperament, and this leads to sharp forms of discontent, therefore talented people usually have, as they say, a "difficult character." For example, this can often be seen in great writers, as they quarrel easily and like to protest. In fact, creative activity usually meets with a bad reception, because in the mass people are conservative and strive for a quiet life.

As a result, the dialectic of the development of human culture lies in the grip of the contradiction between conservatism and dissent, and this happens at all times and in all areas of human culture.

If we consider the behavior of such a person as Sakharov, it is clear that the basis of his creative activity is also dissatisfaction with the existing. When it comes to physics, where he has a great talent, his activity is extremely useful. But when he extends his activities to social problems, this does not lead to the same useful results, and in people of a bureaucratic type, who usually lack creative imagination, it causes a strong negative reaction. As a result, instead of simply, as did Lenin, not paying attention to manifestations of dissent in this area, they are trying to suppress it by administrative measures and at the same time do not pay attention to the fact that they immediately ruin the useful creative activity of the scientist.

Together with the water, the child is thrown out of the trough. A lot of creative work has an ideological character and is not amenable to administrative and forceful influence. How to proceed in such cases, well shown Lenin with regard to Pavlov what I wrote about at the beginning. Life later confirmed that Lenin was right when he ignored Pavlov's sharp dissent in social issues and, at the same time, treated him very carefully as a personal Pavlov and to his scientific work.

All this led to the fact that in Soviet times Pavlov, as a physiologist, did not interrupt his brilliant work on conditioned reflexes, which to this day play a leading role in world science. In matters relating to social problems, everything Pavlov expressed has long been forgotten.

It is interesting to remember that after the death of Lenin, just as carefully Pavlov treated CM. Kirov. As you know, he not only personally showed great attention to Pavlov, but also contributed to the fact that a special laboratory was built for his work in Koltushi. All this ultimately influenced Pavlovian dissent, which gradually began to fade. As I already wrote, a similar change in dissent occurred with the sculptor Meštrovic after Tito appreciated the wisdom of the Leninist approach to the creative activity of man and understood how to resolve the contradictions that arise in this case.

Now for some reason we forget Lenin's precepts in relation to scientists. For example Sakharov and Orlova we see that this leads to sad consequences. This is much more serious than it seems at first glance, since it ultimately leads in the development of big science to our lagging behind the capitalist countries, since this is largely a consequence of our underestimation of the need for a careful attitude to the creative activity of a great scientist. Now, in comparison with the Leninist changes, our concern for scientists has significantly decreased and very often takes on the character of bureaucratic leveling.

But to win the races, you need trotters. However, prize trotters are few and far between and usually skittish, and they also need skilled riders and good care. It is easier and calmer to ride an ordinary horse, but, of course, you cannot win races.

We have achieved nothing by increasing the administrative pressure on Sakharov and Orlova. As a result, their dissent is only growing, and now this pressure has reached such a magnitude that it causes a negative reaction even abroad. Punishing Orlova for dissent 12 years in prison, we thus completely remove him from scientific activity, and the need for such a ferocious measure is difficult to justify. That is why it causes general bewilderment and is often interpreted as a manifestation of our weakness.

Now, for example, there is an ever-expanding boycott of scientific ties with us abroad. At the European Center for Nuclear Research in Geneva (CERN), where our scientists also work, employees wear sweaters with Orlov's name woven on them. All this, of course, is a passing phenomenon, but it has a retarding effect on the development of science.

It is known that the forceful administrative influence on dissident scientists has existed since ancient times and even in recent times has occurred in the West. For example, the famous philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell for his dissent, he was twice imprisoned, however, only for short periods. But seeing that this only causes indignation in the intelligentsia, and does not affect Russell's behavior in any way, the British abandoned this method of influence. I can't imagine how else we're supposed to influence our dissenting scientists. If we are going to further increase the methods of power techniques, then this does not bode well.

Wouldn't it be better to just back up?"

Three letters from the personal archive of P.L. Kapitsa, in Sat.: There are prophets in the fatherland, Petrozavodsk, "Karelia", 1989, p. 101-105.

ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXISTING ORDER OF THINGS

In the myth, we are unlikely to find a separate story dedicated to this stage in the development of the personality of the male Hermes and related to the god Hermes. For him, everything happened when he was recognized as an Olympic god, equal to other gods. Then he was inscribed in the system, in a certain existing order of things. For the Hermes man, this acceptance of what exists is sometimes much more problematic. He knows too well how to turn this or that case, how to resolve difficulties, how to take revenge on an enemy. It is difficult for him to restrain himself from doing this, and as a result he spoils everything that has been done and achieved before. Or lose more than gain.

It is especially difficult for him (or her, if we are talking about the archetype of Hermes in the Animus of a woman) to resist revenge. If it is impossible to repay real or imagined wrongs, the person may constantly return to real or fantastic plans for revenge. An underdeveloped element of Hermes can constantly call not only for cunning plans of retribution, but also for no less witty ways to arrange your life in the most convenient way - often to the detriment of not only those around you, but also those close to you. So a man can have a mistress during his wife's pregnancy, and even after (who just refuses "sweet"?). And then, looking at his wife, plump after childbirth, to reproach her with a diminished, in his opinion, attractiveness. This is a kind of refusal to accept things as they are, wanting to see them only as you want. Moreover, it turns out this is not immediately, but sometime later. At first, a Hermes man (or one with a strong Hermes element) gets what he likes one way or another, and then begins to make claims about the appearance, content, and unfulfilled hopes.

If he does not learn to accept things as they are, he will constantly cling either to what he does not really like, or to external stimuli that seem much more attractive from a distance. Or, feeling at a loss, he will wallow in petty (and sometimes not so much) revenge, inflicting even greater defeat on himself.