Estates in the Russian Empire. The last citizen of the Russian Empire passed away Citizenship of the Russian Empire

In 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin, during his stay in France, met in Cannes with one of the oldest Russian emigrants of the first wave, the last citizen of the Russian Empire, eighty-two-year-old Andrei Schmemann and handed him Russian passport... “For many years I lived with discord in my soul, feeling absolutely Russian and at the same time remaining a person without citizenship, stateless. And now I am happy that I have finally found my homeland, ”said Andrei Dmitrievich.

Andrei Schmeman has lived all his life with the so-called Nansen passport - a temporary identity card that served as a replacement for a passport for stateless persons and refugees. Nansen passports were introduced by the League of Nations and were issued based on the 1922 Geneva Agreements.

All these years he retained refugee status. This kind of decision made the stay of Andrei Dmitrievich on French soil extremely difficult - he was automatically deprived of many social and other advantages. Without a local passport, it was difficult to pursue a professional career. Therefore, throughout his life he worked as an administrator of a small picture gallery, but at the same time devoted a lot of effort and labor to social assistance to people from the Russian emigration.

In June 2000, Russian cadets and their descendants in France made the historic decision to reconcile and cooperate with Russia. This decision, according to Schmemann, was made in a kind of referendum, which was held among the graduates of the Versaillese cadet corps, which existed in France until 1964. Reconciliation with Russia was confirmed by a solemn divine service at the Russian cemetery in Saint-Genevieve-des-Bois near Paris, at the graves of ancestors and comrades-in-arms.

For more than half a century, Andrei Dmitrievich has been the headman of the Church of the Sign of the Mother of God in Paris, has the spiritual title of subdeacon. Not so long ago, together with other prominent figures of the Russian emigration, he initiated the creation of a public organization "Movement for Local Orthodoxy of the Russian Tradition in Western Europe."

Schmemann stood at the origins of the revival of cadet corps in Russia. Earlier, when Andrei Dmitrievich felt better, he traveled a lot to cadet corps throughout the country to see personally how the system of education and teaching was being built, in what conditions modern cadets live. And every time he was amazed at the successes of the corps.

For the cadets, he was a real legend. Even the "green" cadets felt the connection of the times, which unites any cadet and "mister vice sergeant major", as the boys addressed him with trepidation.

The life of Andrei Dmitrievich Schmemann is similar to the life of many emigrants of the first wave. You can probably find more than one such or similar fate among the representatives of the first wave of Russian emigration. It is precisely this, similar to all emigrants at once, apparently, and should have been last subject Russian Empire. But Andrei Dmitrievich will undoubtedly remain a symbol of the Russian emigration, an example of patriotism and loyalty to the Motherland.

Andrei Schmemann was buried on November 10 at the Saint-Genevieve-des-Bois cemetery, next to the grave of his parents.

History

[edit]

Citizenship of the RSFSR

See also Citizenship of the Russian Empire

Before the October Revolution in the Russian Empire, there was an institution of citizenship, which consolidated the legal inequality of subjects, in many ways that had developed in the feudal era of the Middle Ages.

By 1917, subjects of the Russian Empire were divided into several categories with a special legal status:

natural subjects, which, in turn, stood out:

Nobles (hereditary and personal);

Clergy (divided by religion);

urban inhabitants (divided into groups: honorary citizens, merchants, burghers and guilds);

Rural inhabitants;

Foreigners (Jews and Eastern peoples);

Finnish inhabitants.

Imperial legislation associated with belonging to a particular category of subjects very significant differences in rights and obligations. For example, four groups of natural subjects were divided into persons of a taxable and non-taxable state. Persons of an exempt state (noblemen and honorary citizens) enjoyed freedom of movement and received unlimited passports for residence throughout the territory of the Russian Empire; taxable persons (bourgeois and peasants) did not have such rights.

After the October Revolution, the Council of People's Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive committee On November 10 (23), 1917, the Decree "On the abolition of estates and civil ranks" was adopted. It stated that:

All estates and class divisions of citizens that have existed until now in Russia, class privileges and restrictions, class organizations and institutions, as well as all civil ranks, are abolished.

All titles (nobleman, merchant, petty bourgeois, peasant, etc., titles - princely, county, etc.) and the name of civil ranks (secret, state and other advisers) are destroyed and one name common for the entire population of Russia is established - citizens of the Russian Republic ...

On April 5, 1918, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted the Decree "On the Acquisition of the Rights of Russian Citizenship." It made it possible for a foreigner living within the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic to become a Russian citizen. The authority to accept foreigners into Russian citizenship was given to local councils, which issued them certificates of acquiring the rights of Russian citizenship. In exceptional cases, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was allowed to be admitted to the number of citizens of the RSFSR of persons who were outside its borders, through the diplomatic representative of the RSFSR. People's Commissariat on internal affairs registered all foreigners accepted for citizenship and published their lists for general information.

The Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, adopted by the V All-Russian Congress of Soviets on July 10, 1918, classified the publication of general resolutions on the acquisition and loss of the rights of Russian citizenship and on the rights of foreigners on the territory of the Republic to the subjects of the jurisdiction of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (clause "p" of Art. 49 ). For local Soviets, the Constitution secured the authority "without any difficult formalities" to grant the rights of Russian citizenship, "based on the solidarity of workers of all nations", to those foreigners who lived in the Republic "for work, belonged to the working class or or to the peasantry who did not use other people's labor. ”(Article 20).

[edit]

USSR citizenship

Main article: Citizenship of the USSR

With the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, all-union citizenship of the USSR was introduced. In Chapter II of the Basic Law (Constitution) of the USSR of 1924 "On the sovereign rights of the union republics and on union citizenship" it was established that a single union citizenship is established for citizens of the union republics.

[edit]

Citizenship Russian Federation

On November 28, 1991, in connection with the collapse of the USSR, the Supreme Soviet of Russia adopted the Law of the RSFSR "On Citizenship of the RSFSR", which entered into force from the moment of publication - on February 6, 1992. In connection with the change in the name of the state in the title and text of the Law, the words “Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic” and “RSFSR” on July 14, 1993 were replaced by the words “Russian Federation” in the corresponding case.

In 1997, the Commission on Citizenship Issues under the President of the Russian Federation made a decision to develop a new version of the Law "On Citizenship of the Russian Federation", since the RF Law of 1991 was developed in transition period the formation of a new Russian statehood, and it did not take into account the peculiarities of the subsequent development of Russia, the nature of relations with the newly independent states, it did not fully comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993. In addition, the Russian Federation took steps in 1997 to sign the European Convention on Citizenship.

July 1, 2002 entered into force the federal law"On Citizenship of the Russian Federation", adopted by the State Duma of Russia on May 31 of the same year.

[edit]

In the 19th century, the Russian Empire significantly increased its possessions, annexing territories in Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. The local population in most cases did not speak Russian, and measures for Russification did not always bear fruit. How many subjects of the empire did not know the great and mighty at the beginning of the XX century?

"Literate in Russian"

According to the data of the first all-Russian population census, conducted in 1897, the population of the Russian Empire was about 130 million people. Of these, about 85 million were Russians. At the same time, not only Great Russians, but also Little Russians and Belarusians were considered Russians, but having "minor ethnographic features".

At the same time, at the turn of the century, the Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs noted that among the non-Russian subjects of the empire, to one degree or another, the great and mighty are owned by 26 million. Accordingly, if we add 85 and 26, then it turns out that total amount Russian speakers in the country at the turn of the century numbered about 111 million.

They did not know the great and mighty about 19-20 million, that is, one-sixth of the population of the empire. However, historians note that not all Belarusians and Little Russians, who were considered Russian, could speak in a dialect understandable to the Great Russians. This means that the figure of 111 million may be somewhat overestimated.

In addition to Russians, representatives of the Germanic peoples, as well as in Poland and the Baltic States, knew Russian well. The worst of all with this was in autonomous Finland, as well as in the recently annexed national outskirts.

Finland

The Grand Duchy became part of Russia in 1809 and received broad autonomy. Until the end of the 19th century, Swedish was the state language, then it was replaced by Finnish. As noted in the book "Russian language at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries" historian Alexander Arefiev, in 1881, in the most Russified locality principality - in Helsinki, Russian was spoken by just over half of the townspeople.

The state Russian language in Finland became only in 1900. However, due to the small number of Russians in the principality (0.3%), it never received much distribution.

Caucasus

For training local population Russian in the second half of the 19th century, Russian-native and mountain schools were created. However, their number grew slowly. According to the Ministry of Public Education, at the turn of the century in the Terek region (Vladikavkaz, Grozny, Kizlyar and other cities) there were only 112 such schools - less than 30% of the educational institutions available in these places.

The lowest percentage of those who spoke Russian was demonstrated by the mountain peoples. According to the 1897 census, only 0.6% of the locals knew Russian.

Russian speech was also unpopular in Transcaucasia. It was mainly used by ethnic Russians who moved to these regions. Their share in the population of Tiflis province was 8%, in Armenia - 1.9.

middle Asia

In Turkestan, in the 1880s, a network of Russian-native schools with 3-year training began to be created for teaching the Russian language. According to the most submissive report of the Minister of Public Education, by the beginning of the First World War, their number increased to 166.

But for a huge region this was very little, so the great and mighty was spoken mainly by the Russians themselves, who moved to the region. So, in the Fergana region, the figure was 3.27%, in the Samarkand region - 7.25.

Everything goes according to plan

The low level of knowledge of the Russian language in some ethnic outskirts did not cause serious concern in St. Petersburg and among officials of the governor generals in the localities. The military-people's system, fixed in the Charter on the management of foreigners, allowed the locals to live according to their own rules and norms.

Russian officials, on the other hand, built relationships with them through the local tribal elite, which helped to collect taxes and taxes and did not allow riots and other manifestations of discontent. Thus, the Russian language was not a critical factor in retaining power over these territories.

In addition, the empire's authorities rightly believed that the interest in the Russian language among the youth of the national provinces would sooner or later allow even the most "obstinate regions" to be Russified. For example, historian Alexander Arefiev noted, at the beginning of the 20th century, there were many students from Georgia and Armenia at Russian universities.

After the revolution, the Bolsheviks began to pursue a policy of "indigenousization" in the national outskirts, replacing Russian schools with local ones. The teaching of the great and the mighty was constantly dwindling. According to the Statistical Handbook of the Central Statistical Office of the USSR for 1927, the share of school education in Russian by 1925 decreased by a third. By 1932, the USSR was taught in 104 languages.

In the late 30s, the Bolsheviks actually returned to the policies of the tsarist government. Schools again began to massively translate into Russian, the number of newspapers and magazines in it increased. In 1958, a law was passed that made the study of the national language voluntary. On the whole, by the beginning of the "Brezhnev stagnation", the absolute majority of the population, even in the national outskirts, knew Russian well.

The objective laws of the historical development of Russia have determined the dominant role of the state in almost all spheres of society - political, economic and ideological. This work will focus on the image of subjects in the perception of the throne and the terminology with which the relationship between power and personality was built and functioned in Russia in the 18th century.

By the end of the 17th century, the social hierarchy of society was reflected in the following way in the highly defined "conceptual apparatus" of petitions to the highest name: representatives of the taxable population had to sign "your orphan", the clergy - "your pilgrims", and servants should call themselves "your servant" ... On March 1, 1702, the form of letters to the monarch was changed by the personal decree of Peter "On the form of petitions submitted to the highest name": lowest slave". The unification of the country's population by the name "slave" in relation to the supreme ruler meant terminological fixation of the growth of autocratic power, an increase in the distance between the throne and subjects and stimulated the sacralization of the monarch's personality in Russian public consciousness. In this context, the term “slave” was practically devoid of derogatory meaning. In Russia in the 18th century, where the service to the monarch was elevated to the rank of the most important ideological value, the role of the “servant of the king” elevated the subject as much as the humility of the “servant of God” adorned the righteous. An analysis of petitions for the highest name after 1702 testifies that the new form and, in particular, the signature "Your Majesty the lowest slave", was easily mastered by petitioners and quickly passed into the category of automatically reproducible stamps.

The officially assigned name of the subjects was preserved and was repeatedly confirmed until 1786, i.e. before the decree of Catherine II "On the abolition of the use of words and phrases in petitions to the Highest name and in the Public places of the submitted petitions." According to the decree, the signature “loyal slave” was transformed in the letters to the highest name into the concept of “loyal subject”. Such a terminological choice of power became a laconic expression of the proclaimed and legalized change in the official concept of the relationship between the throne and the individual, as well as an impetus for the development of the institution of citizenship in Russian society and further comprehension of this concept.

The concept of "subject" came into Russian from Latin (subditus) through Polish influence (poddany, poddaństwo). In the XV-XVI centuries. this term was most often used in the meaning of "subordinate, dependent, subdued" when describing the relationship between the monarch and the population of foreign countries. Only from the 17th century the word "subject" began to be actively used to characterize the "susceptibility" of the inhabitants of Muscovy to the power of the tsar and acquired a different semantic connotation, expressed in the concepts of "devoted, loyal, obedient." Legislation XVIII century, especially its second half, testified to the complication of the official interpretation of the institution of citizenship and the increasingly intensive use of this concept by the authorities as an instrument of social control. A terminological analysis of documents emanating from the throne revealed a differentiated attitude towards the subjects of the empire: the absolutism of Catherine's reign distinguished between "old", "natural" and "new" subjects, in addition - "temporary" and "permanent" subjects, the official texts also mention "useful" , "Enlightened", "true" loyal subjects, and, finally, the existence of "noble" and "low" subjects is recognized. The main reference group for the authorities were, of course, the “noble subjects”, which extended, in particular, to the small elite of “infidels” and the population of the annexed territories, the so-called “new subjects”.

In the Russian language of the 18th century, there was another term - "citizen", which expresses the relationship between the state and the individual and is found in legislation, journalism, as well as in fiction and translation literature. This concept was, perhaps, one of the most ambiguous, as evidenced by the antonymic row of opposing words in meaning and giving the evolution of the meaning of the term “citizen” special polemical tension. Conflict content was absent only in the dichotomies "civil - church", "civil - military". By the end of the century, both in legislation and in independent journalism, the secular sphere and the spiritual principle were not separated, but, on the contrary, were often combined, which accentuated the universality of this or that described phenomenon. So NI Novikov, having published moral messages to his nephew in "Drone", denounced "human weakness" and "sins" "against all the commandments given to us through the prophet Moses, and against civil laws." Around the same years, Nikita Panin, in the draft of the Imperial Council, identified the main features of state government, to which he referred, in particular, “spiritual law and civil morals, as they say domestic politics". In the "Sentence on the punishment by death of the impostor Pugachev and his accomplices," the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon and the Code of 1649 were simultaneously quoted, since the sentence to the "indignant of the people" and the "blinded rabble" was pronounced both on the basis of "Divine" and "civil" laws ... The "Instruction" of the Legislative Commission also said that "in the thing itself, the Sovereign is the source of all state and civil power." In addition, traditionally in the Russian language, the power "civil, secular and spiritual" was distinguished. In the 18th century, these differences are enriched by such concepts as "civil and military ranks", "civil and church press", etc.

Based on the dictionaries of the Russian language of the 18th century, one could conclude that the original meaning of the word "citizen", meaning a resident of a city (city), retained its relevance at the time in question. However, in in this case dictionaries reflect an earlier linguistic tradition. It is no coincidence that in the "Charter on the Rights and Benefits of the Cities of the Russian Empire" of 1785, the inhabitants of the cities are called not just "citizens", but "loyal citizens of our cities", who, according to the terminology of the official documents of the Catherine's reign, united into living ", including" nobles "," merchants "," eminent citizens "," people of the middle class "," city dwellers "," bourgeois "," townspeople ", etc. It is significant that Paul I, in order to emasculate from the concept of "citizen" all the meanings, to one degree or another, dangerous for the autocracy, was forced by the will of the imperial decree to return the content of this term to its original meaning. In April 1800, it was ordered not to use the words "citizen" and "eminent citizen" in reports to the highest name, but to write "merchant or philistine" and, accordingly, "eminent merchant or tradesman."

In modern times, the term "citizen", historically associated in all languages ​​of the Romano-Germanic group with the concept of "city dweller" ( Bü rger, Stadtbü rger, citizen, citoyen, cittadino, ciudades), also lost its original meaning. However, the fact that the new understanding of the relationship between power, society and the individual in monarchical states was expressed precisely through the concept of "citizen" had its own historical pattern. Throughout Europe, the townspeople were the most independent part of the population. SM Kashtanov rightly notes that in Russia “a freer class of subjects was formed in the 16th-17th centuries. in cities" .

In my opinion, the most important stage in the deepening of the semantic meaning of the concept of "citizen" in the Russian language of the second half of the 18th century was the "Order" of the Legislative Commission, in which only this term, without taking into account such expressions as " civil service"," Civil liberty ", etc., occurs more than 100 times, while there are only 10 mentions of the word" subject ". For comparison, it should be noted that in legislative acts In the second half of the 18th century, this ratio looks approximately like 1 to 100 and indicates a rather rare use of the term “citizen” in official documents of the period under review. In the "Mandate", devoid of strict regulatory functions and based on the works of Montesquieu, Beccaria, Bielfeld and other European thinkers, an abstract image of a "citizen" arose, having, in contrast to the "zealous Russian subject", not only duties, but also rights. The "property, honor and security" of this abstract social subject living in a certain "well-established moderation observing state" were protected by the same laws for all "fellow citizens". The enormous distance between the social utopia of the "Order" and reality does not diminish, however, the fundamental impact of the empress's legal studies on the way of thinking of the educated elite. The very fact of the presence in the documents emanating from the throne, lengthy discourses about "civil liberties", "equality of all citizens", "peace of the citizen", "civil societies", etc., implicitly stimulated the complication of the semantic content of these concepts in language and consciousness contemporaries.

In this context, the word “citizen” was used as close in meaning to the term “citizenship”, which was much earlier adapted in Russian than the concept of “citizen” itself in the meaning of a member of society endowed with certain rights guaranteed by law. Numerous dictionaries show that the concept of "citizenship", denoting a society with a certain structure, as well as laws, social life and ethics, appears already in the translated monuments of the XIII-XIV centuries. However, representatives of this "society" were perceived not as separate individuals, but as a single group, which was called the same term "citizenship", but in a collective sense: "all citizenship was taken as a weapon against the enemy." This linguistic tradition was preserved in the 18th century. For VN Tatishchev, the meaning of the term “citizenship” was also identical to the word “society”. And in the project of Artemiy Volynsky "On Citizenship", which protects the rights of the nobility trampled upon during the Bironovschina, the concept of "citizen" is practically not used. Thus, the term "citizen" to characterize the relationship between the individual and the state was actualized in political vocabulary only by the second half of the 18th century, which was greatly facilitated by the journalism of the Russian empress, operating with educational concepts and being an integral part of European social thought of this period. The "Instruction" directly declared the existence of "the union between the citizen and the state", and in the book "On the Positions of Man and Citizen" an entire chapter was devoted to the "Civil Union".

However, the context of the use of the term “citizen” in documents emanating from the throne reveals all the specifics of its semantic content in the Russian political language of the 18th century. Attention is drawn to the complete absence of a conflicting opposition of the terms "citizen" and "subject". In the book on "The Positions of Man and Citizen," everyone was charged with "firmly hoping that the rulers know that it is useful for the state, subjects and in general for the entire civil society." In the legislation about the "citizen" was mentioned, as a rule, only when the empress's personal decrees cited "Instruction" or when it was about "the state of the citizens of the Polish Republic, torn away from anarchy and passed into the possession of Her Majesty" on "the rights of ancient subjects." In public journalism, there were frequent cases of direct identification of the concepts "citizen" and "subject". So, Novikov believed that in the teachings of the Rosicrucians there is nothing "contrary to the Christian doctrine," and the order "requires its members to be the best subjects, the best citizens."

Such use of words testified, first of all, to the fact that in the middle of the 18th century both for the authorities and for most of their contemporaries the concept of "citizen" was not a symbol of opposition to absolutism. This term was often used in order to emphasize not only the existence of the universal dependence of subjects on the throne, but also the presence of the so-called horizontal relationship between the inhabitants of the empire, who in this case were called "fellow citizens".

At this time, fundamentally different processes were taking place in the opposite part of Europe, also reflected in the language. In the apt expression of Joseph Chenier and Benjamin Constant, "five million Frenchmen died in order not to be subjects." In 1797, the historian and publicist Joseph de Maistre, who clearly did not sympathize with the dramatic events in the rebellious Paris, wrote: “The word citizen existed in French even before the Revolution took possession of him in order to dishonor him. " At the same time, the author denounces Rousseau's "ridiculous remark" about the meaning of this word in French. In fact, the famous philosopher in his 1752 treatise "On the Social Contract" carried out a kind of semantic analysis of the concept of "citizen" and subtly grasped the main direction of the evolution of its content. “The true meaning of this word has almost completely disappeared for the people of modern times,” writes Rousseau, “the majority takes the city for a Civic community, and a city dweller for a citizen<…>I have not read that a subject of any sovereign was given a title civis. <…>Some French people quite easily call themselves citizens because they do not have, as can be seen from their dictionaries, any idea of ​​the real meaning of the word; were it not for this, they, illegally assuming this name to themselves, would have been guilty of insulting the majesty. They have this word means virtue, not right. " Thus, Rousseau pointed to a single semantic root of the concepts of "citizen" and "citizen". Then the philosopher revealed the gradual filling last term new content, reflecting the complication of the relationship between power and personality in the 18th century, and, finally, noted the presence in the modern understanding of the word "citizen" of two meanings - virtue and law. Later, during the French Revolution, the "legal component" will triumph completely, displacing "virtue" and finally destroying the concept of "subject" in the political language of revolutionary Paris. Similar, though not so radical lexical processes took place in the German language. Already in early modern times, the double meaning of the concept of "Bürger" was fixed in two terms with the same root base - "Stadtbürger", which actually meant "city dweller", and "Staatsbürger", in other words, "member of the state" or "Staatsangehörige". The concepts "Staatsbürger" and "Staatsangehörige", as well as the names of the inhabitants of the German lands in accordance with their nationalities (Badenets, Bavarian, Prusak, etc.) gradually replaced the concept of "Untertan" ("subject").

The fundamental difference between the Russian official political terminology in the last third of the 18th century was not only in the unconditional monopoly of the word "subject" to determine the real relationship between the individual and autocratic power. The specificity of the social structure of Russian society, practically devoid of the "third estate" in its European understanding, was reflected in the evolution of the concept of "citizen", which, losing its original meaning of "city dweller", was filled exclusively with state-legal or moral-ethical meaning and was not burdened with etymological connection with the name of the class "bourgeois". In Russia in the second half of the 18th century, the word "bourgeois" was practically not used, and the concept of "citizen" was most actively used by the "enlightened empress" herself, associated with the rights of a certain abstract subject of the "well-established state" "Order" and had an edifying meaning. The rights of a "citizen", declared on the pages of the highest journalism, were limited only to the sphere of property and security, absolutely not affecting the sphere of politics. At the same time, not less often than about rights, the duties of a "true citizen" were mentioned, which did not differ in any way from the duties of a "true subject."

In such documents as the "General plan of the Moscow Orphanage", as well as the highest approved report of I.I.Betsky "On the education of youth", the main ideas of which were practically literally reproduced in the XIV chapter of the "Order" "On education", it was stated that “Peter the Great created people in Russia:<императрица Екатерина II>puts souls in them. " In other words, the throne of the second half of the 18th century developed “rules preparing” to be “desirable citizens” or “direct subjects of the fatherland,” which was completely identified. The name “new citizens” and “true subjects” meant a high threshold of expectations of the authorities, which implied “love for the fatherland”, “respect for the established civil laws”, “diligence”, “courtesy”, “aversion from all prejudices”, “inclination to neatness and cleanliness. " The "useful members of society" were charged with the duty "more than other subjects to fulfill the August will." A certain political maturity and commitment to the “common good” should have been manifested in the “citizen” in a clear understanding of the need for strong autocratic rule or “the need to have a sovereign”. So the objective economic need of Russia for a leading role state power and the ability to comprehend it was transformed in the official ideology into the highest virtue of "citizen" and "subject". Among the main provisions of the “short moral book for pupils” of the Moscow Orphanage, future “fit citizens”, the following thesis was put forward as the main one: “The need to have a sovereign is the greatest and most important. Without his laws, without his care, without his economy, without his justice, our enemies would have exterminated us, we would not have free roads, no agriculture, lower than other arts, necessary for human life. "

In feudal Russia, the standard traits of a "true citizen" set by the authorities were possessed, first of all, by the elite of the nobility. The tax-paying population was excluded from the category of "hominess politici" and was not considered "citizens". Back in 1741, with the accession of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna to the throne, "plowed peasants" were excluded from the number of persons obliged to take the oath to the monarch. From that moment on, they were, as it were, recognized as subjects not of the state, but of their soul-owners. By a decree of July 2, 1742, the peasants were deprived of the right to enter military service of their own free will, and at the same time the only opportunity to get out of the serfdom. In the future, the landowners were allowed to sell their people as soldiers, as well as exile the guilty ones to Siberia, taking into account recruitment supplies. The decree of 1761 prohibited serfs from giving promissory notes and accepting sureties without the permission of the master. The power as a whole made the nobleman responsible for the peasants belonging to him, seeing this as the duty of the upper class to the throne.

The official opinion, supported by the law, about the political incapacity of serfs was dominant among the nobility, who perceived the peasantry primarily as labor force, source of income, living property. And if in the ideologically directed manifestos of the throne there were still generalized terms "people", "nation", "subjects", "citizens", behind which the ideal image of the entire population of the empire was guessed, then in such a document of everyday life as correspondence, the name of the peasantry was limited to the following concepts : "Souls", "vile class", "common people", "rabble", "villagers", "muzhiks", "my people". The peasants were exchanged, given up as soldiers, resettled, separated from their families, sold and bought "good and inexpensive coachman and gardener", like timber or horses. "Here people are paid very well," the Little Russian landowner GA Poletiko reported in one of his letters to his wife, "for one person fit for a soldier, they give 300 and 400 rubles each."

At the same time, the definitions "vile class" and "rabble" were not always sharply negative and derogatory, often etymologically were associated with the concepts of "black settlements", "simple", "taxable" and reflected for centuries the prevailing idea of ​​the initially determined position of everyone in the system social hierarchy. "Thin villages, inhabited by no one except men," "the burdens of serfs" were for the landowner pictures of the life of people familiar from childhood, to whom such a share was "determined by their condition." Thus, in the minds of the nobleman, the objective inevitability of the existence and even strengthening of serfdom with its cruel "regime of survival of the corvée village" was bizarrely transformed in the minds of the nobleman.

In the minds of the Russian educated nobility, which is an integral part of the European elite, and the most "enlightened" empress, there was an internal need to somehow reconcile the humanitarian ideas of the second half of the 18th century and the inexorable reality in which 90% of the country's population belonged to the "low tax class". While still a Grand Duchess, Catherine wrote: “It is disgusting for the Christian faith and justice to make people slaves (they are all born free). One Council liberated all the peasants (former serfs) in Germany, France, Spain, etc. By the implementation of such a decisive measure, of course, it will not be possible to earn the love of landowners full of obstinacy and prejudice. " Later, the Empress would understand that it was not about an evil will, not about a pathological tendency to oppression, and not about the "stubbornness and prejudices" of the Russian landowners. The abolition of serfdom in Russia in the second half of the 18th century was objectively economically impossible.

This circumstance was reinforced in the minds of the nobleman by the confidence in the complete psychological and intellectual unwillingness of the serfs to acquire the "title of free citizens." So, in the documents of the Moscow Orphanage, it was directly stated that "those born in slavery have a defeated spirit", "ignorant" and prone to "two vile vices so deeply rooted in the common people - drunkenness and idleness." From the point of view of the privileged stratum, the "lower class" could exist only under the tough and wise protection of the landowner, and freeing this "unthinkable rabble" meant "releasing wild animals." The nobleman was sincerely convinced that the destruction of social order and the chains that bind society was impossible without changing the consciousness of the peasant himself. "Is it free<быть>serf? - argued A.P. Sumarokov, - and first you need to ask: is freedom necessary for the common welfare of serfs? " ... In the anonymous article "Conversation about what is the son of the Fatherland", which was not quite reasonably attributed to A.N. Radishchev for a long time, the image of the "son of the Fatherland" was identified with the image of a "patriot" who "is afraid to infect the juices of the welfare of his fellow citizens<и>flames with the most tender love for the integrity and tranquility of his fellows. " These uplifting names were in no way associated with human rights, were filled with an exclusively ethical meaning and narrowed the range of responsibilities of the “son of the Fatherland”, “patriot” and “citizen” to conformity with specific moral qualities. The mistake that, from the point of view of Rousseau, was made by the French in the middle of the 18th century, seeing in the concept of "citizen" not a claim to political freedom, and virtue, was characteristic of the consciousness of the Russian upper class, and, perhaps, in general for the worldview of the Age of Enlightenment. The author of the article sincerely believed that the "son of the Fatherland" is also the "son of the Monarchy", "obeys the laws and their guardians, who hold<…>Sovereign ", who" is the Father of the People. " "This true citizen" "shines in Society with reason and Virtue", avoids "lust, gluttony, drunkenness, dandy science" and "does not make his head a flour store, his eyebrows are a receptacle of soot, cheeks boxes of white and red lead." Expressing complete unanimity with the authorities' view of the "lower class" and with the attitude of landowners to "their baptized property", the author of the article had no doubt that those "who are likened to draft<…>are not members of the State. "

Thus, in the development of the political terminology of the Russian language in the second half of the 18th century, another paradox was imprinted - the concepts of "citizen", "son of the Fatherland", "member of the State" became a moral justification for the existence of serfdom. In one of the most revised by the empress and deviating from Western European sources, the XI chapter of the "Order" said: “Civil society requires a certain order. There must be one here who rule and command, and others who obey. And this is the beginning of all kinds of obedience. " All that a "true citizen" could do for the unfortunate, immersed in "the darkness of barbarism, atrocity and slavery," was "not to torment [them] with violence, persecution, and oppression."

This is how the idea of ​​the happy lot of the "simple ignorant people", for whom freedom is pernicious and for which the patronage of the higher "enlightened" class of "true citizens", was gradually formed. In the "Instruction" Catherine made it clear that it is better to be a slave to one master than to the state: “In Lacedaemon, slaves could not demand any pleasure in court; and their misfortune was multiplied by the fact that they were not only a citizen, but also slaves of the whole society. " Denis Fonvizin during his second trip abroad in 1777-1778, comparing the dependence of the tax-paying estate in Russia with personal freedom in France, generally gave preference to serfdom: “I saw Languedoc, Provence, Dufine, Lyon, Bourgogne, Champagne... The first two provinces are considered throughout the local state to be grain-growing and abundant. Comparing our peasants in the best places with those there, I find, judging impartially, our condition is incomparably happier. I had the honor of your Excellency to describe part of the reason for this in my previous letters; but the main thing I supply is the one that is paid to the treasury unlimited and, consequently, the property of the estate is only in one imagination. "

So, the conceptual analysis of official and personal sources revealed the hidden metamorphoses of relations between power and personality in Russia in the 18th century, imprinted in the vocabulary, which are not always seen with such obviousness when using other methods of text analysis. "Serfs", "orphans" and "pilgrims" of the 17th century in 1703, by the will of Peter I, all without exception became "the lowest slaves", and in 1786, in accordance with the decree of Empress Catherine II, they were called "loyal subjects." This new name was used by the autocracy as a tool for influencing the consciousness of the population of the historical core of the empire and the inhabitants of the annexed territories, who for the throne turned into “new subjects”, and for “ancient, old subjects” into “kind fellow citizens”. In real political practice, the authorities did not honor anyone with the name "citizen", using this concept only to create an abstract image of the "Order" and the book "On the Positions of Man and Citizen." But even on the pages of the highest journalism, a certain speculative "citizen" was endowed not with rights, but with duties and virtues, which were instructive in nature and did not differ in any way from the duties and virtues of a "loyal subject." The associations of the concept of "citizen" with the republican form of government did not worry the authorities too much when it came to the archaism of Ancient Greece and republican Rome, as well as about the "citizens of the Polish Republic" whom the valiant troops of the Empress saved from anarchy. But the “distraught” “citizens” of the rebellious Paris deeply outraged the autocratic throne, and Paul I needed a special decree to introduce an unwanted word into its former semantic channel - in 1800, “citizens” were ordered to mean “townspeople” as in the old days. Meanwhile, in Russia in the last third of the 18th century, not only the concept of "citizen", but even the concept of "subject" was rather abstract and collective. The “new subjects”, who were promised the rights and advantages of the “ancients”, very soon received them, however, these rights actually turned out to be an increased dependence for the majority, and 90% of the “ancient subjects” themselves in practice were usually called not “subjects”, but “ souls "and" the lower class. "

According to the decree of 1786, the term "subject" as a signature becomes mandatory only for a certain type of messages addressed to the Empress, namely for reports, reports, letters, as well as sworn papers and patents. The form of complaints or petitions, excluding the word “slave”, at the same time did not imply the etiquette form “subject”, “loyal subject” and was limited to the neutral ending “makes a complaint or asks for a name”. And if you consider what is happening throughout the XVIII century. the rapid shrinking of the privileged stratum, whose representatives had a real right to address their messages directly to the empress, it will become obvious that the authorities recognized a very select group of people as their "subjects". In 1765, a decree was published prohibiting the filing of petitions to the empress in person, bypassing the corresponding offices. The punishments varied depending on the rank and status of the "precarious" petitioners: those with the rank were paid one third of their annual salary as a fine, and the peasants were sent into exile for life in Nerchinsk. Consequently, only the closest circle, sending Catherine not petitions, but letters, could count on “immediate”, as they said in the 18th century, addressing complaints or petitions to the Empress.

It is found that legislative change The form of petitions and vocabulary of messages addressed to the highest name was addressed not only to enlightened European opinion, but also to the upper class and, above all, its politically active elite. The exclusion from the standard signature of the petitions of any form of expression of the relationship between the author and the monarch, on the one hand, and the officially set ending "loyal subject" in personal and business messages sent to the throne, on the other hand, testified to the empress's desire for a different level of contacts precisely with her immediate environment, in which she wanted to see partners, not petitioners.

However, the originals of numerous letters of representatives of the noble elite to the highest name preserved in the archives and manuscript departments testify that they all easily put up with the stencil signature "slave", did not require a change in the form, and ignored Catherine's terminological innovations. The legislatively changed ending of the letters to the Empress was silently ignored, and even diplomatic reports and political projects continued to come under the signature "the lowest loyal slave."

The top of the nobility, which in fact was granted the right to be called "subjects", was in no hurry to use this right. Some representatives of the educated elite generally dared to oppose the concept of "subject" to the concept of "citizen" and turn this opposition into an instrument of political discourse. Several years before Catherine's decree prohibiting the mention of the word "slave" in letters to the highest name and its obligatory replacement with the word "subject", in the project of N.I. Panin "On fundamental laws", which was preserved in the record of his friend and like-minded person Denis Fonvizin, it was said: “Where the arbitrariness of one is the supreme law, there is a strong common bond and cannot exist; there is the State, but there is no Fatherland; there are subjects, but no citizens, there is no political body whose members would be connected by a knot mutual rights and posts » ... The above words of Chancellor Panin and the writer Fonvizin are one of the first cases of using the direct antithesis "subject" - "citizen". In this political treatise, the semantic content of the word "citizen" collided with such antonyms as "the right of the strong", "slave", "despot", "biased patronage", "abuse of power", "whim", "favorite", and it was also deepened with the help of a synonymous series, including the concepts of "law", "noble curiosity", "direct political freedom of the nation", "free man". Thus, in the public consciousness of the second half of the 18th century, a different, alternative to the official, interpretation of the word "citizen" gradually took shape, in which the highest political elite of the nobility began to see a person protected by law from the autocrat's willfulness and his personal highest passions. A few years after the appearance of Panin-Fonvizin's projects, the new Chancellor A.A. Bezborodko will write: “<…>may all secret methods be destroyed and where the blood of a person and a citizen is oppressed in spite of the laws. "

At the same time, the "citizen" was endowed not only with purely moral virtues, testifying, in particular, to his cleanliness or chastity. The thinking nobleman expected from the "true citizen", whom he also esteemed himself, a certain political maturity and a sense of personal responsibility for the Fatherland, but not for the autocratic state. It is no coincidence that the Panin-Fonvizna project clearly expressed the opinion that the concept of "Fatherland" is not limited to the image of the absolute monarchy of Catherine. Recalling the conflict between the empress and the private publisher, thinker and Rosicrucian Novikov, N.M. Karamzin wrote: “Novikov, as a citizen useful in his activities, deserved public gratitude; Novikov, as a theosophical dreamer, at least did not deserve prison. " Finally, in the texts of some representatives of the noble elite, the concept of "citizen" was compared with the concept of "person". Following Rousseau's views "on the transition from a natural state to a civil state," Radishchev believed that "a person will be born into the world is equal in everything else," respectively, "a state where two-thirds of citizens are deprived of civil rank, and part of the law is dead" to be called “blessed” - “farmers and even today there are slaves among us; in them we do not get to know fellow citizens equal to us, we have forgotten a person in them ”.

In general, the concept of "citizen" was rarely used in works of art and journalism of the second half of the 18th century, and almost never met in private correspondence. Oddly enough, this term was most popular among the "enlightened empress." The concept of "citizen" was not used sporadically, but for the purposeful characterization of relations between the individual and the state only in the projects of Panin-Fonvizin and "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow" by Radishchev. In the first case, the "citizen" became a symbol of the monarchy, where the throne was surrounded not by favorites, but by the state elite protected by law, while in the second, the right to political capacity was also recognized for the serf, who had "the same constitution by nature." These ideas cannot be recognized as unique and existing only in the minds of the mentioned authors - such thoughts were very characteristic of the opposition-minded nobility, but they were not always expressed using the term "citizen". So MN Muravyov, expressing his attitude to the personality of the peasant, used the antithesis “simple” - “noble”: “On the same day, a simple peasant inspired me with respect when I looked with contempt at a noble, unworthy of his breed. I felt all the power personal dignity... It alone belongs to man and elevates every state. "

Indeed, the Russian Fronde during the reign of Catherine II was not going to die for the republic, the constitution and the right, together with their own peasants, to “be called citizens”: representatives of the self-determined noble culture even reacted to the privilege granted to them to sign in the letters to the Empress “subject”, not “slave” chilly. Autocracy in Russia in the second half of the 18th century will be limited not by a "citizen" demanding rights guaranteed by law, but by a person with an independent spiritual life, and not in the field of politics, but in the sphere of the inner world of a frustrating nobleman. The beginning weakening of the union of the educated elite and the state in relation to this period will manifest itself at the level of evaluative reactions and terminological preferences. Overcoming the indisputable authority of autocratic rule will consist in the search for other spheres of personal realization, relatively independent of the imperial apparatus, the throne, and the secular masses. The most thinking and keenly feeling part of the intellectuals will move away from the supreme power and will more and more persistently try to realize themselves on the social periphery, far from the epicenter of the action of official values. This process, unique in its own way for European history, which, due to the ambiguity of manifestations, has acquired a whole repertoire of names in literature - the emergence of public opinion, the self-determination of the intellectual aristocracy, the emancipation of culture, the formation of the intelligentsia - will begin already in the reign of Elizabeth and will end in the first half of the 19th century. Its essence was paradoxically formulated by Lomonosov and several decades later reproduced by Pushkin. In 1761, the scientist declared to the brilliant nobleman II Shuvalov: “I don’t want to be a fool at the table of noble gentlemen or some earthly ruler; but lower from the Lord God himself, who gave me meaning, until he takes it away. " In the diary of 1833-1835. the poet writes: "But I can be a subject, even a slave - but I will not be a slave and a fool even with the king of heaven."

Notes (edit)

1. Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire since 1649. 1st collection. SPb. 1830. (hereinafter - PSZ). T.IV. 1702. No. 1899. P.189.
2. PSZ. T. XXII. 1786. No. 16329. P.534.
3. Fasmer M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M. 1971.Vol. III. P.296.
4. See, for example: Dictionary of the Russian language XI-XVII centuries. M. 1995. Issue 20. P.248; Dictionary of the Russian language of the 18th century. L. 1988. Issue 4. S. 147-148.
5. See, for example: the Imperially approved report of the Military Collegium of Vice-President Potemkin on the establishment of a civil government within the Don Army (PSZ. T. XX. No. 14251. February 14, 1775. P.53.)
6. Novikov N.I. Selected works. M.-L. 1952, p. 47.
7. Sat. RIO. 1871. Vol.7. P.202.
8. PSZ. T.XX. No. 14233. January 10, 1775.S. 5-11.
9. Order of Empress Catherine II, given to the Commission to compose a draft of the new Code. Ed. ND Chechulina. SPb. 1907, p. 5.
10. See, for example: Nominal decree "On taking the oath for each rank, both military and civilian, and clergy" (PSZ. T.VI. No. 3846. November 10, 1721. P.452); Dictionary of the Russian Academy. SPb. 1806. Part IV. Article 1234.
11. See: Sreznevsky I.I. Dictionary of the Old Russian language. M. 1989.T.1. Part 1. Article 577; Dictionary of the Old Russian language (XI-XIV centuries) M. 1989. T. II. S. 380-381; Dictionary of the Russian language XI-XVII centuries. M. 1977. Issue 4. S. 117-118; Dictionary of the Russian Academy. Part I. Article 1234.
12. See also: PSZ. T.XX. No. 14490. August 4, 1776, p. 403; T. XXXIII. No. 17006.
13. Russian antiquity. 1872.V.6. No. 7. P.98.
14. Kashtanov S.M. Sovereign and subjects in Russia in the XIV-XVI centuries. // Im memoriam. Collection in memory of Ya.S. Lurie. SPb. 1997.S. 217-218. P.228.
15. Order of Empress Catherine II. S.1-2.7-9.14-15.24.27-28.102.
16. See also: A. L. Khoroshkevich Psychological readiness of Russians for the reforms of Peter the Great (for posing the question) // Russian autocracy and bureaucracy. M., Novosibirsk. 2000.S. 167-168; Kashtanov S.M. Sovereign and subjects in Russia in the XIV-XVI centuries. S.217-218.
17. Dictionary of the Russian Academy. Part I. Article 1235.
18. Order of Empress Catherine II. P.34; On the positions of a person and a citizen // Russian Archive. 1907. No. 3. P.346.
19. About the positions of man and citizen. P.347. In this context, a comparison of the text of this free arrangement of Pufendorf's work and the original philosophical treatise of the German thinker is significant. In particular, in the chapter "The Duties of Citizens" Pufendorf writes not about the complete subordination of subjects to the autocracy, which has access to exclusive knowledge of the essence of " civil society", But about the duties of a citizen or" subject of civil power "equally to the state and its rulers, and in relation to other" fellow citizens "( Pufendorf S. De Officio Hominis Et Civis Juxta Legen Naturalem Libri Duo. NY. 1927. P. 144-146).
20. See, for example: PSZ. T. XXIII. No. 17090. P.390. December 8, 1792.
21. See, for example, Acts made with the Kingdom of Poland as a result of the tract on September 18, 1773 (ibid. T. XX. No. 14271. P.74. March 15, 1775).
22. N.I. Novikov Selected Works. M., L. 1954. S. 616-617.
23. See: Laboulay E. Benjamin Constant's political ideas. M. 1905.S. 70-77.
24. Mestre J. Reasoning about France. M. 1997.S. 105-106.
25. Rousseau J.-J. Treatises. M. 1969.S. 161-162.
26. See more about this: Bürger, Staatsbürger, Bürgertum // Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. Stuttgart. 1972. Bd.I. S.672-725; Bürger, Bürgertum // Lexikon der Aufklärung. Deutschland und Europa. München. 1995. S. 70-72.
27. The "General Plan of the Moscow Orphanage" recognized the existence of only two social groups in Russian society - "noblemen" and "serfs", and set the task of educating people of the "third rank" who, "having reached art in various establishments related to commerce, will enter into a community with today's merchants, artists, traders and manufacturers. " It is characteristic that the name of this new "third estate" is in no way associated with the concepts of "townspeople" and "bourgeois" (PSZ. T.XVIII. No. 12957. P.290-325. August 11, 1767).
28. See: Order of Empress Catherine II. S.103-105; PSZ. T.XVI. No. 11908. C 346,348,350; September 1, 1763; No. 12103. P.670. March 22, 1764; T.XVIII. No. 12957. S.290-325. August 11, 1767.
29. PSZ. T.XVIII. No. 12957. P.316. August 11, 1767.
30. See about this, for example: A. L. Khoroshkevich Psychological readiness of Russians for the reforms of Peter the Great. P.175.
31. PSZ. T.XI. No. 8474. S.538-541. November 25, 1741; No. 8577. S.624-625. July 2, 1742; No. 8655. S.708-709. November 1, 1742; T.XV. No. 10855. S.236-237. May 2, 1758; No. 11166. S.582-584. December 13, 1760; No. 11204. P.649-650 and others.
32. See, for example: letter from G.А. Poletico to his wife. 1777, September // Kiev antiquity. 1893. Vol. 41. No. 5. P.211. See also, for example: letter from E.R. Dashkova R. I. Vorontsov. 1782, December // Archive of Prince Vorontsov. M. 1880. Book 24. P.141.
33. Letter from G.A. Poletico to his wife. 1777, September. // Kiev antiquity. 1893. Vol. 41. No. 5. P.211.
34. See, for example: a letter from A.S. Shishkov. 1776, August // Russian antiquity. 1897. T.90. May. P.410; V.V. Kapnist's letter to his wife. 1788, February // V.V. Kapnist Collected works M.; L. 1960. Vol.2. P.314.
35. See about this: Milov L.V. General and special of Russian feudalism. (Statement of the problem) // History of the USSR. 1989. No. 2. P 42,50,62; he is: The Great Russian Plowman and the Peculiarities of the Russian Historical Process. Pp. 425-429,430-433,549-550,563-564 and others.
36. Handwritten notes of the Grand Duchess Ekaterina Alekseevna. P.84, see also: Notes of Empress Catherine II. S.626-627.
37. Letter from II Betsky to the Board of Trustees. 1784, October // Russian antiquity. 1873. No. 11. P.714).
38. See: PSZ. T.XVIII. No. 12957. S.290-325. August 11, 1767; letter from I.I.Betsky to the Board of Trustees. 1784, October // Russian antiquity. 1873. No. 11. S.714-715.
39. Quoted. Quoted from: S.M. Soloviev History of Russia since ancient times. M. 1965. Book XIV. T.27-28. P.102.
40. Many literary scholars believed that the article belongs to the pen of A.N. Radishchev. However, in my opinion, the author of the article should be considered a contemporary of the writer close to Masonic circles. (See about this: V.A. Zapadov Was Radishchev the author of "Conversations about the Son of the Fatherland"? // XVIII century: Collection of articles. SPb. 1993. S. 131-155).
41. Rousseau J.-J. Treatises. S.161-162.
42. See: Radishchev A.N. Travel from St. Petersburg to Moscow // He. Full Collected op. M.-L. 1938.V.1. S.215-223.
43. Order of Empress Catherine II. P.74.
44. See: Radishchev A.N. Travel from St. Petersburg to Moscow. S.218-219.
45. Order of Empress Catherine II. P.75.
46. ​​Letter from DI Fonvizin to PI Panin. 1778, March // D.I. Fonvizin Collected works in two volumes. M., L. 1959. Vol.2. S.465-466.
47. PSZ. 1765. T. XVII. No. 12316. S.12-13.
48. Letters with attachments of Count Nikita and Peter Ivanovich Panin of blessed memory to the Sovereign Emperor Pavel Petrovich // Emperor Paul I. Life and reign (Compiled by ES Shumigorsky). SPb. 1907, p. 4; see also: Papers of Counts N. and P. Panin (notes, projects, letters to Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich) 1784-1786. // RGADA. F.1. Op. 1. Unit storage 17. L.6ob., 13.14.
49. Note of Prince Bezborodko on the needs of the Russian Empire // Russian archive. 1877. Book I. No. 3. S.297-300.
50. N.M. Karamzin. Note about N.I. Novikov // He. Selected works in two volumes. M., L. 1964. Vol.2. P.232.
51. Rousseau J.-J. Treatises. P.164.
52. Radishchev A.N. Travel from St. Petersburg to Moscow. P. 227,248,279,293,313-315,323 dr.
53. Radishchev A.N. Travel from St. Petersburg to Moscow. P.314.
54. Muravyov M.N. Inhabitant of the suburb // He is. Full collection op. SPb. 1819.V.1. P.101.
55. Quoted. on: Pushkin A.S. Diaries, notes. SPb. 1995. S. 40.238.

One of the most vile and shameless slanders against our Motherland is, unfortunately, the still widespread opinion about the Russian Empire as a "prison of peoples". Echoing my Western counterparts, pre-revolutionary liberal and then their heirs, Bolshevik and modern democratic pseudo-historians they constantly associate the policy of the Russian Emperors towards foreigners with "national oppression, violent russification and outrageous chauvinism."

The very word "foreigners", in contrast to, for example, "infidels" or "heterodox", began to be viewed as offensive and unacceptable for a "decent, intelligent person." Although it doesn't mean anything else like peoples that do not belong to the titular, as it is now customary to say, nation, that is, to the Russian people. The people in all three of its branches - Great Russian, Little Russian and Belarusian. The most amazing thing is that the opinion about the oppression in the Russian Empire of national minorities, or, if you like, of small peoples, is quite tenacious even today. And this despite the fact that it is based mainly on works of fiction engaged by well-known forces and several misinterpreted historical excesses, initiated, by the way, not by the desire for national equality, but international, or rather anti-national"The struggle for the bright future of all mankind."

If we impartially turn to such an undoubtedly important source as Russian imperial legislation, then it becomes quite obvious that in the Russian Empire, the indigenous peoples who inhabited the territories, voluntarily or by lot of war, included in it, were not only equalized in their rights with the Russian people, but often enjoyed certain privileges: additional rights and release from known duties. A striking example of just such a national policy is, first of all, the legislation on the rights of the population of the Grand Duchy of Finland. Even before the end of the Russian-Swedish war, as a result of which Finland became part of Russia, Emperor Alexander I issued a Manifesto on June 5 (17), 1808, according to which the population of Finland was completely equal in rights with other citizens... Moreover, he retained the rights and advantages established before joining Russia.

Starting from Alexander I, all Russian Emperors invariably confirmed the fundamental laws of the region, the Finnish right to freely exercise their faith, property rights and the advantages that they previously enjoyed. One their ancient privilege of the Finnish inhabitants was the right to participate in legislative work, through the discussion of legislative proposals in their elected Diet. The procedure for the formation and work of the Finnish Sejm until 1869 was regulated by a charter issued even before Finland became part of the Russian Empire. On April 15 (3), 1869, Emperor Alexander II - the Liberator, to whom a magnificent monument stands on one of the main squares of Helsinki to this day, issued a new Seimas' charter, which, in some of its provisions, can still serve as an example for acts regulating the activities of representatives of the people.

In accordance with popular custom, the Finnish Sejm consisted of representatives of the estates of chivalry and nobility, clergy, townspeople and peasants. Thus, all the estates of Finland were involved in the development of legislative provisions for their country. It is quite noteworthy that teachers and full-time officials of the regional university and full-time teachers, as it was said, of elementary educational institutions, elected their special deputies. Moreover, the method and procedure for elections were determined by the voters themselves. The right to elect deputies to the Seimas was granted to both Christians and persons professing a different faith. However, persons who were declared not trustworthy fellow citizens or unworthy to be authorized by others could neither elect nor be elected. Those who were convicted of buying votes with money or gifts, or who violated their freedom of choice by violence or threats, as well as those who cast their votes for a reward, were deprived of active and passive suffrage.

The Finnish Sejm had very extensive powers, as a guarantee of which it was established that the Seimas Statute, defined as the inviolable fundamental law, both for Finland and for the Monarch, could be canceled only with the consent of the Seimas itself. The members of the Seimas enjoyed the right of legislative initiative in relation to laws concerning Finland. In accordance with the Basic Provisions on the Drafting and Publication of Laws issued for the Empire with the inclusion of the Grand Duchy of Finland, the conclusion of the Diet was required for all draft laws applied within Finland, both issued specifically for Finland and imperial.

According to the law on the procedure for the issuance of laws and regulations of national importance relating to Finland, the conclusion of the Sejm and the Finnish Imperial Senate was required, in particular, in relation to the following issues:

• Finland's participation in public spending and the establishment of contributions, fees and taxes for this; - serving by the population of Finland of military service, as well as other obligations serving for military needs;
• the rights in Finland of Russian citizens who are not Finnish citizens; - use of the state language in Finland;
• basic beginnings of the government of Finland special regulations on the basis of special legislation;
• the rights, duties and procedures in Finland of the Imperial institutions and authorities;
• performance in Finland court sentences, decisions and decrees and requirements of the authorities of other parts of the Empire, as well as agreements and acts made in them;
• establishing, in the public interest, exemptions from Finnish criminal and judicial laws;
• ensuring public interests in the establishment of teaching programs and supervision over it;
• rules on public assemblies, societies and unions;
• the rights and conditions of activity in Finland of societies and companies established in other regions of the Empire and abroad;
• press legislation in Finland and the importation of print works from abroad;
• customs part and customs tariffs in Finland;
• protection in Finland of trade and industrial marks and privileges, as well as literary and artistic property rights;
• monetary system in Finland;
• post, telephones, aeronautics and similar methods of communication in Finland;
• railways and other routes of communication in Finland in their relation to the defense of the state, as well as to communications between Finland and other parts of the Empire and to international communications; railway telegraph;
• navigation, pilotage and lighthouse in Finland;
• foreigners' rights in Finland.

For effective control from the side of the people's representation over the administrative authorities of the region, immediately after the opening of the Sejm, he was first of all informed about how the treasury revenues were used for the benefit and benefit of the region. The Finnish Sejm elected two members of the State Council of the Russian Empire. The State Duma also included four members from the Finnish population. At the same time, the rules on the procedure for electing those and others were established by the Diet independently. In 1906, in connection with the formation of the all-imperial organs of the people's representation, Emperor Nicholas II adopted a new Sejm charter, enshrining the principle of direct, proportional and equal suffrage, including women.

At the same time, the restriction in electoral rights for persons who violated or attempted to violate the freedom of elections was retained. It was found that officials, for an encroachment on influencing their official power on the Diet elections, were deprived of their posts. For violation of freedom of election by collusion or promises, the perpetrators were imprisoned, and employers who obstructed their employees' exercise of the right to vote were fined. It was the previously valid rule that the Seimas deputies when exercising their powers, they are not bound by any other norms, except those contained in the Seimas' charter itself.

Deputies of the Finnish Sejm could not be involved in judicial proceedings without the latter's consent. responsibility for their opinions or generally for behavior during the debate. They could not also be exposed administrative detention, with the exception of cases when the deputy was caught committing a crime punishable by imprisonment for at least six months. If a deputy was insulted by word or action by a person who knew that the offended person was a deputy of the Seimas, such a circumstance was considered aggravating. It is noteworthy that this provision extended not only to the deputies, but also to the secretaries and employees of the Diet in general.

The deputies were given the right to travel to the place of the session of the Diet and back at the expense of the treasury. During the session (90 days) the deputy was paid a fee of 1,400 Finnish marks. At the same time, if a deputy did not appear at a sitting of the Sejm without a valid reason, he could be awarded by the Sejm for a deduction of 15 marks per day and, in addition, to a monetary penalty not exceeding the amount of the deduction. In case of failure to appear, despite the imposed penalty, the Seimas had the right to deprive the deputy of his rank. In legislative work, including in the manner prescribed for the publication of laws, Russian, Finnish and Swedish were equally used. The correspondence of the State Secretariat with the Finnish authorities was conducted in Finnish or Swedish, and with the Russians - in Russian. The originals in Finnish and / or Swedish were accompanied by translations into Russian.

Thus, three state languages ​​were legally established in Finland. The Finns were empowered to hold all administrative positions in the Grand Duchy, moreover, only for appointment to positions in the State Secretariat and the Office of the Governor-General. needed to have higher education and, of course, knowledge of the Russian language... With regard to postal, railway and customs officials, the need for knowledge of the Russian language was determined by the Finnish Senate. The same applied to the determination of the territories of the Grand Duchy, in which the corresponding requirement was to be presented to the candidates. Generally the level of rights and freedoms of Finns was so high compared to Russians that in 1912 the Emperor even had to issue a law on the equalization of rights with the Finns of other Russian subjects, which provided persons who graduated from educational institutions in other areas of the Empire, equal rights with graduates of the corresponding Finnish secondary and higher schools.

By the same law, Russian citizens professing Christianity, on the same grounds as Finnish citizens, were given the right to hold the posts of history teachers. Russian subjects received the right to submit papers and petitions to institutions and officials of the Grand Duchy and receive answers in Russian, that is, the state language of the Empire. Isn't it what striking contrast to the national policies of states, now located in the territories of the former Ostsee provinces of Russia. By the way, in relation to these provinces in the Russian Empire, the principle of taking into account local national characteristics was also preserved by issuing special legalizationsii.

The Governor-General and civil governors in the order of governing the Livonian, Estland and Courland provinces, as well as Narva, which was part of the St. local authorities and places of provincial administration, to the order of civil and criminal proceedings. In relation to these areas exemptions from general imperial laws were allowed about criminal and correctional, or, as it is now customary to say, administrative, punishments, about zemstvo duties ( local taxes) and different industries government administration, state improvement and deanery. No less indicative is the policy of the Russian Autocrats towards Poland.

Even before the formation of the Kingdom of Poland, in the Duchy of Warsaw, just annexed to Russia, the Supreme Council was created, which united all parts of the administration of the Duchy, and in accordance with the Named Imperial Decree of February 1, 1814, the goal was “to give a proper course of affairs and a way to win over the offended justice under the protection of their fellow citizens ”. At the same time, Emperor Alexander I canceled state taxes amounting to more than PLN 8,000,000 of annual income. Measures have been taken to ensure that Russian troops on the territory of the Duchy followed only military roads... The lower ranks, "who will not follow the military road," were commanded to be treated as fugitives.

The manifesto of May 9, 1815 proclaimed the renaming of the part of the Duchy that had ceded to Russia into the Kingdom of Poland, the administration of which was based on special rules, “ peculiar to the dialect, customs of the inhabitants and to the local situation of the applicable". In the same year, the Constitutional Charter of the Kingdom of Poland was published, which determined in detail the specifics of governing the region. The charter provided for equal protection of the law for all citizens without distinction of class and rank. She was guaranteed freedom of the press. All property was declared sacred and inviolable.

Article 26 of the Charter stated that “ no power can infringe on property under any pretext". The punishment for confiscation of property was canceled and in no case could it be reinstated. Assignment of property in the form of public benefit was allowed for fair and prior remuneration. Personal immunity was guaranteed to the citizens of the Kingdom of Poland: “No one can be taken into custody except in compliance with the forms and in cases provided for by law (Article 19); the reasons for the arrest must be announced to the person taken into custody immediately in writing (art. 20); no one is liable to punishment other than on the basis of existing laws and the decisions of the relevant establishment (Art. 23) ”.

Moreover, the Charter established that "every convicted person serves a sentence within the Kingdom (v. 25)." Article 11 of the Charter established the principle that "the difference between Christian denominations does not establish any difference in the enjoyment of civil and political rights." The patronage of laws and government extended to the clergy of all denominations. The property of the Roman Catholic and Greek Uniate churches was recognized as the common inalienable property of each. Moreover, according to the Charter, the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church by the number of voivodships and one Greco-Uniate bishop were assigned the right to participate in the work of the Senate of the Kingdom of Poland. The Polish national debt was guaranteed. A special Polish army was preserved, consisting of an active army and militia.

Wherein it was determined that the Polish army would never be used outside Europe... All Polish civil and military orders were preserved, namely: the White Eagle, St. Stanislav and the Military Cross. The expenses for the maintenance of the units of the Russian army stationed in the Kingdom of Poland or following through its territory were fully borne by the Imperial Treasury. In the event of the appointment of the Viceroys of the Kingdom of Poland, someone other than the Grand Duke, the governor could be appointed only from local natives, or after five years in the region with impeccable behavior from persons who received the rights of a citizen of the Kingdom of Poland, who became the owners of real estate located in the Kingdom of Poland and learned the Polish language.

All state affairs concerning administration, judicial and military units, without any exceptions, were to be carried out in Polish. Military and civil positions in the region could only be replaced by Poles. All heirs to the Imperial Throne were obliged, under the oath taken at coronation, to preserve and demand the preservation of the Constitutional Charter. The Polish people were given the right to represent the people - the Diet. The Polish Sejm consisted of two chambers: the Senate and the chamber, consisting of ambassadors and deputies from communes. The Senate consisted of princes of the Imperial and Royal blood, bishops, governors and castellans. The number of senators could not exceed half the number of ambassadors and deputies from communes. The House of Ambassadors consisted of seventy-seven ambassadors elected by the Seimiks, i.e. assemblies of the nobility, and of the fifty-one deputy elected by the communes.

At the same time, ambassadors and deputies did not have the right to occupy any position associated with receiving salaries from the state treasury. Members of the Polish Sejm, like the Finnish Seimas, were guaranteed immunity. A member of the Diet without the consent of the latter could neither be taken into custody, nor tried by a criminal court. The competence of the Sejm was extremely broad. All projects of civil, criminal and administrative laws, projects to change or replace the subjects of jurisdiction of constitutional institutions and authorities, such as: the Seimas, the State Council, the court and government commissions. The Diet discussed issues of increasing or decreasing taxes, duties and government duties, as well as desirable changes in those, their best and most equitable distribution, budgeting of revenues and expenditures, regulation of the monetary system, recruiting and others.

If the Seimas did not accept the new budget, the old budget remained in force until the next session. The draft laws were adopted by a majority of votes, and the votes must be cast out loud, i.e. publicly and by name. The draft law adopted by one of the chambers could not be changed by the other. It is noteworthy that only members of the State Council and members of the commissions of the respective chambers could deliver written speeches, while the rest of the members of the Diet could speak only from memory. The Constitutional Charter proclaimed the irremovability and independence of judges. Along with the life-long appointment of judges by the Russian Emperor, the principle of the election of judges was introduced. Justices of the peace, let me remind you - this is the Charter of 1815, were elected. The Polish courts were in charge of all civil and criminal cases, with the exception of cases of state crimes. It is unlikely that, forgetting the atrocities of the twentieth century, such a regime can be called the word "occupation" so beloved by well-known circles. And it is not the fault of the Russian Autocrats that such rights and privileges were used to the detriment of Russia.

The monarchical principle proceeds from the fact that in relation to God, man has no rights, but only duties. Rights in relation to other people exist only to the extent that they are necessary for the fulfillment of duties to God, and only to the extent to which these duties are fulfilled. This fully applies to all subjects of law, both the individual and the people. Therefore, in order to prevent the abuse of rights and establish solid principles of peace and tranquility in the region, Emperor Nicholas I in 1832 was forced to make certain changes in the order of government granted to the Poles by His August Brother. However, in the Kingdom of Poland, government remained in line with local needs. It had its own special Civil and Criminal Code.

All local rights and institutions that had previously existed in cities and rural societies were retained on the same basis and in the same force. The letter, which was imperially approved by the Manifesto of February 14, 1832, proclaimed: “The protection of laws applies equally to all inhabitants of the Kingdom, without any distinction of status or rank. Freedom of religion is fully confirmed; any service can be performed by all, without exception, openly and without hindrance, under the protection of the Government and differences in the teachings of different Christian faiths can not be the reason for any difference in rights, all the inhabitants of the Kingdom of the bestowed. The clergy of all denominations are equally under the auspices of the authorities. However, the Roman Catholic faith, as professed by most of the subjects of Our Kingdom of Poland, will always be the subject of special care of the Government.

The estates belonging to the Roman Catholic and Greco-Uniate clergy are recognized as the common inalienable property of the Church Hierarchy, of each of these confessions by belonging ”. Punishment by confiscation of an estate was determined only for State crimes of the first degree. The disclosure of thoughts through printing was subject only to those restrictions that were necessary to preserve due respect for faith, the inviolability of the Supreme Power, purity of morals and personal honor. At the same time, the finances of the Kingdom of Poland, as well as other parts of the Office, were still managed separately from the Office of other parts of the Empire. The state debt of the Kingdom of Poland was, as before, protected by the guarantee of the Government and paid from the revenues of the Kingdom. The Bank of the Kingdom of Poland and the institutions that existed before 1832 for real estate were, as before, under the auspices of the Government.

The army in the Empire and the Kingdom began to form one whole, without distinction between the Russian and Polish troops. Those of the subjects of the Russian Empire who, having settled in the Kingdom of Poland, acquired real estate there , began to enjoy all the rights of indigenous people, as well as subjects of the Kingdom of Poland who settled and owned real estate in other areas of the Empire. The subjects of the Russian Empire who were temporarily in the Kingdom of Poland, as well as the subjects of the Kingdom who were in other parts of the Empire, were equally subject to the laws of the land in which they stayed. Local self-government was preserved in the form of Assemblies of the Nobility, Assemblies of Urban and Rural Societies and Councils of Voivodeships. All of them drew up lists of candidates for administrative positions, and their opinion, when assigned to different positions, had to be taken into account by the government.

The electiveness of judges was confirmed, who could be removed from office only by the verdict of a higher court. It was the Imperial will, which was often contradicted by the local nobility, peasants living in the Kingdom of Poland were freed from corvee... It was by the decree of the Russian Autocrat that the Polish peasants were granted privileges and exemptions from duties in favor of the landowners. Most of these duties were traced back to the independent Rzecz Pospolita. By the decree of Emperor Alexander II of February 19 (March 2), 1864, the land used by the peasants, as well as residential and economic buildings, draft animals, implements and seeds were transferred to the peasants in private ownership, and the arrears in favor of the owners of the estates were canceled.

At the same time, the former owners of the land received remuneration from the treasury. Precisely by the care of the Russian Tsars Polish peasants were allowed to participate in the affairs of rural administration... The Russian Empire followed the same principles in relation to other peoples, in particular, the Moldavian one. In accordance with the Charter of Formation of the Bessarabian Regioniv of April 29, 1818, the Supreme Council was established. It was created to manage all administrative, executive, state, that is, financial and economic affairs of the Region, as well as to consider civil and criminal cases in appeal procedure implementing the necessary investigative actions and other issues, the Supreme Council consisted of the president, four members of the regional government and six deputies elected from the nobility of the region, including the Regional Leader of the Nobility. The decisions of the Supreme Council were adopted by a majority vote.

As we can see, there were more deputies in it than officials in office. Cases in the Supreme Soviet were conducted both in Russian and in Moldovan languages ​​in compliance with the laws of the Russian Empire and preserving local rights and customs in relation to private property. Civil cases were conducted in one Moldovan language and were considered on the basis of Moldovan laws and customs. In the civil and criminal courts of the Bessarabian Region, the members of the court were both appointed, as it was said, "from the crown" - 3 people for each court, and elected by the Moldovan nobility - also 3 people. Proceedings in criminal cases, both during the trial and during the investigation, were conducted in Russian (for the convenience of supervision) and Moldovan. All sentences were read in Moldovan. OK civil proceedings to ensure the rights, benefits and local laws only the Moldavian language was used.

On February 29, 1828, the Institution for the Administration of the Bessarabian Region, approved by Emperor Nicholas I, legislatively consolidated the principles of special administration of the region. First of all, it was confirmed that the inhabitants of the Bessarabian Region of all classes, having acquired the rights of Russian subjects, retain all those rights and advantages that they previously enjoyed. The Bessarabian nobility both in Bessarabia and in Russia were granted all the rights and advantages, most mercifully granted by the Noble Grant and other legalizations. The peasants who had been settled in Bessarabia at the time of the publication of the Institution, and were still settled, could not be in serf possession either by the Bessarabian landowners or by the Russian Nobles. As a result, the Russian nobles living in Bessarabia could have there only serfs in the yard, and then for personal and domestic service, and not for their settlement on the ground. Residents of the Bessarabian Region were exempted from recruiting. The principles of observing the interests of the local population were invariably applied to the peoples of Transcaucasiavi and Central Asia.

Thus, in the Highest Manifesto of September 12, 1801, Emperor Alexander I announced that in Georgia, which became part of the Russian Empire, “everyone will be inviolable with the advantages of his own state, with the free exercise of his faith and with his property. The princes will keep their inheritance, except for those who are absent, and this annual income from their inheritance will be produced annually in money, wherever they are found. " Representatives from local residents elected according to their merits and general power of attorney were called to govern Georgia. All the same, the taxes collected in Georgia were directed to the benefit of the Georgians themselves, to restore the devastated cities and villages. The Imperial Rescript issued on the same day preserved all the states (estates) of the inhabitants of the Georgian kingdom with their rights and advantages. By itself, of course, from of this rule all those who occupied ranks and places were seized hereditarily, for which they were entitled to an appropriate reward.

The state fees to the treasury, and especially to the royal house that had previously belonged, were commanded to be put in such a position that not only would it not cause unnecessary burdens to the inhabitants, but would also give them all kinds of relief, freedom and encouragement in their exercises. In the Highest Appeal to the Georgian people, the Russian Sovereign undertook to protect his new subjects "from external invasions, to keep the population in personal and property security and to deliver government to the vigilant and strong, always ready to give justice to the offended, to protect innocence and, as an example, to punish a criminal for evil." "And therefore," wrote Emperor Alexander I, "let no one dare to satisfy his claim without permission and forcibly, but let him bring his complaint to the places established for that," undoubtedly hoping that he will receive a quick and impartial decision. " At the same time, the Resolution of the internal government in Georgia was approved, which created a clear structure of power in the Kingdom. It provided for the constant involvement of the local nobility in her administration.

The Supreme Georgian Government was divided into four expeditions: for executive affairs or board, one of the three members of which it was decided to be the Georgian prince; for state and economic affairs, in the composition of 6 people, of which there were two Kartlian and two Kakhetian princes, as well as the provincial treasurer; for criminal cases, consisting of a chief from Russian officials and 4 advisers from Georgian princes; for civil cases, the same composition as in the expedition for criminal cases. Thus, in the Supreme Georgian Government, consisting of only 20 people, 13 people were Georgians... At the same time, matters in the Government were decided finally and by a majority of votes. In the district courts, under the chairmanship of a Russian official, two assessors from the local nobility sat. In the council of the zemstvo police of each district, along with the captain-police officer from Russian officials, there were also two esauls from local nobles.

The Georgian militia was formed from the local population freed from conscription... Only Georgian nobles were appointed as city treasurers and chiefs of police. It was decided that in the first year, the appointment of officials from the Georgian princes or nobles was carried out at the discretion of the commander-in-chief from among persons distinguished by the general respect and power of attorney of their fellow citizens, and after one year - at the will of the Georgian princes and nobles themselves. The Armenians who left Karabakh were left under the command of their meliks. Civil affairs were ordered to be carried out according to Georgian customs and according to the Code, issued by Tsar Vakhtang, as a fundamental Georgian law. Criminal cases were to be carried out according to Russian laws, comparing them, nevertheless, with the "mentality" of the Georgian people.

When considering criminal cases, the Commander-in-Chief was instructed to exterminate torture and death penalty long abolished in the Empire. On April 19, 1811, the Emperor approved the Regulations on the Temporary Administration of the Imereti Region, which provided for the creation of the Regional Administration for the administration of the region of three expeditions: executive, state, trial and reprisal. Russian officials - chiefs of expeditions, had two assessors from the Imeretian princes. By civil affairs if there were no gaps in the Georgian laws, one should be guided, on the basis of the existing order in Georgia, by the laws of Tsar Vakhtang. At the same time, if necessary, the Governor of the region collected for information about any existing law or custom general meeting Regional government, attracting outsiders from the Imeretian princes or nobles to it.

In accordance with the Regulations on the management of the Sukhumi department, approved by the Emperor Alexander II, a zemstvo guard was established to carry out police duties from local residents, and to monitor the deanery and order in the villages in each of them, at the choice of the society, foremen were appointed, who were, at the same time, also tax collectors. The resolution of minor disputes arising between the local population was entrusted to the arbitration courts. In the district court, which dealt with other cases, which consisted of five people, four were elected from the population of the district: one from the upper and three from the lower classes. When considering cases by the Chief Court of the Division, serving appellate instance, in addition to three members appointed by the government, eight elected persons from the local population, two from each district: one from the upper and one from the lower classes. In accordance with local customs, the local nobility, as a rule, retained their sovereign status, and, in addition, received high ranks and awards.

So, the ruler of Abkhazia Prince Mikhail Shervashidze was awarded the rank of Adjutant General, he was granted, in addition to a monetary reward for customs duties, an annual lease of 10 thousand rubles, and his eldest son was enlisted as an officer in the Preobrazhensky Life Guards Regiment as a young man. For the refusal of the Mingrelian prince Nikolai Dadiani from the right of ownership, he was granted 1 million rubles at a time, and in addition to that his mother, Princess Catherine, with another son and daughter, a life pension. The title of Prince of Mingrelian, so that the surname "Mingrelian" with the title of lordship passed to the eldest in the family, was left, without adding the name "Mingrelian" to the family name of Dadiani, to other members of the glorious family with the title of lordship. The Derbent ruler Sheikh Ali Khan was granted by Emperor Paul I to the third class on the table of ranks on September 1, 1799 (the rank of lieutenant general).

The Baku owners, the Shishin and Karabagh khans, the Shaki and Shirvan khans, in the order of succession of seniority in the clan, were confirmed in their titles by Imperial letters, complained about banners with the coat of arms of the Russian Empire and sabers hereditarily kept in every sovereign house. When accepting citizenship of the population of these Caucasian khanates, the peoples of the corresponding possessions were equated by rights with other Russian subjects, however, they were freed from the obligation military service... Power, coupled with internal government, court and reprisals according to the preserved habits, which, of course, do not contradict the principles of mercy, as well as income from the possessions were retained by the former owners. The policy of the Russian Empire in relation to the peoples of Russian Central Asia is indicative. By the way, thanks to the transfer of the Bukhara Emirate and the Khiva Khanate under the protectorate of the Russian Empire in 1873, slavery and the slave trade were abolished there. An excellent illustration of the national policy in Central Asia is the Regulation on the Administration of the Turkestan Territory, published in 1892. First of all, it enshrined the long-standing principle equal rights: “The natives of the Turkestan Territory (nomadic and sedentary) living in villages enjoy the rights of rural inhabitants, and those living in cities - the rights of urban inhabitants. The advantages assigned to other states of the Russian Empire are acquired by the natives on the basis of general laws. "

However, the local population was provided with very significant advantages... So, with the exception of officials, as well as cases when crimes were committed against Russian persons or Russian settlements, as well as misdemeanors between natives of various local peoples, cases were resolved on the basis of customs existing in each of them, except for eleven types of especially dangerous crimes, in particular :

1. against the Christian faith;
2. state;
3. against the order of government;
4. in state and public service;
5. against decrees on state and zemstvo obligations;
6. against the property and income of the treasury;
7. against public improvement and deanery: a) violation of the quarantine statute, b) violation of regulations against general and sticky diseases, and c) violation of the rules on veterinary and police measures to prevent and terminate infectious and general diseases in animals and to neutralize raw animal products;
8. against public peace and order: a) the compilation of malicious gangs and brothel, b) false denunciations and perjury in cases judged by the laws of the Empire, c) harboring fugitives, d) damage to telegraphs and roads;
9. against state laws;
10. against life, health, freedom and honor: a) murder, b) infliction of wounds and beatings, the consequence of which was death, c) rape, d) unlawful detention and imprisonment;
11. against property: a) forcible seizure of others real estate and the destruction of border lines and signs, b) arson and, in general, the deliberate destruction of other people's property and forgery of Russian documents.

Needless to say that the natives were naturally exempted from the duty of military service... The local population took an active part in governing the region. The management of the units, into which the cities inhabited by the natives were divided, was assigned to the elders of the aksakals, who were elected by the homeowners. ... Volost governors, village foremen and their assistants were also elected by the population. At the same time, any of the officials were prohibited from interfering in the direction of the elections. The senior aksakal, who exercised the highest political oversight in the city and commanded the lower police officers from the natives, was also appointed from among the representatives of local peoples. The management of the irrigation system was also carried out by the natives: the main irrigation canals were assigned to the aryk-aksakals, and the secondary irrigation canals were assigned to the mirabs by the election of village gatherings.

Rural foremen and their assistants were paid a salary determined by the village gathering in proportion to the size of the village and its welfare, but not more than 200 rubles a year. Aryk-aksakals, according to the definition of the military governor, were also assigned a salary in the amount not higher than that of the volost ruler. The assignment and delivery of maintenance to the mirabs depended on the discretion of the societies. For diligent service, as well as for knowledge of the Russian language, officials of the natives' public administration were awarded cash and honorary gowns. The sedentary and nomadic natives had a special system of people's courts, elected by the population from the inhabitants of the corresponding volosts. People's Court committed publicly and publicly. People's judges, who did not attend the session without good reason, were subject to a monetary penalty of ten rubles.

It is characteristic that, as in the rest of the national parts of the Empire, exacted by the courts cash, including the penalties imposed on judges, were directed to the arrangement of places of detention. The lands and waters that were used by the sedentary agricultural local population were approved for them on the grounds established by local customs. The order of use was also determined in accordance with the customs that existed in each area. Buildings and plantings produced by individual householders were assigned to private ownership. The inheritance of the lands and their division were carried out again according to the customs observed in each place between the natives. Urban lands were owned, used and disposed of by urban societies, and the estates allotted to urban residents within the city were recognized private property relevant persons.

State lands occupied by nomadic natives, on the basis of customs, were provided for their indefinite public use, the order of which was determined by local customs. The same principles were applied to the foreigners of the Russian North and Siberia: Buryats, Tungus, Ostyaks, Bogulichs, Yakuts, Chukchi, Koryaks, etc. In accordance with The Charter on the management of foreigners, developed by M.M. Speransky when he was the Siberian governor-general in 1818-1821, sedentary foreigners who professed Christianity were compared with the Russians in their rights and responsibilities for the estates they entered. They were managed on a general basis. Non-Russians who professed paganism or Islam and were called non-believers who lived in separate villages were included in the number of state peasants with the release, however, from military service, and those who were in the Cossack rank remained in the Cossack rank.

The nomadic peoples were generally retained their former rights. For all foreigners bearing honorary titles, such as princes, toyens, tayshi, zaisans, shulengi, etc., the corresponding titles were retained. The local nobility continued to enjoy the honors that were established by their local customs and laws. The management of foreigners was carried out by their ancestors and honorable people from which the organs were composed local government(duma) and officials (elders and their assistants) were appointed. Wandering aliens were governed by laws and customs, peculiar to each tribe. All the lands that were in their possession according to ancient rights were approved for the aliens. With a shortage of land, they were assigned additional ones from the state reserve. Northern and Siberian foreigners had complete freedom to engage in agriculture, cattle breeding and local crafts.

TO criminal liability foreigners inhabiting the respective territories were prosecuted only for the following types of crimes: rebellion, premeditated murder, robbery and violence, as well as for counterfeiting and theft of state or public property. All other cases were attributed to civil proceedings. Thus, in the Russian Empire, as we can see, foreigners who became subjects of the Russian Tsar retained their age-old rights and, at the same time, received very significant advantages over the Russians. Speaking about national policy in the Russian Empire, of course, one cannot pass over in silence and legal position Jewsviii. For some reason, it is believed that this issue is the most famous.

However, as it turns out, the knowledge of the majority is limited to very vague ideas about the notorious "percentage rate" and "Pale of Settlement". The policy of Russia towards the Jews was much more detailed and differed in more significant differentiation, including the provision of benefits and advantages in comparison with the legal status of the Russian population. Immediately it is necessary to stipulate that special rules, both on the provision of benefits and on restrictions, extended only to Jews who professed Judaism. Therefore, further we will talk only about this part of the Jewish people who were citizens of Russia. But let's turn, nevertheless, for a start, to the so-called "percentage rate" and "pale of settlement."

Here, first of all, it should be remembered that the Jews made up only about four percent of the population of the Empire. As a general rule Jews who graduated from the gymnasium course, received certificates and wished to acquire a higher education, was allowed to enter to continue the sciences at Universities, Academies and other higher educational institutions throughout the Empire. Pupils who completed the course of study in a real school and an additional class, as well as persons with certificates of knowledge of this course, could enter higher special schools: undergoing only a verification test.

Thus, all higher schools of the Empire were opened to all Jews who graduated from the gymnasium course. The best Jewish students in medical faculties were admitted to the state account, they were given the rights of public service and the universal right of residence. As soon as a Jew graduated from the university as a candidate, he received the right to enter the service in all departments and engage in trade and industry throughout Russia. At the same time, he could, along with him, maintain in Russia a whole colony of co-religionists as relatives, clerks, clerks. The Jews who graduated from the district school enjoyed a reduced period of military service by 10 years. The gymnasium reduced this period by 15 years, and those who graduated with honors were completely exempted from military service. With the introduction of military service, which had great benefits in education, which extended to all subjects of the Empire, a new impetus was given to the admission of Jews to Russian schools.

Jewish children were allowed to enter real schools and gymnasiums without an exam in the first grade if they successfully completed the first four years of elementary Jewish school. In 1859, the education of Jewish children - merchants and honorary citizens - became compulsory. To facilitate access for Jews to Russian schools in 1863, special scholarships were established with a total amount of 24,000 rubles. It was also decided to admit Jews to Russian gymnasiums, without being embarrassed by the norm of settled life, and families of Jews received the right to live in the cities where their children studied... If in 1865 the number of Jews studying in gymnasiums in Russia reached a thousand, making up only 3.5 percent, then 10 years later this number increased to almost five thousand, i.e. up to 9.5 percent of all students, and after another ten children it reached 7.5 thousand, i.e. almost 11 percent, and some gymnasiums within the Pale of Settlement included 19 percent of Jews. In twenty years, the number of Jews in universities has grown 14 times.

With regard to admission to educational institutions, there were the following "restrictions" (let's take into account that outside the Pale of Settlement, Jews were not four, as in the Empire on average, but one or two percent of the population): regarding the admission of Jews to higher educational institutions of all departments, with the exception of the conservatories of the Imperial Russian Musical Society: three percent for educational institutions in the capital, five percent for those located in other areas of the Empire outside the Jewish Pale, and ten percent in the Pale; with regard to government secondary educational institutions supported by the state treasury: five percent of the total number of students in educational institutions in the capital, ten percent in educational institutions in other areas of the Empire, outside the Jewish Pale, and fifteen percent in the area of ​​settledness.

The number of Jews admitted by the title of pharmacist assistant to lectures at universities to prepare for the title of pharmacist was limited, in relation to the total number of such students at each university, by the norms: six percent for Moscow University, ten percent for universities in other areas of the Empire , outside the Jewish Pale, and twenty percent for universities in the Jewish Pale. The admission of Jews to non-governmental secondary educational institutions was allowed without any restrictions.... In 1889, the district trustees were allowed to admit the best of the Jewish students above the norm. And the best were understood as those who had average score not less than 3.5... In 1892, the transfer of Jewish students began to be made from class to class "without considering the norm", and in 1896 the percentage rates were prescribed to refer to the total number of students, and not to the number of applicants in a given year, than the norm was actually significantly increased. Since 1903, if there were vacancies, Jews were admitted to the gymnasium and above the norm.

Without any restrictions, Jews were admitted to secondary art schools, to trade, art-industrial, technical and craft schools of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, to dental schools, as well as to lower technical schools of the Ministry of Public Education. The Jewish children who entered the schools were not forced to change their faith and were not obliged to attend the lessons in which the Christian faith was taught. At the same time, the Jews were given the right to teach their children the law of faith of their own free will, in schools, or with private teachers. Since Jewish old people were reluctant to send their children to Russian schools, the government back in 1844 established a whole system of Jewish schools corresponding to Russian parish and district schools.

Even special rabbinical schools (with a course of gymnasiums) were established to train teachers of Jewish law. The benefits of Russian gymnasiums were extended to these schools. They were given special privileges to “greatly encourage the Jews to be educated”. Beyond allowing Jewish children to enter state and private Christian schools, as well as special state Jewish schools established for them, Jews could start their own, private or from societies, schools to educate their youth in the sciences and arts and to study the rules of their religion. As for the actual number of Jews enrolled in universities, the "percentage rate" was practically never observed. So, in 1905, the universities of the Jews were:

• in St. Petersburg - 5.6% (instead of 3%);
• in Moscow - 4.5%;
• in Kharkov - 12.1%;
• in Kazan - 6.1%;
• in Tomsk - 8.3%;
• in Yuryevsky - 9%;
• in Kiev 17, 2% (instead of 10%);
• in Warsaw - 38, 7;
• in Novorossiysk (Odessa) - 17.6%.

In 1906, St. Petersburg University accepted 18% of Jews (instead of 3%), Kharkov - about 23, Kiev - 23%, Novorossiysk - 33%, Warsaw - 46%. Add to this the so-called Jewish audiences and Jewish audiences(among the latter there were 33% Jews). In 1908, Jews, whose total number, we recall, did not exceed 4% of the population of the Empire, constituted 12% of the entire Russian student body (excluding non-Jewish Jews).

After all, since 1916, the percentage rate did not apply to Jewish war participants and their relatives. Given the general mobilization, this was tantamount to the complete abolition of the percentage rate. Prof. Levashov in the State. The Duma pointed out (March 14, 1916) that 390 Jews enrolled in the first year of the medical faculty of Odessa University for 586 people, and the admission of students, presumably, was made before this cancellation, i.e. before the beginning of the academic year 1915-1916. Thus, as subsequent life showed, the "percentage rate" established by virtue of certain circumstances was not absolute and fully corresponded to the principle of proportionality of rights and even more. The same applies to the Pale of Settlement. First of all, it should be noted that the Jews retained the right to reside in the territory in which they lived before their inclusion in the Russian Empire. The area of ​​these territories was equal to almost half of Western Europe. Secondly, the restriction of the possibility of resettlement in the inner provinces was met with satisfaction by the majority of Orthodox Jews, who did not welcome, to put it mildly, the possibility of assimilation.

Third, temporary residence outside the territories permanent residence it was allowed, for example, to accept inheritance, to protect property rights in judicial and government bodies, for trade, education, or, as it was said at the time, "to improve oneself in the sciences, arts and crafts." The rules on residence only within the territory of traditional settlement did not apply to Jewish women who were married to Christians, as well as to all non-Jewish Jews. The conditions regarding the choice of place of residence for: Jews who graduated from the higher educational institutions of the Empire, their wives and children; Jewish merchants of the first guild and members of their families, included in their class merchant certificate, as well as on the Jews of the former merchants of the first guild, who for fifteen years were in the first guild both within the Jewish Pale of Settlement and outside of it, and members of their families; pharmacy assistants, dentists, paramedics and midwives; Jewish artisans, as well as bricklayers, stone cutters, carpenters, plasterers, gardeners, paving stones and excavators; on military ranks from Jews, who, participating in hostilities on Far East, received awards with insignia, or even blamelessly served in the active forces.

The main goal of the policy of the Russian Empire towards the Jews was by no means restricting their rights or stimulating emigration (the reasons for the restrictions are a topic for another conversation). The main task proclaimed by Emperor Nicholas I was to arrange the position of the Jews “on such rules that, by opening them a free path to gaining comfortable living by exercising in agriculture and industry and to the gradual education of their youth, at the same time, idleness and illegal trades. " Most of the Jews are known to have moved to Russian citizenship as a result of the collapse of the Commonwealth... Naturally appearing in the lineup Russian citizens several million new ethnically separate subjects, demanded to streamline them legal status and adopt the relevant regulations.

Already in 1785, Empress Catherine II announced that “when the Jewish law people entered a state equal to others, then at any rate it is necessary to observe the rule ... that everyone according to their rank and state should enjoy benefits and rights without distinction of religious law and people / nationality ". The first detailed act regulating the legal status of Jews became Statute on the device of the Jews, approved on December 9, 1804 Emperor Alexander I.

It is characteristic that this Regulation was opened with a chapter on the education of Jews, which stipulated that "all children of Jews can be accepted and taught, without any distinction from other children, in all Russian public schools, gymnasiums and universities." Jewish children were admitted to the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts. At the same time, the Jews, who, by their abilities, had achieved well-known degrees of distinction in medicine, surgery, physics, mathematics and other knowledge at universities, were recognized and promoted to university degrees on an equal basis with other Russian subjects. None of the Jewish children, during his upbringing in general educational institutions, should not under any circumstances be distracted from his religion, nor forcing to learn what is disgusting to her and even disagreeing with her may be.

If the Jews did not want to send their children to general public schools, special schools were established. The only requirement for the subjects studied was the introduction of one of the languages ​​into the curriculum: Russian, Polish or German. Note, one, i.e. the study of the Russian language was not compulsory, and the study German language was not a big problem for Yiddish speakers. The Jews had the right to use the Hebrew language in all matters, both concerning their faith and at home.... The occupation of the posts of Jewish self-government was also not limited to the knowledge of exclusively the Russian language. The magistrates, kagals and rabbis could be elected persons who did not know the Russian language, but who knew German or Polish. In accordance with the situation, the Jews were divided into four classes: farmers, manufacturers and artisans, merchants and bourgeois. The first power of the Russian Emperor was granted special rights and privileges.

First of all, it was determined that Jewish agriculturalists under no circumstances could be converted into serfs... Secondly, Jewish farmers were allowed not only to buy land, but to hire workers to cultivate it... Subsequently, the right to employ Jews was confirmed, including Christians, “a) for short-term work, which is required from cabbies, ship workers, carpenters, bricklayers, etc.; b) for assistance in arable farming, horticulture and gardening on lands that belong to Jews, and especially at a time when the initial cultivation of these lands is needed; c) for work in factories and plants, except, however, distilleries; d) for the positions of commissioners and sales clerks; e) for the positions of attorneys, clerks and servants on wine ransoms; f) for the positions of sales clerks and clerks for the maintenance of postal stations. " Jews were allowed to lease land from landlords. Wherein Jews were exempted from all government taxes for five years.

For those who could neither buy nor lease land, initially 30,000 dessiatines were allotted in the most fertile provinces of Russia. Those who moved to these lands, and the resettlement was exclusively voluntary, were exempt from taxes for ten years, after which they had to pay taxes on an equal basis with other taxes. In addition, they were given a loan on terms common with the colonists of other nationalities. In the Russian Empire, Jews were allowed to set up any factories on the same basis and with the same freedom as all Russian citizens. Moreover, for the establishment of factories loans were provided to Jews, and without any collateral... Loans were issued to Russian landowners on bail. Jewish artisans had the right to engage in any, not prohibited general laws crafts. Both artisans and Jewish manufacturers had to pay taxes on an equal basis with nationals of other nationalities.

Foreign and domestic trade, including wine wholesale and retail, was not prohibited to Jews.... The only thing was that the Jews were forbidden to sell wine in the lands they rented for agriculture, as well as in villages and villages or on credit. All debts for the wine purchased from the Jews were canceled. The Regulations also established the special civil structure of the Jews. Chapter IV of the Regulations, first of all, enshrined that all Jews living in Russia, settling again, or arriving from other countries for commercial purposes, are free and are under the exact auspices of laws on an equal basis with all other Russian subjects. No one had the right to appropriate the property of the Jews, to dispose of their labor, and still less to strengthen them personally. It was forbidden for anyone to oppress or even bother them in the exercise of their faith and in common civil life, neither in word nor in deed. The complaints of the Jews were to be accepted in public places and satisfied to the fullest extent of the laws, in general for all Russian subjects established.

Article 49 of the Regulations provided that “since the court must be common for all subjects in the state, then the Jews in all litigations over their estate, in matters of bill of exchange and criminal proceedings, have to be conducted by court and reprisals in ordinary public places; from this it follows: 1) that the landowners, on whose lands they live, do not have the right of judgment over them, either in grave cases or in criminal matters; 2) that the Arbitration Court in grave cases can be held by Jews on a common basis and in all the force that is assigned to this Court by the general laws ”. In provincial and uyezd cities, Jews were entitled to elect one rabbi and several kagalny ones. In the townships of landowners, Jews could also elect rabbis and kahal, and, moreover, without participation in that of landowners, who were forbidden to collect any tribute for the rabbinic, which was a custom in Poland.

The duties of the rabbis were to supervise the rites of the faith and to deal with disputes related to religion. It should be borne in mind that the laws of Judaism regulate in detail not only purely theological issues, but also many everyday and other issues of the life of Jews. The kagals had to observe that the state fees were regularly paid, they could also spend the amounts entrusted to them, giving a report to the society that chose the kagal in use. Published on April 13, 1835, the Regulation on the Jews, the duties of the kagals were determined as follows:

1. so that the orders of the authorities, in fact belonging to the class of local Jews belonging to the Jews, are executed exactly;
2. that every person, or Jewish family, should regularly receive state taxes, fees, and city and public revenues;
3. that the money to be transferred to the county treasuries and other places be sent without delay, according to ownership;
4. so that the expenses incurred by the Jewish estate of his department are properly met
5. so that the amounts received by the kagal are kept intact.

Therefore, the money entering the kagal is kept under the key of the receiver, but under the seals of all members. " At the same time, in accordance with § 70 of the Regulations, the kagal, during the correction of the position, enjoyed the honorary rights of merchants of the 2nd guild, if they did not belong to the highest. In modern parlance, the Jews themselves elected from their midst special judges and tax inspectors. In 1844, the kagals were abolished, but the right of Jews to independently arrange fees was retained. The Jews continued to elect from among themselves tax collectors and their assistants (§ 16 of the Regulation on the subordination of Jews in cities and counties to the general government). Rural societies and urban estates of Jews, participating in the payment of taxes and other public fees, distributed the tax burden among themselves according to a general sentence, in accordance with the state and means of each.

When distributing taxes, old, crippled and wretched Jews were counted among those societies to which they belonged by kinship, and not having relatives, were distributed for the payment of taxes across all Jewish societies of that province, in proportion to the number of souls. Jewish rural societies and urban estates should also: 1), along with societies of other faiths, have care for the care of the elderly, crippled and sick of their fellow believers (in this regard, it was allowed to set up special hospitals and almshouses, including with the help provided by Orders Public Charity); 2) to take care of the aversion of "vagrancy" by establishing institutions in which the poor could find work and support. Jewish urban estates could participate in elections to public positions, and Jews who could read and write in Russian could be elected to the City Dumas, Magistrates (non-Jewish) and Town Halls, on the same basis as they were elected to these positions, persons of other faiths.

This is the true picture of the situation of other, apart from the Russian people, nationalities of the Russian Empire. In the Russian Empire, in contrast to the measures proposed by the supporters of "globalization" to establish a "new world order", not only was there no opposition to ensuring national identity, but, on the contrary, conditions were created for all kinds of preservation of the identity of peoples, the development of their culture and self-awareness... There are many examples of the acceptance of this policy by peoples subject to the Russian Emperors. Suffice it to recall the Poles, Germans, Kazan and Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Bashkirs who voluntarily stood up under the Russian Banners, who went out together with the Russian people to the battle of 1812. Or, take, at least, the "native" division famous for its boundless bravery.

In it, under the command of the brother of the Emperor Nicholas II, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich and officers from the East Germans, at the call of their elders, Chechens, Ingush, Dagestanis, Kabardins and representatives of other peoples of the North Caucasus, who went out to fight for the Tsar and the Fatherland, covered themselves with unfading glory at the call of their elders. The following example is also indicative - during the First World War, the Germans kept Russian Muslim prisoners of war in separate camps... Once one of these camps was visited by a representative of the German Imperial House and asked the prisoners to sing a prayer for him. So, all the prisoners who were not under any pressure from the Russian authorities sang "God Save the Tsar", and when the camp commandant waved his hands to stop the expression of loyal feelings so unpleasant for him, the Muslim prisoners, interpreting the commandant's gestures in their own way, continuing sing the prayer of the Russian people, knelt down. What can the heirs of the Bolsheviks, against whom hundreds of thousands of sons of the peoples allegedly liberated by the "internationalists", spoke out against them during the Second World War? What can today's guardians of a free democratic Russia, torn apart by cold and hot national wars, object to?