Option 4
Read the text and complete tasks 1 - 3
(1) In 1943, the Hungarian Laszlo Biro, who received an order from the British Royal Air Force to develop a pen capable of writing at high altitudes at low pressure, first proposed the use of a rod consisting of a channel blocked by a metal ball. (2) The first ballpoint pens were just terrible: the balls fell out, air bubbles blocked the writing unit, the ink often started to leak out, and at first it was more familiar and seemed easier for people to write with a regular fountain pen. (3)<…>A ballpoint pen could write with more pressure than a fountain pen, it did not scratch the paper, made fewer blots, and therefore quickly gained popularity.
1. Indicate two sentences that correctly convey the MAIN information contained in the text. Write down the numbers of these sentences.
1) Ballpoint pens, invented by Laszlo Biro at the request of the British Air Force, quickly gained popularity, despite a number of shortcomings.
2) A ballpoint pen capable of writing at high altitudes at low pressure was developed by the British Laszlo Biro: he used a rod consisting of a channel blocked by a metal ball.
3) The first ballpoint pens, invented by order of the British Royal Air Force, were not in demand by the population: people preferred to write with ordinary fountain pens.
4) Despite the fact that the first ballpoint pens, invented by Laszlo Biro by order of the British Air Force, had many drawbacks, they quickly became popular due to their fundamental advantages over fountain pens.
5) Laszlo Biro went down in history as the inventor of the ballpoint pen, which could write at high altitudes at low pressure, did not scratch the paper, and made fewer blots.
2. Which of the following words (combinations of words) should be in place of the gap in the third (3) sentence of the text? Write down this word (combination of words).
For example,
Thereby
Besides,
3. Read the fragment of the dictionary entry, which gives the meaning of the word LOW. Determine in what sense this word is used in the first (1) sentence of the text. Write down the number corresponding to this value in the given fragment of the dictionary entry.
SHORT , -th, -th; -zok, -zka, -zko, -zki.
1) Small in height, located at a small height from the ground, from some. level.N. fence.
2) Not reaching the average level, less than the average norm, insignificant.Low prices.
3) Poor, unsatisfactory in terms of quality. N. grade.
4) Mean, dishonorable (contempt.).N. deed.
5) Thick to the ear.N. bass.
4. In one of the words below, a mistake was made in setting the stress: the letter denoting the stressed vowel is highlighted INCORRECTLY. Write out this word.
ease
far-sightedIva
fruit
5. In one of the sentences below, the underlined word is WRONGLY used. Correct the mistake and write this word correctly.
All elements must form a single HARMONIOUS whole and correspond to your ideological intent.
He took a deep breath and resolutely approached Gerasim.
The water was ICE, teeth ached from it, and it was swallowed with a ringing.
In the provinces, the DEVELOPMENT from the honorary duty of the jury in the early years was negligible.
A TECHNICAL chess player must be able to play on two wings.
6. In one of the words highlighted below, a mistake was made in the formation of the word form.Correct the mistake and spell the word correctly.
fixed more RELIABLE
old PASSPORTS
LIE ON YOUR BACK
seedlings of APPLE TREES
pick up from the CRAYER
7. Establish a correspondence between grammatical errors and sentences in which they are made: for each position of the first column, select the corresponding position from the second column.
SUGGESTIONS
A) incorrect use of the case form of a noun with a preposition
B) violation in the construction of a complex sentence
C) incorrect construction of a sentence with participial turnover
D) incorrect sentence construction with indirect speech
D) violation in the construction of a sentence with homogeneous members
1) Antipov annoyed the repair service with complaints about the material shipped to him to renew the rail track.
2) Standing on the threshold of the house, the parents looked for a long time after the departing children.
3) Upon arrival from Greece, I sat down to write a new book.
4) In "Ruslan and Lyudmila" A.S. Pushkin conveyed much of what he heard from his nanny Arina Rodionovna.
5) In order to get to Ryabtsev, who occupied an office on the fifth floor, Nastasya had to explain the purpose of her visit to a dozen guards.
6) I was not accepted into the school basketball team. Because I was short.
7) When creating a project for a new building, the architect said that I want to make this building the most beautiful in the city.
8) Mistakes not only bring pain, but also make us wiser.
9) The war was a difficult test for the whole people, but everyone believed and hoped for victory.
8. Determine the word in which the unstressed checked vowel of the root is missing. Write out this word by inserting the missing letter.
ex..mother
pl..vchiha
lake..rhenium
see. rush (with circumstances)
bl..melting
9. Find a row in which the same letter is missing in both words. Write these words out with the missing letter.
and .. tries, in .. head (institution)
pr..possible, pr..shore
super..gra, ob..sk
pr .. grandfather, pr .. I'll lead
(I see) in .. reality, times .. yaryon
10. Write down the word in which the letter I is written in place of the gap.
hours..nka
unstick..
industry..howl
beggarly..nsky
coughed up..coughed up
11. Write down the word in which the letter E is written in place of the gap.
ove..ny
endure.. you suffer
dozing..sh
outlined .. who
12. Identify the sentence in which NOT with the word is spelled CONTINUOUSLY. Open the brackets and write out this word.
Winter (NOT) is angry for nothing, its time has passed ...
His home life, which was (NOT) INTERESTING to anyone around him, went on as usual.
It was a month of (NOT) clouded happiness.
My new friend was by no means (NOT) POOR, but his stinginess discouraged me.
(NOT) WELCOMELY and affably met Olga Stas, but coldly and aloofly.
13. Determine the sentence in which both underlined words are spelled ONE. Open the brackets and write out these two words.
(FOR) WHAT, in separation from her, (TO) DESCRIBE with slander, the heart in us is ready to bleed to the drop ...
(PO) APPEARS, the very principle from which this truth proceeds obliges you, (IN) VIEW of your position in society, to recognize in it only the inner light.
(IN) IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM (B) FOR 20 years the same table stood, covered with the same lace tablecloth.
I wanted to meet Sonya by all means, to tell her how I missed her, how I suffered (IN) ALONE, not daring to confess my feelings to anyone.
The officer stood (ON) THE HOOD, and the general, meanwhile, gave the order to the soldiers to form columns (ON) TWO.
14. Indicate all the numbers in the place of which HH is written.
I immediately remembered a mirror to the very floor, immediately (1) reflecting the second torment (2) and ditch (3) Sharik, deer antlers in height, countless (4) fur coats and galoshes.
15. Use punctuation marks . Choose two sentences in which you want to putONE comma. Write down the numbers of these sentences.
1) The sound of a motor or the crunch of a fallen tree was heard in the distance.
2) Vasily Porfirych handed out a microscopic piece of prosphora to the children, drank tea and sat down in the office.
3) This was a gentleman of middle age, prim and portly, with a cautious and peevish physiognomy.
4) For centuries, these trees have been related to us and gave our ancestors creaky bast shoes and a smokeless torch.
5) Darwin was distinguished almost all his life by poor health, and this did not prevent him from showing the highest level of intensity of mental labor.
16. Put all the punctuation marks:
The swimmer (1) was brave, who decided on such a night (2) to set off across the strait for a distance of twenty miles (3) and there must be an important reason (4) that prompted him to do this.
17. Put in all the missing punctuation marks: indicate the number(s) that should be replaced by a comma(s) in the sentence.
Talking with you (1) my dear (2) I (3) finally (4) came to a single thought: if we (5) gentle (6) my friend (7) cannot breathe without each other (8) however (9) the will of the parents interferes with our well-being, can we not do without it?
18. Put all the punctuation marks: indicate the number(s) that should be replaced by a comma(s) in the sentence.
In Gorokhovaya Street, in one of the large houses (1) of the population (2) of which (3) would be enough for a whole county town (4) Ilya Ilyich Oblomov lay in bed in the morning in his apartment.
19. Put all the punctuation marks: indicate the number(s) that should be replaced by a comma(s) in the sentence.
Yegorushka looked around (1) and did not understand (2) where this strange song came from (3) but (4) when he listened (5) it began to seem to him (6) that it was grass singing, complaining about the heat and drought.
20. Edit the sentence: correct the lexical error,excluding superfluous word. Write out this word.
It was useless to hide the true truth, and Serpilin did not even consider himself entitled to do so.
Read the text and complete tasks 21 - 26
(1) I recently received a letter in which a schoolgirl writes about her friend. (2) The literature teacher suggested that this friend write an essay about a very prominent Soviet writer. (3) And in this essay, the schoolgirl, paying tribute to both the genius of the writer and his significance in the history of literature, wrote that he had mistakes. (4) The teacher considered all this inappropriate and scolded her very much. (5) And now a friend of that schoolgirl turns to me with a question: is it possible to write about the mistakes of great people? (6) I answered her that it is not only possible, but also necessary to write about the mistakes of great people, that a person is great not because he was not mistaken in anything. (7) No one is free from mistakes in our life, in our complex life.
(8) What is important to a person? (9) How to live life? (10) First of all, do not commit any acts that would drop his dignity. (11) You can’t do very much in life, but if you don’t do anything, even petty, against your conscience, then by doing this you bring tremendous benefits. (12) Even in our ordinary, everyday life. (13) But in life there can be difficult, bitter situations when a person faces the problem of choice - to be dishonored in the eyes of others or in his own. (14) I am sure that it is better to be dishonored before others than before your own conscience. (15) A person must be able to sacrifice himself. (16) Of course, such a sacrifice is a heroic deed. (17) But you need to go for it.
(18) When I say that a person should not go against his conscience, should not make a deal with it, I do not mean at all that a person cannot or should not make mistakes, stumble. (19) No one is free from mistakes in our difficult life. (20) However, a person who has stumbled is in grave danger: he often falls into despair. (21) It begins to seem to him that everyone around is scoundrels, that everyone lies and acts badly. (22) Disappointment sets in, and disappointment, loss of faith in people, in decency - this is the worst thing.
(23) Yes, they say: "Take care of honor from a young age." (24) But even if it was not possible to save honor from a young age, it must and can be restored to oneself in adulthood, to break oneself, to find the courage and courage to admit mistakes.
(25) I know a person whom everyone admires now, who is greatly appreciated, whom I also loved in the last years of his life. (26) Meanwhile, in his youth, he committed a bad deed, a very bad one. (27) And then he told me about this act. (28) He himself confessed. (29) Later, we sailed with him on a ship, and he said, leaning on the deck railings: “But I thought that you wouldn’t even talk to me.” (30) I didn’t even understand what he was talking about: my attitude towards him changed much earlier than he confessed to the sins of his youth. (31) I myself already understood that he did not realize much of what he was doing ...
(32) The path to repentance can be long and difficult. (33) But how adorns the courage to admit one's guilt - adorns both a person and society.
(34) Anxiety of conscience ... (35) They suggest, teach; they help not to violate ethical norms, to preserve dignity - the dignity of a morally living person.
(according to D.S. Likhachev*)
* Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev (1906-1999) - Soviet and Russian philologist, culturologist, art critic, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
21. Which of the statements correspond to the content of the text? Specify the answer numbers.
1) Likhachev writes that a schoolgirl, his student, asked him a question.
2) In the text, such concepts as “honor” and “conscience” are very closely related to each other.
3) Sacrifice yourself is a heroic deed, and you need to think very carefully before going for it.
4) When a person is not in harmony with his conscience, it seems to him that everyone around him is lying and doing bad things.
5) A friend of the hero-narrator confessed to him that he had made mistakes on the ship.
22. Which of the following statements arefaithful ? Specify the answer numbers.
Enter the numbers in ascending order.
1) In sentences 13–14, reasoning is presented.
2) Sentence 21 explains, reveals the content of sentence 20.
3) Proposition 24 contains a conclusion, a consequence of what is said in sentence 23.
4) Sentences 26-28 contain reasoning.
5) Sentences 34–35 provide a description.
23. From sentences 18-22, write out a phraseological unit with the meaning "to mean someone, something."
24. Among sentences 1-7, find one (s) that is (s) connected with the previous one using a coordinating conjunction, demonstrative pronoun and word forms.
25. “Techniques of expressiveness in the works of D.S. Likhachev play a special role: they clarify the author's thought, concretize the details, and place the necessary logical accents. In the presented text, among such techniques, one can single out (A) _______ (sentences 11–12) and (B) ________ (in sentences 23, 29). A feature of the style of D.S. Likhachev is also such a technique as (B) ________ (“in our life” in sentence 7). Among the few tropes, it is worth highlighting (D) _______ ("bitter situations" in sentence 13.
List of terms:
1) epithets
2) antonyms
3) parceling
4) colloquial words
5) rows of homogeneous members of the proposal
6) quoting
7) lexical repetition
8) metonymy
9) assonance
26. Write an essay based on the text you read.
Formulate one of the problems posed by the author of the text.
Comment on the formulated problem. Include in the comment two illustration examples from the read text that you think are important for understanding the problem in the source text (avoid over-quoting).
Formulate the position of the author (narrator). Write whether you agree or disagree with the point of view of the author of the read text. Explain why. Argue your opinion, relying primarily on the reader's experience, as well as on knowledge and life observations (the first two arguments are taken into account).
The volume of the essay is at least 150 words.
Option 4
1. Answer: 14|41.
2. Answer: however.
3. Answer: 2.
4. Answer: bear fruit.
5. Answer: evasion.
6. Answer: reliable.
7. Answer: 26579
8. Answer: reconcile
9. Answer: really angry
10. Answer: paste
11. Answer: doze
12. Answer: no wonder
13. Answer: why in defiance
14. Answer: 124.
15. Answer: 25
16. Answer: 12578
18. Answer: 14.
19. Answer: 2356.
20. Answer: true.
21. Answer: 24
22. Answer: 12.
23. Answer: 3
25. Answer: 3671
1. In our complex life, no one is free from mistakes. Making mistakes, realizing them is a natural process
2. The problem of the relationship between the greatness of a person and the mistakes that he made. The problem of publicizing the mistakes of great people. (Can the greatness of a person consist in the fact that he was not mistaken in anything? Is the concept of "greatness" connected with the mistakes that a person makes? Is it possible to talk about the mistakes of great people or should this be hidden?)
2. The greatness of a man is not that he has not made any mistakes. Therefore, it is possible and necessary to talk about the mistakes of great people.
3. The problem of the role of conscience in human life. (What is the role of conscience in a person's life? Does life "according to conscience" protect against mistakes? Does life "according to conscience" bring benefits?)
3. Life "according to conscience" does not protect against mistakes, but conscience is what prompts, teaches, helps not to violate ethical standards, to preserve the dignity of a morally living person. Even if a person has not done very much in life, but lived in harmony with his conscience, he has already brought significant benefits.
4. The problem of choosing landmarks on the path of life. (How should a person live his life? What is it important for him to focus on first of all?)
4. A person should not commit any act that would drop his dignity. You don't have to go against your conscience. Therefore, the main guide should be one's own conscience.
5. The problem of choice: to be dishonored in the eyes of others - or in your own. (Which is better: to be dishonored in the eyes of others or to lose honor and dignity in your own eyes?)
5. It is better to be dishonored before other people than before your own conscience. Of course, dishonor in the eyes of others is a big sacrifice, but it must be made ..
6. The problem of honor. (Is it possible, having committed a bad, dishonorable act in youth, to regain honor in adulthood?)
6. If it was not possible to save honor from a young age, it can and should be returned to oneself in adulthood.
7. The problem of remorse. (Is it necessary to repent of the mistakes made?)
7. Despite the fact that the path to repentance can be long and difficult, since admitting your mistakes is very difficult, it is very useful, it decorates a person, because repentance is a manifestation of courage
8. The problem of the consequences of mistakes. (What dangers await a person who has made a mistake? What is one of the worst consequences of a mistake?)
8. A person who has made a mistake may fall into despair. Then disappointment may come, loss of faith in people, in decency, and this is the worst thing.
* To formulate the problem, the examinee may use vocabulary that differs from that presented in the table. The problem can also be cited from the source text or indicated by references to sentence numbers.
From the point of view of formal logic, the presence in the law of property and "service" qualifications, the primacy of the nobles in the commissions for compiling the lists of jurors excluded the possibility of wide participation of the common people in court, and jurors from the peasants had to meet very rarely. Practicing lawyers who wrote about jury trials (A.M. Bobrischev-Pushkin, A.F. Koni, N.P. Timofeev) noted that in the provinces the majority of jurors were peasants, but did not provide any specific data. There is not even approximate information in the literature about the scale of participation in the trial by jurors of other classes. Russian jurors remained "mysterious strangers" until very recently, when the author of this article managed to collect specific digital materials for all the existing judicial districts. The statistics of the composition of the jury had to be created independently, according to archival documents and personal lists of jurors published in the counties. To do this, it was necessary to count the hundreds of thousands of people who took part in the jury trial. The scope of the jurisdiction of the jury in 1864-1878 was significant. According to A.M. Bobrischev-Pushkin, the area of competence of the assessors was approximately 410 articles of the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments, which accounted for almost a fifth of all punitive articles of Russian legislation 1 . In district courts, the share of jurors was in 1873-78. national average of 75.8 percent of all resolved cases. Thus, it is safe to say that the jury, playing a huge role in criminal proceedings, has become the central link in the post-reform judicial system in Russia. The repressiveness of the jury (the ratio of the number of convicted defendants to the total number of defendants) was in 1873-78. 64.3 percent, repressiveness of other courts - 72.6 percent. It should be noted that it was precisely the greater number of acquittals of jurors compared to professional judges that was a serious reason for attacks on the jury. Even the French historian of the XIX century. K. Cardonne noted that the jury did not justify the hopes placed on him, as he disappointed everyone with his mildness and condescension towards dangerous criminals 1 . By the end of the 70s - the beginning of the 80s of the nineteenth century. Numerous shortcomings of the Russian jury trial were revealed, which became the causes of its crisis 2 . There are three groups of causes of the crisis: legal, mental and political. The most important of them are legal: the imperfection of the legislation, which interfered with the normal functioning of the jury. This may include the inconsistency of substantive and procedural law (the Code of Penal and Correctional Punishments of 1845 with the Judicial Charters of 1864); the unsuccessful composition of the Interim Commissions that compiled the lists of jurors (their members were not at all interested in the results of their work and perceived their duties as an extra burden); the existence of a "service qualification" and the unevenness of the property qualification, the vagueness of some of the wording of the law. The mental causes of the crisis were the result of the inconsistency of the Russian “der Volksgeist” with the nature of the Western European legal institution introduced “from above”. The judicial statutes of 1864 were developed taking into account European experience, and a large number of categories of crimes turned out to be under the jurisdiction of the Russian jury. However, this played only a negative role. Russian "judges of public conscience" were unable to objectively judge a number of crimes and misdemeanors (violations of the passport charter, financial crimes, certain types of crimes against the order of government, etc.). These crimes turned out to be too complex and hard to understand for the Russian jury. Without comprehending the essence of the matter to the end, the assessors often acquitted the really guilty people. Knowingly guilty were also acquitted when the people's sense of justice did not correspond to the concepts and norms of the legislation, and this happened quite often in practice (insults of officials, resistance to them). K.P. Pobedonostsev, in his report "On the Necessity of Judicial Reforms," rightly noted that the trial by jury turned out to be "completely inconsistent with the conditions of our life and with the structure of our courts" 1 . In the legal practice of pre-reform Russia, defendants were often released from trial "for lack of evidence" and left "in suspicion." Perhaps here lies the circumstance that, at the slightest doubt, the assessors often acquitted the defendants. And, despite the fact that after the judicial reform of 1864 there was not a trace left of the old pre-reform system of the judiciary and legal proceedings, the psychology of people who lived for generations in the courts of the old type changed very slowly. The discrepancy between the Russian mentality and the nature and form of the jury trial should have led either to a change in the legislation on jury trials, or to a change in mentality. The latter is impossible in a short period of time, so the legislation was changed. The institution of the jury, in its essence, contradicted the conditions of autocratic Russia, it turned out to be too radical an innovation for it. I.V. Gessen noted: “From the first days it was discovered that the new institution entered the state organism as a foreign body, which, according to the general physiological law, must be assimilated or rejected” 2 . The desire to evade jury duty was observed in the upper strata of society already in the "honeymoon" of the jury. In the provinces, there was little evasion of honorary jury duty in the early years. Gradually, jury absenteeism became common in the provinces as well. In Kazan, for example, in 1883 the number of those who did not appear was 22.5 percent, which sometimes served as the reason for postponing court sessions due to the impossibility of recruiting 12 jurors. The self-elimination of the tops of society attracted the attention of the government. The responses from the localities to inquiries from the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior boiled down to the fact that “the reason for the avoidance of persons of the educated classes from participating in sessions with jurors is very often: 1) the duration of the session in most district courts and 2) the extreme unsatisfactory premises for jurors assessors, not only in the places of departures of the court, but also in the permanent premises of district courts. By law, jurors were not allowed to leave the courthouse until the case was over. Complicated cases often took several days, sometimes even weeks. District courts were usually located in old, neglected buildings, which were cold in winter: the stoves smoked, and hot and stuffy in summer. There were no buffets, no bedding. Jurors spent the night on bare benches in the public rooms or in the office, next to unattractive "material evidence": murder weapons, dissected body parts of crime victims. It is quite natural that people who occupied a position in society and were accustomed to comfort tried to evade the performance of a difficult and unpleasant sworn duty. By the beginning of the court session, as a contemporary wrote, “the next jurors from wealthy merchants and nobles were suddenly attacked by a whole craze of a wide variety of diseases ... Some peasants and philistines carefully carried a heavy duty for them, more than for anyone.” The Russian peasantry was far from a homogeneous mass. Let's see what sections of the jurors were recruited from. According to the law, only the most “trustworthy” and wealthy peasants were supposed to be on the jury. Recall that the lists of jurors included peasants who met the conditions of the property qualification and occupied certain positions in the peasant administration. At the same time, the qualification was not required from the latter. It was from them, according to our sources, that the bulk of the jury consisted. According to the "Information on jurors in the Velikolutsk district", 85 percent of the peasants included in the lists of jurors from 1879 to 1882 were village elders, volost foremen. Peasants who had at least 100 acres of land were on these lists 11 percent, and those who received an income of at least 200 rubles a year - only four percent. Freeing part of the peasants from the property qualification, the authors of the judicial reform clearly proceeded from the fact that the most prosperous and "well-intentioned" people are elected to positions in peasant public administration. In reality, however, wealthy peasants studiously avoided elective office. As a result, the idea of a "strong man" on the jury bench was not implemented. Most of the peasants who were included in the jury lists on the basis of the "service" qualification came from the poorest strata of the people. Under the influence of a combination of legal, mental and political reasons from 1878 to 1889. more than ten temporary and permanent laws were passed, significantly changing the law on juries. In fact, a new jury was created, which differed significantly from a similar institution of the 1864 model. It is hardly possible to consider the term “judicial counter-reform” present in the historical and legal literature, which appeared in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as legitimate. It was first clearly expressed by A.A. Kizevetter: “... in the 80s and 90s. XIX century, although the Judicial Charters of Alexander II were not replaced by new charters, nevertheless, a number of separate decrees, the so-called short stories, introduced into the Judicial Charters of Alexander II the spirit of opposite principles, that together these novels represented a counter-reform .. ." one . The concept of judicial counter-reform was clearly reflected in the works of Saratov lawyers and historians (M.V. Nemytina, N.A. Troitsky, and others). It is most clearly formulated in the monograph by B.V. Vilensky. By judicial counter-reform, the scientist understands the adoption of normative acts, by which "the main democratic institutions of the Judicial Charters were actually crossed out on November 20, 1864." The counter-reform covered various aspects of the judicial reform of 1864: the world court, the jury, the publicity of meetings, etc. Under the counter-reform in the field of jury trial, we mean the revision of the Judicial Statutes, aimed at limiting and, if possible, eliminating the consideration of cases with the participation of jurors. The reasons for these transformations were seen only as a consequence of "the growth of the revolutionary movement in the country and the emergence of a second revolutionary situation" 1 . The concept of judicial counter-reform has not been accepted by many researchers (usually historians). It was opposed by representatives of the Moscow historical school (P.A. Zaionchkovsky, L.G. Zakharova, A.K. Afanasiev, and others). Thus, there is no single view of the judicial legislation of the 70-80s. XIX century, and the discussion of supporters and opponents of the concept of "judicial counter-reform" came to a standstill. In our opinion, the Third Period - the time of the evolutionary development of the Russian jury trial, lasted from the end of the crisis of 1878-1889. before the start of the legislative activity of the Provisional Government on the reorganization of the jury. In its continuation, the jury acted according to the laws established in the previous period. In the 70-80s. 19th century the jury was greatly changed and brought into line with the conditions and requirements of Russian life. Therefore, there was no need to seriously change anything in it after the end of the crisis. On December 29-31, 1894, a meeting of senior chairmen and prosecutors of the judicial chambers was held in St. Petersburg, where the question of the satisfaction of the work of the jury was also raised. The majority of the members of the conference (18 out of 20) came to the conclusion that “in terms of its activities, this court is not only fully satisfying its purpose, but in general represents the best form of court that can be imagined for resolving most of the serious cases, especially in in cases where a serious accusation is connected with subtle evidence that requires worldly wisdom” 3 . In 1895, an audit of the judicial seats of the Russian Empire was carried out. Its findings also disproved "unfavorable reviews of jury trials" 1 . Thus, in the mid-90s of the nineteenth century. there was a realization that the Russian jury, in its version, created in 1878-1889, fully satisfies the implementation of the goals of justice. The expressed idea is confirmed not only by the subjective testimonies of contemporaries, but also by objective facts. Since 1890, throughout Russia, the role of the jury in criminal proceedings has been significantly reduced. On average for the period 1890-1905. the volume of jurisdiction of the jury was 43.1 percent (minimum in 1901 - 35.7 percent, maximum in 1896 - 53.9 percent). The explanation for this phenomenon is the discovery in the 1890-1900s. several dozen district courts, where there was no jury trial. In judicial districts, where jury trials functioned in each district court, for example, in the Moscow Judicial District, the volume of jurisdiction remained, slightly decreasing, on average at the level that had been established since the mid-1880s - 60-65 percent. The repressiveness of the jury after the end of the crisis began to increase. If in 1878-1889. it averaged 61.3 percent in Russia, then in the 1890s. it increased to 65.5 percent, however, in the 1900s. decreased to 59.4 percent. Describing the third period in the history of the Russian jury trial, we note one more feature. If in the 60-80s. 19th century there was, perhaps, not a single newspaper or magazine where issues related to this legal institution were not discussed, then at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. the center of gravity of the discussion of this problem has shifted almost exclusively to the pages of legal periodicals. The interest in jury trials on the part of the non-legal intelligentsia has especially faded. The fact is that she was by no means interested in banal criminal cases, but in the so-called high-profile trials, which often had a political connotation. After the withdrawal of such cases from the competence of jurors, the interest of the educated part of society in criminal proceedings began to fall. As for the peasantry, after centuries of serfdom, it was important for him to directly participate in criminal proceedings, and the analysis of those crimes that the peasants faced in everyday life (theft, robbery, murder) was of the greatest importance. But no one removed these crimes from the competence of jurors. Having got what they wanted, the lower strata of society calmed down and were not particularly interested in what was happening with the jury. The First World War could not but affect the judicial systems of the warring countries. In Russia, as in other European countries, the jurisdiction of jury trials was at that time limited due to the creation of various emergency and military courts, but the actual legislation on jury trials did not change. The relative weakness of jury repression became the main reason for dissatisfaction with the new court and the limitation of its competence. There were enough examples and predilection of peasant jurors in certain categories of criminal cases: mercilessness towards horse thieves and blasphemers, indulgence towards abuses of officials and crimes against women's honor. There was also an increase in the number of acquittals during fasting and before major Christian holidays. Dissatisfaction was also caused by “high-profile” lawsuits. Here is some of them. In March 1867, a trial was held in St. Petersburg in the case of the official Protopopov, who hit his boss. The jury acquitted Protopopov due to his insanity at the time of the crime. This caused a storm of indignation in the highest spheres, who considered the verdict a dangerous precedent. In 1874, the jury convicted Abbess Mitrofania of forgery - in the world Baroness Rosen, daughter of the governor of the Caucasus and favorite of the Empress. In 1885, in the Vladimir district court, jurors said 101 times: “... no, not guilty” - to the striking workers of the Morozov factory. The press noted that it was a salute of 101 volleys in honor of the labor issue that had arisen in Russia. As a result of this process, the supervision of the relationship between manufacturers and workers was established by law. The highest manifestation of the civil courage of the jurors was V.I. Zasulich, who wounded the St. Petersburg mayor General F.F. with a pistol shot. Trepov (according to rumors, the illegitimate son of Nicholas I), who ordered the beating of one of the prisoners. The jurors (the jury consisted of 3/4 of the nobles and officials) with their verdict not only acquitted Zasulich, but accused Trepov, thus defending their personal right and the right of every citizen not to be flogged at the arbitrariness of any boss. The verdict in the Zasulich case had the effect of an exploding bomb. According to the memoirs of a contemporary, “the solemn acquittal of Vera Zasulich took place as if in some kind of terrible, nightmarish dream... No one could understand how such a terrible mockery of the sovereign’s top servants, such a brazen triumph of sedition could take place in the courtroom of the autocratic empire” 1 . Accusations of incitement to rebellion and sympathy for terrorism rained down on the jurors. Presiding in court A.F. Koni later wrote: “It is enough to recall the criticism of the jury about the case of Vera Zasulich, when one lazy person did not throw at them not only stones, but, in the words of the author of Past and Thoughts, even the whole pavement” 2 . The concept of "trial by jury" became associated with the Zasulich case, the People's Will terror and the assassination of Alexander II. In fact, this is the period of the second jury crisis in Russia. It lasted from the beginning of the legislative activity of the Provisional Government, concerning the trial by jury, until the official abolition of the institution of the jury by the Soviet government. After the Provisional Government came to power, the development of the jury went along the path of democratization. At this time, the competence of the jury was significantly expanded. Thus, on March 4, 1917, by decree of the Provisional Government, the special courts established by law were abolished: the Supreme Criminal Court and the special presence of the Senate, judicial chambers and district courts with the participation of class representatives 1 . By a decree of March 30, 1917, cases within the jurisdiction of these regulations were transferred to the jurisdiction of a jury 2 . In all judicial bodies, the institution of class representatives was replaced by the institution of jurors. The right of assessors, taken away during the crisis of 1878-1889, was restored to participate not only in the proceedings of district courts, but also in the judicial chambers and the Criminal Cassation Department of the Senate 3 . All categories of cases seized from them during the crisis of 1878-1889 were returned to the jurisdiction of the jurors: against the order of administration, malfeasance, against public improvement and deanery, etc. the history of Russia was not within their jurisdiction. Thus, the jurisdiction of the jury in 1917 was the widest for the entire existence of the "court of public conscience" in our country. Regardless of what categories of cases were considered and where this consideration took place (in the district court, the judicial chamber or the Senate), the procedures for calling and electing assessors were the same. The democratization of the jury under the Provisional Government was also manifested in the fact that the property qualification was abolished for the election of assessors, as well as a number of other restrictions (for example, national, religious). By decrees of the Provisional Government of May 6 and 28, 1917,4 a military jury was established in Russia, an extremely rare occurrence in world history. The military jury acted not only in military units in the rear, but also on the fronts of the First World War; in certain cases, its jurisdiction extended to the civilian population 1 . It seems that the full implementation of the legislation of the Provisional Government on trial by jury would lead in practice to negative results. Firstly, the new legislation was not clearly balanced, there were many gaps in it. Among the members of the Provisional Government, there were quite a few supporters of adopting individual necessary laws, and in the future, to the extent possible, to deal with their further harmonization and bringing into an integral system. In the order of the military department of April 21, 1917 No. 233 openly stated that it was necessary to revise the entire judicial system, but due to the difficult situation, “The Provisional Government recognized it as necessary, as projects were prepared on certain priority issues, to immediately put these projects into effect” In other words, it was supposed to act on the principle of “if only do something immediately, and what happens - we'll figure it out later. However, as numerous examples of history and, unfortunately, modernity show, following such a principle is fraught with serious consequences. Secondly, when expanding the competence of the jury and the abolition of all kinds of restrictions, especially property ones, the specifics of the mentality of the Russian people, their sense of justice, which manifested itself in an unreasonably mild attitude towards certain types of crimes (especially against the “system”, the state, officials), low repressiveness due to the unwillingness to “take sin on the soul” (as practice has shown, the assessors, at the slightest doubt about the guilt of the defendant, preferred to justify him or give indulgence, the attitude towards minors, women, “poor and orphans” who committed a crime in the first time, "due to extreme need", in a state of intoxication); the dominance of ordinary ideas about law in general and human rights in particular, with an almost complete absence of legal knowledge; faith is more hearsay than professional lawyers. It was rightly noted by V.A. Bukov that the jury, "as having practically no points of contact with the everyday legal experience of the masses ... had very little chance of surviving the revolution" 1 . Thirdly, after 1889, the internal logic of the development of the domestic jury did not require major changes in the structure of this institution. And, finally, the political situation during the reorganization of any legal institution always leads to negative consequences in the future. The jury legally ceased to exist in Russia after the October Revolution. November 22 (December 5), 1917 Council of People's Commissars "Decree on the Court" No. 1 decided "to abolish the hitherto existing general judicial institutions, such as: district courts, judicial chambers and the Governing Senate with all departments ..." 2; the institution of jurors, which operated in these judicial places, was also abolished. In fact, the publication of "Decree on the Court" No. 1 did not mean the instant destruction of the judicial institutions of the Provisional Government. In particular, the jury operated for some time in the Nizhny Novgorod, Kostroma and some other provinces. So, on November 23-25, 1917, in the Arzamas district of the Nizhny Novgorod province, a session was held with the participation of jurors, and on December 13 of the same year in the Gorbatovsky district of the named province, a lot was held for the session from January 24 to 26, 1918. In the Kostroma province on January 25 In 1918, a list of persons entitled to be jurors in 1918 was compiled. Apparently, a similar situation developed in other localities. In Russian historiography, it is believed that the reason for the failure to comply with Decree on Court No. 1 was “counter-revolutionary bureaucratic sabotage”: “... in the former Ministry of Justice, officials categorically refused to cooperate with the Soviet government; all the old judiciary and prosecutorial oversight bodies, not recognizing the Soviet power, conducted the analysis of cases on behalf of the bourgeois Provisional Government” 3 . Sabotage most likely took place, but it probably did not reach large scales. Indeed, on court forms of the end of 1917 - beginning of 1918. it was indicated that the case was being investigated on behalf of the Provisional Government, but this was explained by the simple absence of new forms. It seems that the continuation of the work of the jury in Russia after its official abolition is due to the slow work of the Soviet authorities. "Court Decree" No. 1 was published in the press shortly after its appearance. But Russian officials are accustomed (this practice has developed over decades) to act only after receiving a special circular 1 . Newspapers were not particularly believed, especially in those troubled times. Only on January 27, 1918, the First Department of the People's Commissariat of Justice issued a "Decree on the Court" as a circular order and sent it to the localities. Shortly thereafter, the activities of the "old" judicial institutions finally ceased. Also not unreasonably, historiography mentioned another reason why the new government in a number of regions used the old judicial system for some time: this forced the leaders of local Soviets in some cases to go to the preservation of those state bodies, the activities of which were subject to complete and unconditional termination in accordance with the norms of government acts. In the Soviet period, there was no trial by jury as a form of administration of justice and could not be. However, since the mid-1950s 20th century the question of the revival of the jury as a discussion was raised by domestic lawyers F. Burlatsky, V. Kaminskaya, V. Nazhimov, R. Rakhunov. In the 60s. The publicist Yu. Feofanov also raised the question in the periodical press of the return to our judicial system of the forgotten jury 1 . With the beginning of the democratization of society and the state, associated with the name of M.S. Gorbachev, i.e. from the second half of the 80s. XX century, the number of publications in the press about the jury is increasing (at the same time, a discussion begins to unfold about the need to abolish the death penalty). By Decree No. 1801-1 of October 24, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR approved the Concept of Judicial Reform in the RSFSR, which states that everyone has the right to have his case tried by a jury if he is threatened with imprisonment for more than one year. After the approval of the Concept of Judicial Reform, the participation of jurors in the consideration of civil and criminal cases was provided for by the Constitution of the RSFSR as amended on November 1, 1991 (Article 166) and the Constitution of the Russian Federation. So, let's sum up some results. In the Roman Empire, the trial was conducted by a single judge. The collegiate form of consideration of cases originated in the depths of the Romano-Germanic system of law. During the period of Russkaya Pravda, most cases, especially those that were punished by "stream and plunder", began to be considered by the prince and his proxies. During the period of fragmentation in states that have retained a monarchical form of government, the judicial system does not undergo significant changes. In Novgorod and Pskov, a special practice is emerging, reflecting the presence of a patrician republic. Judicial powers were exercised by the Novgorod bishop and the veche (people's assembly), which acted as the highest court in cases of state and malfeasance. The prince, together with the mayor, created a court on certain categories of cases, he was forbidden to annul previous court decisions in the order of a new trial. During the period of the estate-representative monarchy, the court was carried out by the tsar, the Boyar Duma, orders and local governments. There was an ecclesiastical court. Acted patrimonial justice. During the period of Peter's transformations, the supreme judicial power belonged to the tsar. Throughout its history, the Russian jury did not remain static, but organically developed in accordance with the changes that took place in the state and social structure of the country. From 1864 to 1917 it had to go through several qualitatively different periods of development. The following periods of jury trial are distinguished from 1864 to 1917: I period- from November 20, 1864 to May 9, 1878; II period- from May 9, 1878 to July 7, 1889; III period- from July 7, 1889 to March 4, 1917; IV period - from March 4, 1917 to November 22 (December 5), 1917. At the end of 1864, the Judicial Charters were published in many newspapers and magazines, accompanied by more or less extensive comments. The new court began to operate a year and a half later, when the procedure and sequence for terminating cases in the old judicial institutions and transferring them to new courts was clearly defined. Under the influence of a combination of legal, mental and political reasons from 1878 to 1889. more than ten temporary and permanent laws were passed, significantly changing the law on juries. In fact, a new jury was created, which differs significantly from a similar institution of the 1864 model. There is no single view of the judicial legislation of the 70-80s. XIX century, and the discussion of supporters and opponents of the concept of "judicial counter-reform" came to a standstill. The time of the evolutionary development of the Russian jury, it lasted from the end of the crisis of 1878-1889. before the start of the legislative activity of the Provisional Government on the reorganization of the jury. In its continuation, the jury acted according to the laws established in the previous period. In the 70-80s. 19th century the jury has been changed quite a lot and brought into line with the conditions and requirements of Russian life. Therefore, there was no need to seriously change anything in it after the end of the crisis. Since 1890, throughout Russia, the role of the jury in criminal proceedings has been significantly reduced. After the Provisional Government came to power, the development of the jury went along the path of democratization. At this time, the competence of the jury was significantly expanded. So, on March 4, 1917, by decree of the Provisional Government, the special courts established by law were abolished, namely: the Supreme Criminal Court and the special presence of the Senate, judicial chambers and district courts with the participation of class representatives. By a decree of March 30, 1917, cases within the jurisdiction of these regulations were transferred to the jurisdiction of the jury. In all judicial bodies, the institution of class representatives was replaced by the institution of jurors. The democratization of the jury under the Provisional Government was also manifested in the fact that the property qualification was abolished for the election of assessors, as well as a number of other restrictions (for example, national, religious, etc.). By decrees of the Provisional Government of May 6 and 28, 1917, a military jury was established in Russia - an extremely rare occurrence in world history. The military jury acted not only in military units in the rear, but also on the fronts of the First World War, in certain cases its jurisdiction extended to the civilian population. The jury legally ceased to exist in Russia after the October Revolution. On November 22 (December 5), 1917, the Council of People's Commissars "Decree on the Court" No. 1 decided "to abolish the hitherto existing general judicial institutions, such as: district courts, judicial chambers and the Governing Senate with all departments ..."; the institution of jurors, which operated in these judicial places, was also abolished. In Art. 11 Fundamentals of the legislation of the USSR and the Union republics on the judiciary, adopted on November 13, 1989, it was possible to decide by a jury on the guilt of the defendant, who could be sentenced to death or imprisonment for a term of more than ten years. However, this provision was not implemented either in the legislation of the Union republics or in practice. By Decree No. 1801-1 of October 24, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR approved the Concept of Judicial Reform in the RSFSR, which states that everyone has the right to have his case tried by a jury if he is threatened with imprisonment for more than one year. Ensuring the participation of jurors in the consideration of civil and criminal cases was provided for by the Constitution of the RSFSR as amended on November 1, 1991 (Article 166) and the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
1 See: Marants Yu.V.
The abolition of serfdom in 1861 made it possible to carry out zemstvo, urban, military and other bourgeois reforms. As a result, new public institutions based on the principles of self-government were created, and the process of democratization of a number of branches of public administration began.
The judicial reform of November 20, 1864, by liquidating the old feudal court, removed a serious obstacle to the development of capitalism in Russia.
The jury was the most important institution introduced by this most consequential of reforms. Despite some limitations of the Russian jury in comparison with the jury of European and American countries, it embodied the basic principles of bourgeois law: the independence of the court, the oral and public nature of the process, the equality of all before the court, the participation of society in the administration of justice. The majority of criminal cases, three-quarters of the criminal cases, were decided by a jury.
There are many works on judicial reform and its main institutions. However, almost all of them are written by contemporaries and are of a polemical nature. In the few works of lawyers and historians of our time, the issues of preparing the reform and organizing a new court according to the Judicial Charters are mainly covered. There is still no monographic study on the history of the Russian jury trial.
One of the main questions in the history of any state or public institution is the question of its social composition. It is the composition that largely determines the nature of the institution, its activities, the attitude of society and authorities towards it. The question of the composition of the jury in Russia is primarily a political question, the question of the democratic nature of this institution, the degree of participation of the people in such an important branch of public administration as the court. The main indicator of the activity of the new court - its repressiveness - is also directly dependent on the composition of the jury.
The special significance of the question of the composition of the jury constantly attracted the attention of contemporaries to it. However, statistical information about Russian jurors has never been published. The system of judicial reporting did not provide for the collection of such information. Therefore, in reasoning about the composition of the jury, they were based either on practical experience (which, of course, could not cover the problem as a whole in the country), or on an analysis of the relevant articles of the Judicial Statutes.
According to the law, a juror could be a local inhabitant of any class, who met three basic requirements: Russian citizenship, age from 25 to 70 years and residence for at least two years in the county where the election to the jury was held. Criminals, insolvent debtors, the dumb, the blind, the deaf, the insane, and those who did not know the Russian language were not allowed to participate in the trial.
In order to determine the circle of people who had the right to be elected to the jury, initial, or general, lists were compiled in each county. They included honorary magistrates, civil officials not higher than the 5th class, as well as all persons who held elective public positions. other positions in the peasant public administration, created by the “Regulations of February 19, 1861”.
For all the rest, a property qualification was established: jurors could be appointed persons “owning land in the amount of at least 100 acres, or other real estate worth: in the capitals at least 2000 rubles, in provincial cities and townships - at least 1000, and in other places not less than 500 rubles, or those who receive a salary or income from their capital, occupation, craft or craft: in the capitals not less than 500, and in other places not less than 200 rubles a year.
It should be noted that the property qualification was not too high.
A.F. Koni wrote: “It was enough to receive 200 rubles of gross income or salary in a large provincial city in order to be included in the lists of jurors. But 16 rubles. 66 kop. monthly earnings for a resident of a large city is a sign of extreme poverty, and in the service such a remuneration indicates the lowest clerical positions, occupying which persons should be almost in need. Nevertheless, the bulk of the population of Russia, which consisted of a semi-poor peasantry, was deprived of the right to be jurors, since they did not meet these rather modest requirements.
The following were not included in the general lists: clergy and monastics, military officials who were in active service, civil officials seconded to the military department, employees of the judicial department, treasurers, foresters, police officers, teachers of public schools and all those who were "in the service of individuals." General lists were compiled by September 1, 1864 by "special * temporary commissions, consisting of persons appointed for this purpose annually by district zemstvo assemblies, and in the capitals - by joint meetings of general city dumas and local district zemstvo assemblies." Within a month, anyone who wished could declare to the commission about the incorrect inclusion or non-inclusion of someone in these lists. Upon correction, the general lists were submitted for verification to the governor, who by November 1 returned the lists and ordered them to be published. Then the same special commissions, but in a "reinforced" composition - chaired by the district marshal of the nobility and with the participation of one of the justices of the peace - at their discretion chose from the general lists a certain number of jurors to participate in the court during the year. The elected persons were included in the regular lists, distributed over the quarters of the year and notified of the deadlines for appearing in court. Simultaneously with the regular ones, lists of reserve jurors were drawn up from the residents of those cities in which court sessions were to be held. Reserve jurors were intended to replace in court those who did not appear or retired next. “The next list of jurors is entered: for the cities of St. Petersburg and Moscow with their counties - 1200 persons; in counties with more than 100 thousand inhabitants - 400 persons; in counties with less than 100 thousand inhabitants - 200 persons. [...] The following shall be included in the list of reserve jurors: for the cities of St. Petersburg and Moscow - 200, and for other cities - 60 persons”4.
Judicial statutes did not allow the participation of the administration in the selection of jurors. The governor was given only a control function: excluding someone from the general list, he was obliged to justify his decision. The lists were compiled by representatives of zemstvos and city dumas, which strengthened the importance of local public administration. However, the chairmanship of the county marshal of the nobility in a special commission and the participation of a magistrate in it limited the principle of the all-estate court.
Various interpretations of the law on the election of jurors often led to opposite conclusions.
In 1862, N.P. Ogarev, analyzing the articles “Basic provisions for the transformation of the judiciary in Russia”, argued that “there will be almost no sworn peasants” and that “a greater number of jurors will be appointed from government officials”5. In the spring of 1867, M.N. social strata." A columnist for the magazine Delo, based on figures on the composition of the country's population, suggested that the jury would be recruited mainly from the peasant class6.
Practicing lawyers who wrote about jury trials (A. M. Bobrishchev-Pushkin, A. F. Koni, N. P. Timofeev) noted that in the provinces the majority of jurors were peasants, but they did not provide specific data. There is not even approximate information in the literature about the size of the participation in the trial of jurors of other classes.
The report of the well-known lawyer and public figure K. K. Arsenyev at a meeting of the St. Petersburg Law Society on April 6, 1896 said: “We do not have elementary information about the jury, for example, about the distribution of estates and classes in the composition of the jury, about the number of educated, etc. The jurors are still those mysterious strangers that A. F. Koni spoke about.
And so far the jury is no less "mysterious strangers." In Soviet literature, the conclusion about the anti-democratic composition of the jury has long been firmly established. This conclusion is based not on an analysis of factual data, but on a study of the articles of legislation on the procedure for choosing jurors.
The presence of property and "service" qualifications, the leadership of the nobility in the commissions for compiling the lists of jurors had to exclude the possibility of wide participation of representatives of the common people in court. Therefore, from the point of view of formal logic, it is quite convincing the assertion that the peasants, who constituted the vast majority of the population of the country, were in fact not allowed to appear in court as a jury. However, Russian reality has made its own adjustments both to the legislators' assumptions and to the a priori decision on the composition of the jurors.
The issue of the need to collect and publish information about jurors has been repeatedly raised in the legal literature8. In the early 1870s, the government, concerned about too high an acquittal rate in cases of malfeasance, turned its attention to the composition of the jury. The archives of the Ministry of Justice preserved the "List of jurors in the Vladimir province for 1874"9. The list is attached to the governor's report as an illustration of the fact that there is a direct dependence of the repressiveness of the jury on its composition.
On June 12, 1884, the law "On changing the decisions on jurors" 10 was approved, which was called by contemporaries "the first short story about jurors." During the preparation of this law in March 1880, a special commission was created under the Senate under the chairmanship of M. N. Lyubochinsky, which organized a systematic collection of information about the jurors. Statements compiled according to a single form were sent from the field. Unfortunately, only the statements for 1883 have been preserved. They make up three huge volumes of the Annexes to the case “On changing the procedure for compiling general and ordinary lists of jurors” p. These statements are handwritten digital tables containing information about the number of jurors in each county, their belonging to a particular class, literacy and religion. Sometimes military personnel, clerical servants and peasants who had a property qualification were singled out. Most of the statements are drawn up carelessly, without observing the established form. When checking the final figures did not always converge. For this reason, this article uses only comparable and good statements (22 statements out of 62 preserved). However, this is quite enough to have an idea of the country as a whole, since the discrepancies in the class composition of jurors of various district courts are very small (the capital district courts are an exception). Figures on jurors in Russia are published here for the first time.
Another source of information about the composition of the jury was the newspapers - the local Gubernskiye Vedomosti, which annually published lists of regular and reserve jurors. Complete sets of newspapers have survived only in a few provinces. Our article presents data extracted from the Vladimir Provincial Gazette, Kazan Provincial Gazette and Nizhny Novgorod Provincial Gazette for 1873.
Comparison of data for 1873 with the corresponding figures for 1883 makes it possible to judge the degree of change in the composition of jurors over a decade in the same districts and on the basis of the same legislation on the procedure for their election.
The tables below provide summary data on the number of regular and reserve jurors appointed to serve in court this year. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the study of the composition of the jury requires a strictly differentiated approach, since the counties of provincial cities differ sharply in the composition of the jury from other counties. Because of this, three columns are allocated in the tables: separately for provincial districts, for other districts, and for the province as a whole.
The jurors are divided into four categories according to the class composition. Data on nobles and officials are presented in total, in one column. Approximately one-fifth of these persons are listed in our sources as nobles, the rest were officials: moreover, it is known that the Russian bureaucracy came mainly from the nobility. Among the merchants, about 20% were honorary citizens, hereditary and personal. The philistines, for whom the third column was allocated, were also included in the workshops, since those of them who could be jurors belonged to the philistine class; the guilds made up about 10% of the jurors from the burghers, the share of the raznochintsy included in the same column was approximately the same. The content of the fourth column, which reflects the participation of peasants in court, will be discussed separately.
First of all, attention is drawn to the opposite picture in the composition of the jury in the metropolitan counties and all the rest. In the St. Petersburg district, there were 15 times more nobles and merchants among the jury than peasants. In the other districts of this province, the number of peasants was more than twice the number of nobles and merchants combined. Approximately the same proportion is observed in the Moscow province.
There are also data on the composition of the jury in St. Petersburg and its district for 1873.13 At that time, among the regular and reserve jurors there were: nobles and officials - 54%, merchants - 14.6, bourgeois - 26.4 and peasants - 5% (in 1883, corresponding Table 1 Composition of the jury of the capital provinces in 188312 Jurors St. Petersburg province Moscow province capital county other counties total in the province capital county other counties total in the province Nobles and officials 1536 357 1893 996 273 1269 53, 0% 15.6% 36.6% 46.2% 8.2% 23.2% Merchants 389 196 586 700 517 1217 13.4% 8.6% 11.3% 32.4% 15.7% 22 .3% Philistines 840* 498 1338 286 673 959 29.0% 21.9% 25.8% 13.2% 20.4% 17.6% Peasants 135 1228 1363 178 1837 2015 4.6% 53.9% 26.3% 8.2% 55.6% 36.9% Total 2900 2279 5179 2160 3300 5460 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100oo Of which literate 92.3%** 1926 89.2% 1896 57 ,5% 3822 70.0% * The raznochintsy, who accounted for almost a fifth of the jurors of the county, are also included among the townspeople. awn of St. Petersburg as the official capital of the empire.
** Based on data from three uyezds: Tsarskoselsky, Ilisselburgsky and Novoladozhsky.
venously: 53%, 13.4, 29 and 4.6%). These figures indicate that there have been virtually no changes in ten years.
Since the bulk of the jurors of the capital were officials, it is interesting to find out to which class of the table of ranks they belonged. Such information is available for St. Petersburg for 1873. Of the 756 officials who at that time accounted for 54% of the capital's jurors14, four titled nobles did not have a rank, 107 people had a rank below the 10th class. There were 645 persons with higher ranks, that is, 6 times more. Among them were 3 secret, 90 active civil and 59 titular advisers. Thus, the great majority of the officials in the capital belonged to the highest and middle bureaucracy.
Peasants in 1873 made up only 5% of the total number of jurors in the capital, although in the early 1870s the population of St. Petersburg consisted of peasants by one third, while the nobles represented only about 10% of the capital's inhabitants. So, peasants rarely appeared among the jurors of the Moscow district. According to data for 1882, peasants made up 49.2% of all Muscovites, while nobles and officials, to whom almost half of the Moscow jurors belonged, only 7.4%16.
Table 1 shows that there were no serious differences in the composition of the jury in St. Petersburg and Moscow. At the same time, these data reflect the nature of both capitals of the empire. The face of the official city, Petersburg, is represented by the fact that more than half (53%) of the jurors here wore bureaucratic uniforms. The merchant, patriarchal appearance of the capital is expressed in the fact that in Moscow there were 2.5 times more merchants among the jurors (32.4% versus 13.4% in St. Petersburg), almost twice as many peasants (8.2% versus 4.6 %) and slightly fewer officials (46.2%).
In terms of the number of literates among jurors, the metropolitan provinces differed somewhat from each other, although in general the level of literacy was quite high.
Almost all the jurors of the capital provinces were Russian by nationality, as evidenced by their belonging to the Orthodox faith: 90.4% in the Petersburg province and 95.4% in Moscow.
General data indicate that the majority of jurors in the capital's provinces were representatives of the privileged classes. Peasants made up less than a third of the jurors here, despite the fact that in non-capital counties there were more than half of the peasants among the jurors.
The non-democratic composition of the jury is especially characteristic of the Petersburg and Moscow districts, where a total of about 6% of the assessors are represented by peasants. Such an extremely low percentage of peasants among the capital's "judges of conscience" is explained by the absence here of persons who held elective positions in peasant public administration. In addition, the property qualification in the capitals was two and a half times higher than the qualification established for jurors in other places. The unwillingness of the members of the commission for compiling the lists to allow representatives of the "lower" class to appear in court, when it was possible to choose from the "higher" strata of society, also had an effect.
The vast majority of the inhabitants of the capital were generally deprived of the right to take part in a jury trial. In 1875, out of 200,000 male Muscovites between the ages of 25 and 70, about 10,000, or only 5%, were included in the general list of jurors.
In total, only about 2% of the population of European Russia lived in both capitals18. The share of jurors in the metropolitan provinces in total amounted to approximately 1/20 of all jurors in the country. 19 Moscow, Kharkov, Odessa, Kazan, Saratov and Kyiv.
table 2
The composition of the sworn provincial provinces in 1883 Petty bourgeois 2014 8298 10312 23.8% 17.3% 18.3% Peasants 2147 30,227 32,374 25.2% 63.2% 57.4% Total 8509 47,855 56,364 100% 100% 100% Of which literate* 86.5% 51.9% 57.0% * The average literacy rate of jurors was calculated based on data from 12 provinces22.
In table. 2 presents data on the assessors of 20 district courts, which, as a rule, territorially coincided with the provinces of the same name20.
The composition of the jury in the provincial provinces differed significantly from those in the capital. More than half of the provincial jurors were represented by peasants, while nobles, officials and merchants made up about a quarter of the assessors.
As in the capital provinces, the composition of the jury of provincial districts in the provinces shows a completely opposite picture compared to the rest of the districts, where about two-thirds of the jurors were peasants. Very important is the fact that in non-gubernia districts there were almost 6 times more jurors than in the districts of provincial cities. This determined the situation in the country as a whole.
In three provinces, it is possible to compare the data of 1883 with the figures for 1873. In 1873, peasants accounted for 73.7% of regular jurors in Vladimir province, 78.1% in Nizhny Novgorod, and 72.2% in Kazan. After 10 years, the proportion of peasants decreased somewhat, but still remained the largest: 64.8% in Vladimirskaya, 73.1% in Nizhny Novgorod and 70.6% in Kazanskaya. In 1883, due to some reduction in the number of peasants among regular jurors, there was an increase in the proportion of philistines: in the Vladimir province by 10%, in Nizhny Novgorod by 3% and in Kazan by 8%, which was a consequence of the growth of the urban population caused by the development of capitalist relations 23.
It was noted above that there were no noticeable changes in the composition of the jury in the metropolitan provinces during the decade from 1873 to 1883. This is also indicated by the data for the three provincial provinces. This allows us to confidently assume that in other provinces the social composition of the jury during the indicated period did not change significantly.
The participation of workers and workshops in jury trials was not prohibited by the Judicial Charters. However, for this it was necessary to earn at least 16 rubles in the provinces. 66 kop. per month, and in the capitals - 2.5 times more (41 rubles. 66 kopecks). The average monthly salary of an adult worker in the country was 14 rubles. 16 kop. (on their grubs). Only in two branches of industry wages met the property qualification in the provinces: at machine-building enterprises, where workers received an average of 23 rubles. 74 kopecks, and in the spinning and weaving industry - 16 rubles. 82 kop. More than 200 rubles. artisans of all factories also earned an average of 18 rubles a year. 41 kop. per month24. Thus, the metropolitan workers were completely excluded from participation in the court as they did not meet the property qualification. In the provincial lists of jurors there are only a few artisans, that is, in other cities, workers were practically deprived of the right to be part of the jury.
There are data on the shop shops for the Nizhny Novgorod province for 1873. Among the jurors of the Nizhny Novgorod district, shop shops accounted for 2.8%, Balakhna district - 0.5, Ardatovsky - 4.7 and Arzamas - 4%. In other counties of this province, there were no guilds among the juries25. There were half as many guild members among the jurors of the named districts as there were officials, who constituted a minority in the regular lists.
Practically all "provincial officials included in the lists of jurors had a class rank. Office servants were a rare exception in the provinces, and among the metropolitan jurors they were not at all.
In 12 provinces for which there is complete information on the number of literate people, almost half of the jurors could neither read nor write. The literacy qualification was not established, and the peasants, who made up the majority of the jury, were for the most part illiterate. Especially low was the percentage of literacy among jurors of non-gubernia districts. During the circuit courts' circuit sessions, it was not uncommon to have to resort to a second drawing of lots, because of the 12 members of the jury, there was not one who could be appointed foreman of the jury, who, by law, must be literate. The reason for this was a very low level of literacy among the population, especially in rural areas. Nevertheless, the average literacy rate of jurors in the provinces was more than twice the average literacy rate of men in 50 provinces of European Russia (among those recruited for military service in 1883, there were 24.5% literate26).
The nationality of the jurors was not indicated in the sources. It can be judged with sufficient completeness by belonging to one or another religion. So, the jury, who professed Orthodoxy, were overwhelmingly Russian. Lutheranism pointed to the Germans and immigrants from the Baltic states, Catholicism - to the Poles, Judaism - to the Jews, and Islam - to the Tatars.
The jurors of the central provinces were almost 100% Russian. On the outskirts of European Russia, where the majority of the population was "foreign", the picture is somewhat different. In some counties of the Kazan province (Mamadyshsky, Laishevsky, Tetyushsky), almost every fourth juror was a Muslim, and in general in this province there were about 12% of the jurymen among the Tatars. Among the jurors who took part in the work of the Simferopol district court, Tatars were about 18%, and in the Perm and Simbirsk provinces, which were part of the Kazan judicial district, only about 4%27.
With the greatest consistency, the policy of discrimination was carried out in relation to persons of Jewish nationality, who constituted a significant part of the population of the Western and Southwestern Territories. The law on the introduction of a new court in nine western provinces (Kyiv, Volyn, Podolsk, Vitebsk, Vilensk, Kovno, Grodno, Mogilev and Minsk) specifically stated that the proportion of Jews among jurors should not exceed their percentage of the total population . Only Christians could be foremen of the jury; Jews were not allowed to participate in cases against the faith. As a result of all these measures in the Kyiv province, where Jews in some districts made up half of the population, there were about 10% of the jurors among them. The same was observed in Volyn province 29.
The numerical predominance of the peasant element in the jury played an important role in the history of the new court. Therefore, it is necessary to find out what caused this predominance, what the "gentlemen of the jury" from the peasants were like, and what significance their wide participation in the jury trial had.
The compilers of the Judicial Statutes could not help but foresee that in a country with a peasant population, a significant part of the jury would be represented by people from the "lower" class. However, judging by the text of the articles of the legislation, it is unlikely that the authors of the judicial reform assumed that the peasants would form an absolute majority among the jurors.
The main reason for this, of course, was the very structure of the population of Russia, which consisted of almost 90% of the peasants. Important circumstances that largely determined the composition of the jury were the conditions for the operation of the new court and the shortcomings of the legislation on the procedure for electing a jury.
Already in the "honeymoon" of judicial reform, when the jury had just begun its work and was very popular, there was a tendency in the upper strata of society to evade the duty of the jury. After the very first sittings of the jury, the liberal Moscow newspaper Golos reported on a rumor spreading in St. Petersburg that the metropolitan aristocracy had decided to boycott the jury. In "The Bell" by A. I. Herzen, this feuilleton was reprinted in full under the eloquent heading: "Kholops in the soul can hardly be made free people"30. Characteristic was the unsuccessful attempt by one person to be relieved of his duties as a juror on the grounds that he was a hereditary nobleman and had the right not to serve at all31.
During the first months of the work of the jury in St. Petersburg, 18 people were put on trial for malicious evasion (failure to appear in court 3 times in a row) from participating in the jury32. Over time, this number has increased. The ranks of the opposing aristocracy were replenished at the expense of a certain part of the privileged strata of the population.
In 1874, in a letter to the Moscow mayor, the chairman of the district court pointed out that from year to year the number of people who received education was decreasing in the lists. “Not to mention the lists of jurors for 1866 and 1867, compiled almost exclusively of educated people, the lists for 1868, 1869 and 1870 still abounded with such. But in recent years, and especially in 1874, the name of an educated person appears in the lists of jurors as an exception. The same process took place in St. Petersburg: “in 1886, representatives of the most developed and educated classes of the population accounted for 36% of the entire jury”34.
195 In the provinces, there was little evasion of the honorary duty of a jury in the early years. One of his contemporaries wrote: “The jurors of our first years, they were people for selection, our intelligentsia itself aspired to the ranks of the jury, all the best forces of the county sought this honor, of course, among them were merchants, and philistines, and peasants, but at the same time, they were all literate, developed people; it was considered absolutely impossible to let an illiterate person on the jury”35.
Gradually, jury evasion became quite common in the provinces as well. In Kazan, for example, in 1883 the number of non-appearances was 22.5%, which sometimes served as the reason for the postponement of court sessions, since the failure of 7 out of 36 called persons entailed the possibility of non-election of the jury of 12 people. In the entire Kazan province, 13% of the jurors did not appear this year. According to 1884 data, there were 12% of such people in the Pskov District Court. Elsewhere the situation was no better. During the first six and a half years of the new court's activity (1866-1872), 2,358 people were subjected to judicial penalties for evasion36. It should be noted that during this period about half a million jurors took part in the court sessions throughout the country.
The self-elimination of the tops of society attracted the attention of governments as well. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Internal Affairs sent out inquiries to the province about the reasons for this phenomenon. Responses from the field led to the conclusion that "the reason for the avoidance of persons of educated classes from participating in sessions with jurors is very often: 1) the duration of the session in most district courts and 2) the extreme unsatisfactory premises for jurors, not only in places visits of the court, but also in the permanent premises of district courts”37.
It should be noted that, by law, jurors were not allowed to leave the courthouse until the end of the case. It often happened that complex cases were considered for several days, sometimes even weeks. The district courts were usually located in old, neglected buildings, which were cold in winter, smoked by stoves, and hot and stuffy in summer. There were no buffets, no bedding. The jurors settled down to spend the night on bare benches in the premises for the public or in the office, sometimes next to unattractive "material evidence" - murder weapons, dissected body parts of crime victims, etc.
In addition to all this, in the “high-profile” cases that were discussed in the press even before the trial, one or another verdict that did not meet the expectations of the public caused a hail of reproaches and all kinds of suspicions against the jury.
It is quite natural that people accustomed to comfort, who occupied a prominent position in society, or simply indifferent to the affairs of justice, tried to evade the heavy and unpleasant sworn duty.
By the beginning of the court session, as a contemporary wrote, “the next jurors from wealthy merchants and nobles were suddenly attacked by a whole craze of a wide variety of diseases, wealthy landowners were subjected to sudden accidents in the household, officials were imbued with exceptional zeal for the execution of special instructions from their superiors, and instead of all they were only evidence of illness, requests, petitions and statements of various bosses at the court. Some peasants and petty-bourgeois neatly carried a heavy duty for them, more than for anyone else”38. Rich people sometimes simply paid off by paying a fine for not showing up. Some made contact with members of the jury list committee. In the end, the burden of swearing was shifted onto the shoulders of ordinary people, mainly peasants.
The Russian peasantry was far from being a homogeneous mass, so it is necessary to find out from which strata jurors were most often recruited.
The law arranged the jury selection in such a way that only the most “trustworthy” and wealthy peasants got into the jury. Let us recall that the lists of jurors included peasants, firstly, who met the conditions of the property qualification and, secondly, who occupied certain positions in the peasant administration. At the same time, the latter were not required to possess a certain amount of property, land or income. Judging by the data of our sources, the main mass of the peasant jurors belonged to the second category.
According to the “Information on jurors in the Velikolutsk district”, 85% of the peasants included in the lists of jurors from 1879 to 1882 were village elders, volost foremen, etc. Peasants who had at least 100 acres of land, there were these lists 11%, and received an income of at least 200 rubles. per year - only 4%. Information about the structure of the peasant representation among the jurors is available for the Mogilev and Letichesky districts, as well as for 8 districts of the Oryol province. In all these areas, there is almost the same ratio as in the Velikolutsky district. So, in 8 counties of the Oryol province, 85% of the peasant jurors did not meet the requirements of the property qualification. Approximately 2/3 were village elders, not all of them were prosperous. Of the 224 village elders included in the lists of jurors of the Mogilev district, only 56 owned the required amount of property 39.
In the central and western provinces, where the bulk of the jurors were located, there are on average about 5% of the jurors from peasants who had at least 100 acres of land. In some non-chernozem provinces (Novgorod, Samara, Perm, Simbirsk), the number of such peasants sometimes exceeded 50%. This, however, did not mean that all were prosperous owners, since "the qualification of 100 dessiatins, which is very significant in the black earth provinces, represents the meager income in other places"40.
Freeing part of the peasants from the property qualification, the authors of the judicial reform apparently assumed that the most prosperous and "well-intentioned" people were elected to positions in peasant public administration. In practice, however, wealthy peasants generally avoided elective office. As a result, the idea of a "strong man" in the place of a juror was not implemented. Most of the peasants who were included in the jury lists on the basis of the "service" qualification came from the poorest strata of the people.
One of the reports to the Minister of Justice said: "The composition of our jury at the trial in the majority always consists of representatives of the poor, almost hungry, illiterate peasantry, semi-literate philistinism and petty bureaucracy." Sometimes among the jurors one could see those who were reported in the report by the prosecutor of the Vladimir District Court: Dubnikovo Piotr Leontiev, 62, who directly told the court that if he was not fired, he would have to starve to death; this peasant was wearing a worn-out prisoner's robe, which he had acquired out of poverty from among those sold for being worthless, and on the robe there were traces of letters denoting a convict prisoner "41.
As the Minister of the Interior noted, it was not uncommon to observe “the appearance among them of such persons who, being deprived of their means of subsistence, are forced to be hired in their free time from court hearings for day work [...], asking jurors for alms through the streets, sometimes in a crowd”42 .
The poverty of the jury was a common phenomenon, constantly attracting the attention of society. The newspapers carried dozens of reports of starving "judges of conscience." Some zemstvos, on their own initiative, began to give out small allowances to needy jurors. However, by the Decree of September 5, 1873, the Senate prohibited this, based on the fact that the Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions (adopted, by the way, earlier than the Judicial Charters) did not provide for such expenses.
Such a phenomenon as the numerical predominance of peasants in the Russian jury trial cannot be unequivocally assessed. It had a contradictory meaning both for the peasants themselves and for the new judicial institution.
For the peasants, participation in the court was a heavy duty, from which they could not evade. At the same time, this participation raised the level of people's legal awareness, had a great educational and educational impact. Peasant jurors were favorably distinguished by the fact that they were well aware of the living conditions and motives for the crime of the majority of the defendants, who also belonged to the peasant class. In 1873, for example, peasants made up 86.8% of the population of all 6 judicial districts that were then in operation and 61.9% of all those convicted by the court43.
At the same time, the peasants, who successfully coped with the mass of cases of "everyday" crimes (murders, thefts, etc.), were the most conservative element when it came to crimes against the church or those that had political overtones. The peasant composition of the jury could hardly justify Vera Zasulich.
Despite the majority on the jury, the peasants were not always the element of the court whose opinion determined the verdict. Sometimes they fell under the influence of eloquent representatives of the privileged classes, who were able to convince the illiterate and tongue-tied majority of the need for a particular verdict.
In the vast majority of cases, jury verdicts were simple and fair (as evidenced, in particular, by a small percentage of appeals). They expressed the attitude of the people to the phenomena of Russian reality and forced to change a number of outdated and cruel laws that did not correspond to society's ideas about the relationship between crime and punishment.
However, there were also examples of the apparent injustice of the jury in certain categories of criminal cases: merciless cruelty to horse thieves and blasphemers, excessive leniency towards crimes against women's honor and abuses of officials. There was also a sharp increase in the number of acquittals before major Christian holidays. As a result, the repressiveness of the jury during the period under review was 12% lower than the repressiveness of the crown court 44.
The predominance of the ignorant, half-impoverished peasant masses of power in the jury was not without reason considered one of the main reasons for the not always satisfactory work of the jury. The way to "correct" this judicial institution was seen in improving the composition of the jury by attracting educated sections of the population to it.
This could be achieved by eliminating the reasons for the elimination of the privileged part of society, that is, by improving the conditions for the functioning of the jury. However, the ruling circles did not find an opportunity to allocate the necessary funds for this. It was decided to achieve this goal in a way that is generally characteristic of the activities of the Russian government - by increasing administrative pressure and restrictive measures.
On June 12, 1884, the above-mentioned law "On changing the regulations on jurors" was passed, which allowed police officials to form a jury, halved the right to challenge and reduced the number of reserve jurors. The number of juries was sharply increased in the capitals and reduced in the provinces. On April 28, 1887, a new law was approved “On changing the rules for compiling lists of jurors”45. He doubled the qualifications for jurors, gave governors the right to exclude any of the lists without explaining the reasons, and established a rule that jurors could read - in the words of G. A. Dzhanshiev, “the semi-literacy qualification”, since literacy implies the ability to read and write46.
We do not have actual data on how much the composition of the jury has changed as a result of these laws, but we think that this change was not significant, since the structure of the population of the country remained the same, and the reasons for avoiding jury participation were not eliminated.
Under Alexander III, a political course was taken to strengthen the positions of the nobility in all state and public institutions. This was done by reducing the representation of peasants and philistines, whose share in the mid-1880s was significant: in the county zemstvos they accounted for about 40%, and in the county city dumas, where the bulk of the urban councilors of Russia were located, almost half47. It should be noted that the new laws adopted for this purpose - the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” of June 12, 1890 and the “City Regulations” of June 11, 1892 - could not radically change the composition of zemstvo and city vowels.
The jury in its composition was the most democratic of all the institutions established in Russia as a result of bourgeois reforms. The political nature of the institution of jurors manifested itself more clearly in comparison with local self-government bodies (zemstvos and city dumas): the jury had the right to pardon on a large scale, which was previously the exclusive prerogative of the supreme power; With their judgments, the jury influenced the change in legislation, was the personification of the power of the majority in the implementation of one of the most important parts of public administration - the judiciary.
Therefore, with the establishment of a reactionary political course, the authorities first of all decided to bring into line with the autocratic form of government the most progressive and democratic institution, which was the jury. The reactionary journalism that expressed the official opinion, based on individual examples of unfair verdicts, called the jury trial a "street court" and demanded its immediate abolition.
On the pages of Moskovskie Vedomosti, Grazhdanin, and some other press organs, a real persecution of the new court unfolded. According to the capital's legal journal, "in the first 25 years of its existence in Russia, the jury has endured immeasurably more attacks than all other institutions brought to life by the statutes of Emperor Alexander II"48.
Laws 1884 and 1887 were the first links in the chain of government measures aimed at curtailing the already insignificant participation of society in governing the country, at strengthening the noble-bureaucratic apparatus of the autocracy. one
As a manuscript, we have our dissertation, defended at Moscow State University in 1979, “Jury trial in Russia (organization, composition and activities in
1866 ^ 1885)". It deals with the first period of existence
Russian jury. 2
PSZ. Sobr. 2. No. 41475. Art. 84.3
Ko N and A. F. Sobr. op. T. 4. M., 1965. S. 263. 4
PSZ. Sobr. 2. No 41475. Art. 85, 86, 89, 97-99, 107, 100, 102.5
Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1867. March 31. No. 73; A business. 1868. N ° 5 "Internal Review". S. 104. 7
Journal of the Law Society at the Imperial St. Petersburg University. 1896. Book. 9. November. S. 11. 8
Legal Bulletin. 1871. Book. 1. S. 51; Journal of civil and criminal law. 1882. Book. 2 p. 84; 1885. Book. 3. S. 18-L9. 9
TsGIA USSR. F. 1405 (Ministry of Justice). Op. 69. D. 7033". L 212v. - 213. 10
PSZ. Sobr. 3. No. 23.14. eleven
TsGIA USSR. F. 1405. Op. 73. D. 3655a. L. 119-1U9 v.; D. 3656a. 36566, 3656c. Appendix I, II, III. 12
The table is compiled on the basis of the following sources: List of jurors for the district of the St. Petersburg District Court for 1883 with their distribution by quarters of the year (TsGIA USSR. F. 1405. Op. 73. D. 3656a. L. 2 ob. - 3); Summary sheet of jurors for the district of the Moscow District Court for 1883 (ibid. L. 23-27). 13
LGIA. F. 53 (Petrograd Historical and Philological Institute). On. 1. D. 460. L 9-9 rev. fourteen
In 1873, 1,200 regular and 200 alternate jurors were elected in the St. Petersburg district. This was not enough for a city with a population of 700 thousand people, and after 10 "years - almost 1 million. Therefore, it was decided to double the number of jurors. In 1883 it amounted to 2400 regular and 500 spare (PSZ. Collection 2. N ° 54751 The number of jurors in Moscow was also increased.15
Judicial statutes exempted officials above the 5th class from sworn duty (PSZ. Sobr. 2. N ° 41475. S. 84. P. 2). The presence here of 93 officials of the 3rd-4th grades is explained by the fact that the law did not forbid the highest ranks to take part in the jury trial at will.
16 Rashin A. G. The population of Russia for a hundred years. 1811-1913. Statistical essays. M., 1956. S. 129. Tab. 91; P. 125. Tab. 88.17
TsGIA of Moscow. F. 16. Op. 225. D. 1132. L. 2. 18
See: Rashin A. G. Decree. op. P. 45. Tab. 19; P. 111. Tab. 69.19
In the first half of the 1880s, about 160 thousand regular jurors were appointed annually (TsGIA USSR. F. 1406. Op. 86. D. 3007. L. 85). Together with the reserve, this amounted to 200 thousand, while in the capital provinces there were 10.5 thousand jurors. twenty
These are the provinces: Vladimir, Voronezh, Volyn (Lutsk district court), Yekaterinoslav, Kazan, Kyiv, Bessarabia region (Kishinev district court), Nizhny Novgorod, Penza, Perm (Perm and Yekaterinburg district courts), Pskov (Velikolutsky district court ), Ryazan, Simbirsk, Smolensk, Tauride, (Simferopol district court), Tambov, Tver, Chernigov and Yaroslavl. 21 The table was compiled according to the “Bulletin of jurors” for 1883 (TsGIA USSR. F. 1405. Op. 73. D. 3656 a. L. 2 rev.-3, 10 rev.-I, 13, 23, 28, 30v -31, 50, 54, 55v - 56, 58, 68, 84, 130v - 131, 141v - 142, 162, .175, 180, 191v - 192, 197 , 201v - 202, 205, 227, 232v - 233, 243, 245, 247v - 248, 259v - 260, 268v -269, 271). 22
Vladimir, Kazan, Kyiv, Bessarabia regions, Penza, Perm, Simbirsk, Tauride, Voronezh, Tambov, Tver and Yaroslavl regions. In absolute terms, the literate in the lists of regular and reserve jurors were: in the provincial districts 4768 out of a total of 5514 people, in the remaining districts - 16668 out of 32105; in total in 12 provinces - 21,436 out of 37,619. 23
More detailed information about jurors in the three indicated provinces is available in our article in the journal Questions of History (1978, No. 6). 24
See Balabanov N. Essays on the history of the working class in Russia. Part 2. Kyiv, 1924. S. 94-95. 25
Nizhegorodskie Vedomosti. 1872. No. 48, 58; 1873. No. 2, 5, I. 26
See R and sh and n A. G. Decree. op. S. 304. Tab. 253.27
TsGIA USSR. F. 1405. Op. 73. D. 3656a. L. 192, 175, 202, 227, 232 about 233 28
PSZ. Sobr. 2. No 57 589. Art. 5, 7, 8.
* TsGIA USSR. F. 1405. Op. 73. D. 3556a. L. 248, 260, 268-269v. thirty
Department of Justice report for 1866. SPb., 1869. S. 21. 33
TsGIA of Moscow. F. 16. Op. 225. D. 1132. L. 1 rev. 34
Timofeev I.P. Jury trial in Russia. Judicial essays. M., 1882. S. 91.
56 TsGIA USSR. F. 1405. Op. 73. D. 3656a. L. 179; L. 1; Op. 521. D. 88-90, 94; Op. 68. D. 1894; Op. 69. D. 889; Op. 71. D. 2638, 2639. 37
TsGIA USSR. F. 1405. Op. 69. D. 7033 6. L. 108v. 38
A business. 1884. No. 3. "Modern Review". S. 75. 39
TsGIA USSR. F. 1405. Op. 73. D. 36566. L. 14, 182; D. 3656c. L. 91-91 rev.; D. 36566. L 182.40
Russian messenger. 1885. T. 176. S. 11. 41
TsGIA USSR. F. 1405. Op. 69. D. 7033c. L. 213; L. 24. 42
TsGIA of Moscow. F. 16. Op. 225. D. 1132. L. 12. 43
A summary of statistical information on criminal cases that arose in 1873. St. Petersburg, 1874. S. 53. 44
On the activities of the jury, see our article in the collection: Proceedings of the State Historical Museum. Issue. 67. M., 1988. S. 56-74. 45
PSZ. Sobr. 3. No. 4396.
See: Dzhanshiev G. A. Fundamentals of judicial reform. M., 1891. S. 177-178. 47
See: Zakharova L. G. Zemskaya counter-reform of 1890. M., 1968. S. 153; Pisarko in a L.F. Moscow city public administration from the mid-1880s to the first Russian revolution: Abstract of the thesis. cand. dis. M., 1980. S. I. 48
More on the topic A.K. AFANASIEV JURERS IN RUSSIA. 1866-1885:
Chapter 22Before the reader of the novel, a completely finished you-thinking world unfolds. The reader must perceive all the information provided to him by the author: temporal, spatial, conceptual. In order to fully perceive the novel, one needs to enter into the details of the plot, and then move from the details to the general meaning of the entire structural whole. As in the process of putting together a jigsaw puzzle, the reader must weave the people and their locations into the big picture. In a sense, he must re-create a fictional reality that was only prepared for him.
The work of John Wyndham "Deviation from the norm" is a novel, because the author shows many stories that describe several life images, heroes. This is a multifaceted work with a large volume.
It can also be noted that Chrysalis is a psychological novel. It is distinguished by a special attention to the inner world of a person. His technical arsenal includes analytical commentary, symbolism, internal monologue and stream of consciousness. The most common forms of the psychological novel are the "nurture novel" and the detailed portrait. A portrait means a consistent study of a character at a moment of crisis. The upbringing novel traces the times and stages in the life of a protagonist pursuing a specific goal. An optimistic mood prevails in it, because the goal to be achieved is artistic or professional success, spiritual growth, and the achievement of emotional fullness. The protagonist studies the world, suffers, and in the end resolves, or at least begins to understand in a new way, all the conflicts that tormented him in childhood or adolescence.
The name comes from an analogy with the evolution of insects from larva to adult stage. The people of Labrador are stuck in the pupa stage; they have not evolved and do not want to change. David and his friends are also changing and moving towards a more advanced stage of humanity. A woman from Sealand tells them: “The necessary qualities of life for the living are the necessary qualities of life for change. Change is evolution and we are part of it.”
John Wyndham's book is about that. There is a post-apocalyptic world and people who survived the end of our civilization. Only they no longer remember how the world was before. Religious fanatics rule the world in these tiny villages. Here every deviation from the norm is destroyed, starting with the wrong plants and animals, which are subject to extermination by their owners, despite the fact that without them they risk starving to death, and ending with people with whom society treats no less cruelly. No, babies are not killed, they are only sterilized and left outside of civilized society - in the Jungle, where their only chance to survive is to be found by the same outcasts as they are in the future.
As a result, there are two terrible and unsuitable for a normal existence of the world: in one, fanaticism and intolerance rule, in the other, anger and grief from the impossibility of having a normal life, a family.
And there are main characters who differ from others subtly and for the time being imperceptibly. It is they who will be forced to face both worlds and try to survive in this chaos.
“Someday you will understand the meaning of the highest fidelity - Loyalty to the Purity of the Race”, what else besides this quote is needed to tell about the world in which the hero lives? It may be that a person is a creature that has one head, two arms and legs, five fingers on each limb, and each finger should have a nail.
If there is not at least one of the above, or vice versa - an excess, then you are not a person. You are a monster, a mutant. And monsters were killed quite recently, and now - in godless too mild times - they are just sterilized and left on the edge of the jungle.
A harsh world after a certain Punishment, which changed the face of the Earth and threw humanity back in development for several generations in terms of scientific and technological progress, and in matters of faith and tolerance, it generally threw it to no one knows where: after all, heretics or pagans, although they were tortured and killed, but they recognized the presence of a soul, tried to save them. And a mutant is not a person, he has no soul, he is nobody.
A small child who first encountered a hidden mutant living among people does not even understand at first that he is communicating with ... with whom? Who is his little girlfriend who has sixth toes? Who? A brave, smart and funny girl or an enemy that needs to be reported? Reality is not like religious texts and hammered axioms. Reality says that the girl is the same as yourself, and the finger is so small, how can a whole child be evil in the eyes of the Lord because of such smallness?
A smooth, completely unemotional narration, as if detached, could muffle emotions if it were not broken through by the nightmares of little David, in which friends and relatives are killed, in which mutants were suddenly discovered. In these dreams, all the horror of the situation in which the hero fell, the contradiction of the law with life's realities, splashes out. Cruelty and incomprehensibility of the established rules.
But in general, the world in which David lives can be understood, or at least try to understand: the nuclear catastrophe gave birth to mutants among people, animals, plants. People hold on to the usual framework: everything that deviates from the norm is destroyed, but evolution goes on its own in this world. I already wrote that even in the memory of the hero’s grandfather, mutants were killed, but David’s father is still alive, and morals have softened. What would happen in a few more generations? How much would people change the requirements for the norm? This is no longer known.
David's uncle, a former sailor who has seen other people, people who perceive the norm in their own way and could be considered mutants, tells him about it. And this information: there is another concept of the norm and is the main idea of the book. Later, another opinion will be expressed, arising from the postulate just stated: no one knows what it is - the norm. Indeed: where is this reference sample, which will be the norm for everyone and for all time? There's no such thing. Everything flows, everything changes. People change. The concept of the norm is also changing, only to move away from it in general - in some ways it is impossible, wrong, but in some ways it is simply very difficult.
We all live in a world of proclaimed norms, state, religious, public, personal. And many of these norms - it is not clear by whom and for whom they were established - prevent some people from living, while others are given the opportunity to feel their superiority, explain their failures in life, and show aggression. Destroy or declare the need to destroy those who do not meet the norm.
So the book is very relevant. Yes, for many new horizons she will not open - in the end, everything she is about is not secret knowledge, but the result of a rather simple reflection, but even just to remind that someone not like you is also a person and has the same rights like you, there is no excess. Chrysalis is set in the future after a devastating global nuclear war. David, the young protagonist of the novel, lives in a tight-knit community of religious and genetic fundamentalists, always on the alert for any deviation from the norm of God's creation. Abnormal plants were publicly burned, with much singing of hymns. Abnormal people (who are not people) are also doomed to perish - if they manage to escape to the backyards of that Wild Country, where, as the authorities say, nothing is reliable, and the devil does his work. David grows up, surrounded by warnings: keep the Lord's clean supply; look you for a mutant. At first he didn't question. Then, however, he realizes that he, too, is out of the ordinary, in possession of a power that can doom him to death or introduce him to a new, hitherto unimaginable world of freedom. Chrysalis is a beautifully crafted and constructed piece from the classic era of science fiction, a Voltairian philosophical tale that has so much resonance in our time, when religious and scientific dogmatism is on the march, and when it was written during the Cold War.
The dropping of the atomic bomb, the start of the Cold War, and the fears of communism and nuclear war brought new intensity and dire forebodings to science fiction. General The central plot line in most of his major works is the struggle for survival in extreme conditions. A hero is often an ordinary character who works to break out of an uncivilized society.
Most interesting is how Wyndham himself relates to the opposing factions. He shows contempt for the residents' belief system. The first part of the novel thus shows all tolerance. The burden of the current dominant ideology is one of the main problems with writing science fiction: too often its future scenarios extrapolate current trends -- a reflection of today's worries, fears and aspirations -- what to ignore rather than accept, the likelihood of a paradigm shift in the human mind -- qualitative change in values. This possibility makes everything obsolete.
John Wyndham's novel can be called a dystopian novel. This is a special kind of literary genre, or, as it is sometimes called, the "parodic genre." It was characterized, like all genres of this study:
- - conformity of its samples to a certain tradition;
- - a set of conventional methods and interpretations
If utopias turned to a relatively peaceful, pre-crisis time in anticipation of the future, then dystopias were written in a difficult period of failure. A dystopian novel is a novel in which the absurdity and absurdity of the new order is revealed.
The dystopian novel showed the failure of the utopian ideas. It is impossible to build an ideal society where there would be happiness for everyone.
Signs of dystopia:
- - images of a certain society or state, their political structure;
- - the image of the action in the distant future (the future is assumed);
- - demonstration of negative phenomena in the life of a socialist society, class morality, leveling of the individual;
- - narration on behalf of the characters, in the form of a diary, notes;
- - residents of dystopian cities are characterized by such features as rationalism and programming
If we take as a basis for the classification the originality of science fiction, which has become the main tool, denying the utopian dream, absurd reality and the dominant poetics of anti-utopia, then we can conditionally single out such types of genre.
There are many falling towers in the world, which, for completely different reasons, deviated from the vertical state and lean menacingly. Typically, the slope of the towers occurs due to changes in the properties of the soil or due to builders' mistakes when laying the foundations. Oddly enough, such towers often become attractions that attract crowds of tourists. Some of these leaning towers, due to their high historical and artistic value, are included in the List of Cultural Heritage of Humanity, or in the Guinness Book of Records.
The bell tower of the Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta or the Leaning Tower of Pisa is undoubtedly the most famous "leaning" tower in the world. The first stone in its foundation was laid on August 9, 1173. The angle of the tower is 4 degrees.
The church in Zuurhusen is located in East Frisia in northwestern Germany. Prior to the construction in 2010 of the Capital Gate tower in Abu Dhabi, according to the Guinness Book of Records, it was the most tilted tower in the world. The spire of Zuurhusen deviated from the vertical axis by 5.19 degrees with a tower height of only 24.7 meters.
In the capital of Ukraine, Kyiv, there is also a falling attraction - the Great Lavra Bell Tower of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. It was built in the years 1731-1745 and today deviated from the vertical by 62 cm in a northeasterly direction.
Big Ben, London, UK. The clock tower of the British Parliament leaned to the northwest by 0.26 degrees or 43.5 cm. It seems to be a little, but for the British this is already a whole event.
Two towers Asinelli (Asinelli) and Garisenda (Garisenda) in the city of Bologna, Italy, fall despite the best efforts of the city authorities. The larger tower is called Asinelli, and the smaller but more off-axis is Garisenda. Its deviation is already more than 3.22 meters.
The tower on the hillside of the Frankenhausen Church (Germany) on the outskirts of the city, is constantly exposed to strong winds.
Tower in Nevyansk, Russia. The tower is located in the center of Nevyansk and is one of the most famous in the Middle Urals. The construction was financed by Peter the Great, built in the first half of the 18th century by the well-known Russian builder Akinfiy Demidov. The height of the tower is 57.5 m. According to the latest measurements, the deviation of the upper part of the tower from the vertical is currently 2.20 m.
Tiger Hill Pagoda or Huqiu Tower is located in Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province. The tower was erected in the late period of the Fifth Dynasties (907-960 AD) and is 47 m high. For more than a thousand years, the Tiger Hill Pagoda has continued to tilt. The slope of the tower today is 2.32 m.
Burano Tower, or the Church of St. Martin on one of the Venetian islands - Burano, Italy. The tower was built in the 15th century. Due to the unstable island soil, it began to roll. She does not fall just because she is leaning on a nearby building.
The Oude Kerk Church is located in the historic center of Delft, the Netherlands. Its bell tower, built in 1350, has a height of 75 meters, currently its slope is 1.98 meters.
The Bedum Tower, The Netherlands, is located in the northern Dutch city of Bedum, and also leans more and more each year. With its height of 35.7 meters, the tower deviated from the vertical by 2.61 m.
The bell tower of the Tikhvin Church in the city of Kungur. Built in the 1880s and 70 meters high, it leaned right after it was built and has a slope of 3.5 degrees. The Tikhvin Church is an architectural monument of federal significance.
Capital Gate is a modern skyscraper in Abu Dhabi, which is included in the Guinness Book of Records as the tower with the largest slope in the world. The tilt angle is 18 degrees. Unlike the rest of the structures in this article, the skyscraper was purposely designed and built on an incline. But why? To surprise the world in Arabic?
