In the historiography of the national historical science it was never customary to mention the Semevsky brothers as some kind of interconnected phenomenon. In the works of the Soviet period, the merits of the youngest - Vasily Ivanovich Semevsky - were exalted in every possible way - as a historian of the peasantry and freedom movement in Russia in the 18th-19th centuries. It was believed that he was the first Russian historian who turned to the study of peasant uprisings and the Decembrist movement. Meanwhile, the name of his older brother - Mikhail Ivanovich Semevsky, the most famous collector of materials (memoirs, documents of personal origin) on the history of the same liberation movement, historian, publicist and publisher of the Russkaya Starina magazine - was often hushed up. Taking advantage of the rumors that were actively exaggerated around the journal he published, as well as the memoirs of some contemporaries, historians to this day often call Mikhail Semevsky an “adventurer”, “an unscrupulous businessman”, who was not shy about means, hunting for the rare documents he needed. The relationship of the Semevsky brothers is unequivocally characterized in biographical literature as extremely uneven and even hostile.

Of course, no one disputes the fact that Vasily Ivanovich Semevsky declared himself to be a prominent scientist, professional historian, and public figure. He defended his doctoral dissertation on the history of the peasantry, the first to seriously analyze the views of the Decembrists, Petrashevists and other participants in the liberation movement of the 19th century on the peasant question. In addition, V.I. Semevsky is known as the author of a number of works on social history, the history of the advanced public thought in Russia, founder and one of the editors of the magazine "Voice of the Past", one of the founders of the Labor People's Socialist Party ("Trudoviks", "People's Socialists"), a member of its Central Committee.

IN AND. Semevsky was “lucky” to some extent - he died in 1916, and therefore he remained the founder of the historiography of the Russian liberation movement, which was developed in the works of the most prominent Soviet historians. Part of his archive, together with the materials of the editorial staff of the journal “Voice of the Past” and the archive of the historian S.P. Melgunov, expelled from Soviet Russia, ended up in the funds of the Communist Academy, to which, although with restrictions, researchers were allowed in the Soviet years.

M.I. Semevsky died even earlier, and the memory of his undoubted contribution to the development national historiography, as well as about publications in Russkaya Starina, was lost behind the activities of the younger brother, the publications of the legendary magazine Voice of the Past, and further significant events in our history.

On the one hand, M.I. Semevsky cannot be called either a major scientist or a professional historian. His activities in the field of collecting and publishing documents proceeded outside the traditions of the university and academic environment of that time. He did not have the appropriate education and vocational training. Perhaps that is why contemporaries, and partly descendants, treated Semevsky Sr. only as an “amateur” collector, a successful businessman, not taking seriously his scientific research in the field of local history, the history of Russia in the “post-Petrine” period, the history of social thought, etc. d.

On the other hand, publications are currently appearing with the aim of reconstructing the little-known facts of the biography, publishing and social activities of M.I. Semevsky. Today, with all confidence, it can be argued that it was M.I. Semevsky was the first to turn to the collection of documentary materials on the history of the Russian liberation movement, in particular, to the materials of the Decembrists, Petrashevists and other documents of "recent" history, without which no historical research events of the XIX century. His younger brother V.I. Semevsky went his own way, but as a scientist and public figure, he was formed solely under the influence of the interests of his older brother, and owes a lot to the active participation of Mikhail Ivanovich in his fate.

Biography

Family and early years

The Semevsky brothers were born into the family of the Pskov landowner Ivan Yegorovich Semevsky, who was reputed to be one of the most educated people in the county, had big library, served in military service. Mother - Polish Kamilla Matveevna (from the Bogutsky family). The family was not rich, but very ancient and well-born, having its own coat of arms and pedigree dating back to the ancient Polish gentry. My father left the military service as a staff captain, but, having retired due to scarcity of funds (the estate was in complete decline), he was forced to serve in elected positions in the Velikoluksky district. Of the ten children of the Semevskys, only seven reached adulthood: brothers Vladimir, Mikhail, Alexander, Peter, George, Vasily and sister Sophia.

M.I. Semevsky

Mikhail was born on January 4 (16), 1837 in the village of Fedortsevo, Velikoluksky district, Pskov province, where his father had a small estate.

Mikhail was the second child in the family, but he hardly knew his parents and his younger brothers. At the age of 4, he was sent to be raised in the house of his uncle, his mother's brother, Adolf Bogutsky. According to Mikhail, the time spent in the house of Bogutsky, a tough and stern man, later left an indelible imprint on his entire character, developing sharpness, suspicion and distrust in relations with others.

Vasily, the youngest of the Semevsky brothers, was born on December 25, 1848 (January 6, 1849) in the city of Polotsk, Vyatka province, where the family moved in 1844. Father, not having the means to support a large family, entered the service of a housekeeper in the Polotsk Cadet Corps. All the sons of the Semevskys were soon assigned there (including Mikhail, who had returned from Bogutsky).

M.I. Semevsky graduated from the Polotsk Cadet Corps and the Konstantinovsky Military School in St. Petersburg, then served in the prestigious Pavlovsky Regiment. The officer became interested in “historical studies” under the influence of one of the teachers of the Konstantinovsky School - G.E. Blagosvetlov, with whom he maintained friendly relations even after graduation. From the age of 19, Mikhail began to publish his historical articles in the central journals. The first publication in the press was a small study about the ancestors of Griboyedov, “A few words about the name of the Griboyedovs”, placed in the “Moskvityanin” (No. 12 for 1856). Then in St. Petersburg, Mikhail Semevsky published a rather large historical and ethnographic work “Velikie Luki and Velikiye Luki County, a historical and ethnographic study” as a separate book. Two or three journals published very condescending reviews about this local history study, but N.A. Dobrolyubov in Sovremennik did not spare the young scientist, commenting on the book in a harsh, even dismissive tone. He rightly pointed out the author's ignorance in many simple questions and noted with irony that M. Semevsky "is ready to attribute to the number of features of the Velikolutsky district the fact that people there do not go upside down."

After the death of their parents (c. 1859), the elder brother took the younger ones - Georgy and Vasily to his place in St. Petersburg. From 1859 to 1863, Vasily Semevsky studied at the Second Cadet Corps in St. Petersburg, and then completed his education at the 1st St. Petersburg Gymnasium, which he graduated in 1866 with a gold medal.

IN AND. Semevsky

After graduating from the gymnasium, Vasily Semevsky immediately entered the St. Petersburg Medical and Surgical Academy, where he studied for two years. In 1868 he left the academy and entered the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. Obviously, here, first of all, the influence of his older brother, who by that time had already finally left the military service and engaged in historical research, affected.

In 1861, Mikhail Semevsky retired as a lieutenant, for some time worked as a tutor in the cadet corps, then taught at the Smolny Institute, but already in September 1862 he received an offer from the Ministry of Public Education to inspect the schools of the Pskov province. A detailed report on the trip, presented by Semevsky, attracted the attention of A.P. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky, who accepted him to serve in the State Chancellery. In March 1864 M.I. Semevsky was appointed senior assistant to a freight forwarder in the Department of State Economy. For the first time in his life he was entitled to a good salary, and most importantly: the doors of the state archives of the General Staff, the Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs opened before him. During this period, M.I. Semevsky leaves local history. Now the sphere of his interests is the history of the 18th and the first half of the 19th century, palace coups, the political investigation of the Petrine era, biographies of statesmen of the 18th century. The most significant of the works of M.I. Semevsky compiled on the basis archival documents: "Queen Praskovya" (1861), a series of essays on political investigation from the time of Peter "Word and deed" (1861, 1862), "Empress Catherine I and the Mons family", "Supporters of Tsarevich Alexei", ​​biography of Tsaritsa E.F. Lopukhina, "Lady-in-waiting Hamilton", "The Reign of Elizabeth Petrovna", "The Rebellion and Execution of Streltsy" and others.

In the 1860s, Mikhail began to gain fame as a historian, collector, and publisher. historical documents. In addition, while in the public service, he was able to raise funds to teach his younger brother at the university. Mikhail Ivanovich himself, in his youth, only attended lectures as a volunteer and could not help but understand how important a special education is for a historian.

Many biographers of V.I. Semevsky pointed out that the relationship between the brothers was always difficult: both the age difference (almost 12 years) and the difficult nature of Mikhail Ivanovich affected. According to eyewitnesses, in the family and with close relatives of M.I. Semevsky behaved like a tyrant, wanting everyone (wife, children, brothers) to obey his demands. As an elder, he patronized the younger, was often harsh, suspicious and unfair to the softer, more delicate Vasily. Obviously, for these reasons, Vasily did not stay long in his brother's house. But, on the other hand, Vasily Ivanovich, at the initial stage of his career, owed literally everything to his unsympathetic brother: Mikhail took him from the provincial cadet corps, brought him to St. , attracted to work in the magazine "Russian Antiquity". This also left an imprint on their relationship, forcing Vasily, along with a sense of gratitude to his brother, to experience some lack of freedom from his earlier “experience” and already formed views: after all, two historians in one family are too much ...

Subsequently, the brothers' relationship was based not so much on personal affection (Mikhail Ivanovich's character did not allow him to maintain warm family relations with him), but on common scientific interests, which also did not always coincide.

The interests of Vasily Semevsky were finally determined while still studying at the university: the history of the Russian peasantry of the 18th-19th centuries. Mikhail continued to develop documents available to him from the time of Peter the Great and the era of palace coups. Through the family of their other brother, Alexander Semevsky, married to the sister of M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky Alexandra Vasilievna, he got access to materials about the Petrashevskys, met with the Petrashevites Akhsharumov and Pleshcheev. Also M.I. Semevsky was familiar with many Decembrists who returned to Russia after 1856, enjoyed the special favor of M.A. Bestuzhev and Baron V.I. Steingel.

The idea of ​​publishing a monthly historical collection was conceived by M. Semevsky during his many years of study in the archives, where he collected an extensive stock of various historical materials. Unlike earlier historical journals, which filled their pages with processed articles, Semevsky intended "Russian Antiquity" mainly to publish raw material - historical documents and various notes, memoirs and diaries of historical figures. For various reasons of an official nature (obviously, this was due to his public service) until 1877 M.I. Semevsky did not officially act as editor. For this purpose, he invited his relative Vasily Arsenyevich Semevsky, who immediately spoke out to himself the right to be free from all sorts of troubles for publishing and was only a "zits-chairman". Mikhail Ivanovich Semevsky was the only initiator, editor and sovereign owner of the journal. The first book was published on January 9, 1870 in a very modest volume (4 printed sheets). The purpose of the journal was to develop the history of Russia in the post-Petrine period and the "recent" time.

One of the first M.I. Semevsky began the colossal work of collecting materials from individuals. Many notes and well-known memoirs were compiled solely at his insistence (for example, notes by T.P. Passek, N.V. Berg, P.A. Karatygin, N.N. Murzakevich). The editors of the magazine provided services for editing and even writing memoirs. Some stories were simply shorthanded by the editorial staff and, with the consent of those who reported the information, were placed on the pages of the magazine. Sometimes memoirs were compiled in the editorial office itself, based on various materials and notes, and sent for review to the persons on whose behalf they were supposed to come. This is how the memories of I.K. Aivazovsky, A.G. Rubinstein, F.G. Solntseva and others.

The wife of the famous Decembrist I.A. Annenkova - the Frenchwoman Polina (Pelageya Egorovna) Gobl, who never learned to write in Russian, gave her consent to record memories only after M.I. Semevsky. She remembered in French, and her daughter translated and wrote down her mother's words in Russian.

Showing complete impartiality in printing the materials communicated to him, never making unauthorized cuts or alterations, M. Semevsky, as an archaeographer, aroused confidence in himself on the part of many people who willingly gave him family archives or cherished family documents. He was a rare type of editor-collector who spared neither personal labor nor Money to purchase materials for the journal. In the summer, Semevsky, as a member of the archeographic commission and honorary member Archaeological Institute, made trips around Russia, rummaged through the provincial archives, from which he extracted a lot valuable documents, "interviewed" eyewitnesses of many events. So, for example, having studied in detail on one of his trips the family archive of the princes Kurakins (in the village of Nadezhina, Saratov province), Semevsky found out the enormous importance of the documents stored there relating to history XVIII century, and convinced Prince F.A. Kurakin immediately start publishing them. He took over the editing of the "Kurakin Archive" and in a number of public readings introduced the public to the materials of this archive, shedding new light on the personalities and events of the time of Peter the Great. Based on the same documents, M.I. Semevsky gave a number of public lectures on Peter the Great in 1890-1891.

By and large, it is the colossal energy, enthusiasm and dedication of M.I. Semevsky, we owe today almost everything that we know about the Decembrists, Petrashevists and their life in exile and hard labor from unofficial sources.

Analytical work with the collected material under M.I. Semevsky was not included in the goals of the journal: time had to pass for a journal publication to acquire the status of a historical source. Nevertheless, articles and studies on issues of recent Russian history appeared on the pages of Russkaya Antiquity. They belonged to M.I. Semevsky, V.A. Bilbasov, A.P. Brikner, Prince N.S. Golitsyn, D.I. Ilovaisky, N.I. Kostomarov and, of course, V.I. Semevsky, who in the 1870s contributed to his brother's magazine for free. Here his first articles were published: "Literature of the Catherine's Jubilee", "Princess Ekaterina Romanovna Dashkova" (both 1874), "Serfs under Catherine II" (1876), "Alexander Grigorievich Ilyinsky" (1878).

Preliminary censorship presented significant difficulties for the journal. The procedure for passing censorship was difficult, because of it, new books were often late with the release. Semevsky, using all his connections and acquaintances, achieved a significant simplification of this process, thereby taking personal responsibility for the content of the issue. Often he had to defend with his chest one or another passage in his memoirs that seemed delicate, on which the censorship was ready to impose its veto. So, the diary of V.K. Küchelbecker, chapter from the article about A.M. Bulatov (for "praising the Decembrists"), biography of N.G. Chernyshevsky. For reasons of censorship, when documents were published, extensive denominations were sometimes made.

The issue of publishing the journal was devoted to the greatest and best part works and thoughts of the eldest of the Semevsky brothers in the 1870-1880s. In terms of the richness and value of the material, Russkaya Starina undoubtedly ranks first among Russian historical journals of the 19th century.

Assessment of the personality and activity of M.I. Semevsky's contemporaries

Thanks to his activities in magazines, public lectures and speeches, as well as acquaintance with almost all the "remarkable people" of his time, Mikhail Ivanovich Semevsky earned himself the fame of a talented popularizer and was much better known to the Russian educated society than his brother, professional historian Vasily Semevsky.

M.I. Semevsky

Of course, M.I. Semevsky, as a historian, lacked a system in education, scientific outlook and that intellectual and, perhaps, moral and ethical baggage that develops in the process of communication with mentors, supervisors, talented teachers.

Free from any ethical norms accepted in the scientific community of that time, M.I. Semevsky was a secret correspondent for A.I. Herzen, as well as a "secret" supplier of materials for his anti-government magazines - Kolokola and " polar star". His publications appeared in Russkiy Vestnik, Otechestvennye Zapiski, Vremya by M.M. and F.M. Dostoevsky, "Library for Reading", "Lightlight", "Russian Word". There is information that M.I. Semevsky was going to write memoirs, he even made separate sketches. But it is unlikely that the reader would have enjoyed it: the author clearly lacked a literary gift, he persistently made his way through the clerical style; descriptions remained inexpressive, characteristics - banal.

M.I. Semevsky was unusually ambitious. The desire to notify the world of his existence literally “ate” him from early youth. In a letter to his first teacher, he wrote that he "hopes to leave a name of his own to (be) in the dictionary of Russian writers." When he appeared in society, gave lectures, attended official events, his pockets were filled with leaflets with pre-prepared "impromptu", quotes, sayings, toasts, which he read, repeated, distributed to friends and representatives of the press. So that descendants could judge him fairly, M. Semevsky kept a huge personal archive and even managed to partially systematize it.

But contemporaries M.I. Semevsky was remembered the way they saw him, and not the way he tried to present himself. He had a trait that everyone (including himself) noted - it was a heavy, quarrelsome, explosive character. If he deliberately did not seek to create about himself good impression, then produced unpleasant things, pushing people away from him. M.I. Semevsky often clashed with his relatives, showed unforgivable tyranny and even rudeness towards his subordinate colleagues - secretaries and editorial staff. True, E.N. Vodovozova (wife of V.I. Semevsky) noted that Mikhail Ivanovich usually repented of his behavior, but “this did not at all weaken his angry outbursts.” If he quarreled with someone on professional or official grounds, then the first step towards reconciliation must have been taken by another person. Judging by the surviving correspondence, M.I. Semevsky agreed only with his wife, and even then after the presentation of a tough ultimatum.

Obviously, general impression from his personality contributed not to the most flattering characteristics from his contemporaries. Already during his lifetime, the historian enjoyed the reputation of a person capable of ethically dubious acts in order to obtain a manuscript of interest to him, gain confidence in a person who could give him access to archives, give interesting stuff. E.N. Opochinin (1858-1928), a well-known journalist, theater critic and collector, described M.I. Semevsky in his memoirs:

“In his hands, “Russian Antiquity” concentrated on its pages a lot of historical and all sorts of other materials of the greatest importance, which, however, for the most part did not cost him a penny: he knew all the big and significant people who labored in all fields, and carefully watched them, so to speak, hovered around them like a bee around honey. He especially cared for those who, by all indications, did not have long to live in the world. He deftly knew how to beg them for memoirs, notes, interesting documents and letters. He knew how to put things in such a way that the most inaccessible sources of such documents were revealed to him, and they became the property of his journal, which prospered and, under such conditions, cost him very little. Little by little, this practice of Mikhail Ivanovich accustomed everyone who knew him to the idea that his visits, especially repeated ones, to one or another house is a sign of the imminent death of someone from this family. There was such a rumor about this, and one writer, young at that time, even mentioned M.I. the following epigram:

M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in one of the letters of 1881 to G.Z. Eliseev - their common with M.I. Semevsky to an acquaintance - gives an even more biting description:

But, obviously, there was another Mikhail Semevsky, who was highly valued in the service, who was trusted by a variety of people with their family archives and personal documents. With those who were of professional interest to him, Mikhail Ivanovich could show himself in a very favorable light, knew how to restrain his obstinate character, humbly beg and talentedly convince. They say that he was extraordinarily hardworking, neat, possessed remarkable organizational skills, for the sake of work he was able to deny himself rest and entertainment, so he managed to do a lot.

M.A. Bestuzhev, who knew M.I. Semevsky, initially only by correspondence, spoke of him as a “man of action”, who “does not talk in vain”.

Over the years, Semevsky compiled an album of autographs of famous people, including 850 entries, many of which were friendly and frank. Quite unexpectedly for many of the participants in the album, he published it under the name "Familiar" (St. Petersburg, 1888), which also did not in the best way affected his reputation.

M.I. Semevsky caught a serious cold during his trip to Kronstadt and died on March 9, 1892 at the age of 55.

After his death, the question arose of who would become the editor and publisher of Russkaya Starina? The views of the younger brother V.I. Semevsky, who by that time had already switched to socialist positions, turned out to be too radical to continue a moderately liberal magazine. Wife of M.I. Semevsky Elizaveta Mikhailovna, not having the desire and ability to continue publishing herself, decided to sell Russkaya Starina. Negotiations between Semevskaya and a family friend of the military historian P.N. Voronov on this occasion with publishers wishing to buy the magazine were unsuccessful. Voronov proposed the only project possible under the current conditions - the acquisition of the journal by a group of co-publishers. "Russian Antiquity" was sold on November 26, 1892 to S.P. Zykov (4 shares), V.I. Vishnyakov (3 shares), N.K. Schilder and P.N. Voronov (1 share each). Together with the right to publish, the new publishers also acquired the famous archive of the Russkaya Starina magazine. In 1903 E.M. Semevskaya sold to second-hand book dealer V.I. Klochkov most of the unique library of the late husband. The remaining books, manuscripts and personal archive of M.I. Semevsky passed into the possession of his daughter Anastasia Mikhailovna, who in 1919-1927 gave them to the library of the Pushkin House.

"Russian Antiquity" in the new edition continued to be published until 1918.

In Soviet times, when the fight against pre-revolutionary publications, most of the materials of the magazine were lost. The archives of the publication ended up in the hands of different persons. Today, even in the central libraries there is not a single fully completed collection of "Russian Antiquity".

Scientific career of V.I. Semevsky

Vasily Ivanovich Semevsky belonged to another, already "post-reform" generation of Russian historians, who were largely influenced by the ideas of populist theorists - P.L. Lavrov and N.K. Mikhailovsky.

In 1881, Vasily Ivanovich Semevsky's master's thesis "Peasants under Catherine II" was presented in the VIII volume of the "Notes" of the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. The dissertation was defended only at Moscow University, since Professor of St. Petersburg University K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, who considered V.I. Semevsky, one of his best students, did not dare to defend a dissertation on such a bold topic.

And it was not even a matter of the ideological conflict of the teacher, who adhered to a protective position, and the student, who shared the views that were progressive for that time. After the events of March 1, 1881, the university administration found itself in a very difficult situation: overnight, Semevsky's dissertation turned out to be the product of a completely different historical era - the era of post-reform liberalism, which was instantly replaced by the "era of counter-reforms." Already on the morning of March 2, the presentation of a dissertation on the peasantry would have entailed an immediate reaction from the authorities.

IN AND. Semevsky

Of course, the program article by V.I. Semevsky "Isn't it time to write a history of the peasants of Russia?", published by him on the eve of the events of March 1. In the article, the historian called on the intelligentsia of his time, “breast-fed by serf mothers,” to work “for the benefit of the peasants both in life and in science.” The article was highly critical land reform 1861 and criticism of the political system, in which scientific conclusions do not acquire practical significance.

Bestuzhev-Ryumin and other members of the Council of the Faculty of History and Philology, who did not share the radical views of V.I. Semevsky, did not find the civic courage to take this blow: some did not appear at the council, others were cowardly silent, and still others voted against. As a result, the defense of Semevsky's dissertation at St. Petersburg University was rejected.

And yet, since 1882, V.I. Semevsky begins to teach a course in Russian history at St. Petersburg University as a Privatdozent. However, already in 1886 he was suspended from teaching at the department due to the so-called. "harmful direction" of his lectures. The order to dismiss Semevsky was given by the Minister of Public Education I.D. Delyanov at the suggestion of K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. In the conditions of the reaction of the 1880s, the awakening of students' interest in a serious study of the fate of the Russian peasantry and the socio-economic conditions of its life was considered more than inappropriate. From now on, the historian was doomed to office work, and he was forced to study with students exclusively at home. Subsequently, M.N. Pokrovsky called V.I. Semevsky "the general dean of all historians who did not belong to any faculty."

After his "excommunication" V.I. Semevsky and does not break ties with scientific community. He continues to work on the study of the history of the peasant question in Russia, and in 1889, again at Moscow University, he defends his doctoral dissertation: "The Peasant Question in the 18th and first half of the 19th century." Here, the historian considered the projects for the emancipation of the peasants, expressed and prepared by V.V. Golitsyn, Peter I, V.N. Tatishchev, Catherine II, Alexander I, Nicholas I, the Decembrists and other enlightened people of Russia. He analyzed in detail specific measures and bills to change the situation of peasants in the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries, the activities of the Free Economic Society, as well as a number of commissions that studied the peasant question. The undoubted novelty and particular relevance of Semevsky's dissertation research consisted in the analysis of the activities of the secret committees that dealt with the peasant question under Nicholas I. The author also analyzed the reflection of the peasant question in Russian literature and science, in the activities of revolutionary societies. Semevsky also touched upon another very important and painful aspect of the problem: forms of peasant protest against oppression - escapes, arson, violence against landlords, etc.

For this outstanding work, he was awarded the Uvarov Prize by the Academy of Sciences, and Volnoe economic society presented him to the big gold medal.

IN AND. Semevsky - journalist, traveler, public figure

In the years 1880-1890, in addition to the "Russian Antiquity", V.I. Semevsky collaborated a lot in Fatherland Notes, Foundations, Russian Thought, Vestnik Evropy, Russkiye Vedomosti, and Historical Review. Not having the right to teach, he tried to influence the public consciousness by publishing historical notes, journalistic articles, was engaged in the study of social thought in the history of Russia.

In 1886, the famous teacher and children's writer, populist V.I.Vodovozov died. IN AND. Semevsky was his student and close friend. Two years later, he married his widow, Elizaveta Nikolaevna Vodovozova (nee Tsevlovskaya), a well-known "sixties woman", also a children's writer and teacher. She will outlive both husbands and her life together with V.I. Vodovozov and with V.I. Semevsky will describe later in the memoir book "At the Dawn of Life", as well as in separate memoir essays.

In 1891 V.I. Semevsky, on the initiative of Innokenty Sibiryakov, made a trip to Siberia to get acquainted with the local archives. In addition to archival data, he was also interested in current position workers in the gold mines of Yakutia. The historian managed to collect a lot of factual material for his study "Workers in the Siberian gold mines", which appeared on the pages of "Russian Thought" in 1893-1894 and in its final form in 1898. For this work, the scientist was awarded the Samara Prize.

In the 1890s, Semevsky took part in the activities of the Historical Society at St. Petersburg University, created by Professor N.I. Kareev. The meetings were held at the Faculty of History and Philology, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, I.V. Luchitsky, N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky, E.V. Tarle, S.F. Platonov, B.D. Grekov and other representatives of the new generation of the “Petersburg historical school”. From 1894 to 1896, Semevsky was the vice-chairman of this society, but his views, always distinguished by noticeable radicalism, by and large did not fit into the academic traditions of St. Petersburg University.

During these years, he gets access to the materials of the archive of M.I. Semevsky and deals with the history of the liberation movement. IN AND. Semevsky is the author of articles in ESBE about the Decembrists: I.D. Yakushkin, S.P. Trubetskoy, N.I. Turgenev, V.I. Steingal, as well as about M.M. Speransky, N.A. Speshnev, C. Fourier and Fourierism.

Vasily Ivanovich is an active participant in numerous societies of the St. Petersburg intelligentsia. Since 1880 he was a member of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, since 1895 - a member of the Free Economic Society. From the same year, he became the secretary of the department for promoting self-education in the committee of the pedagogical museum of military educational institutions. He was also a board member of the Literary Fund.

After the death of Mikhail Semevsky, Vasily Ivanovich's relatives assumed that the oldest historical journal "Russian Antiquity" would be inherited by him, especially since V.I. Semevsky since 1886 served as deputy editor-in-chief of this publication. However, Mikhail Ivanovich's entourage ordered otherwise: other people took over the magazine. Vasily Ivanovich did not make a single attempt to impede the decision of his brother's relatives. It has long been published exclusively in radical, populist or liberal publications: Russkoye Bogatstve, Past and Past Years by V.Ya. Bogucharsky and P.E. Shchegolev. The last two specialized exclusively in the history of the Russian liberation movement. In addition, V.I. Semevsky had a dream to head his own magazine, different from the "Russian Antiquity" in his views.

Since 1905, the social activities of V.I. Semevsky is even more active. He takes part in the protests of the St. Petersburg intelligentsia against the repressive measures of the government. Like other participants in the deputations to the government on the eve of January 9, he was arrested and imprisoned for two weeks in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Since this year, Semevsky has been the chairman of the Committee for Assistance to the Liberated Prisoners of Shlisselburg, whose appeals, together with N.F. Annensky and V.Ya. Bogucharsky, he published on the pages of the magazine "Byloye", and a member of the Committee for Assistance to Political Exiles.

In 1905, the work of V.I. Semevsky, Social Movements in Russia in the First Half of the 19th Century. Volume 1. Decembrists.

In 1906 V.I. Semevsky became one of the founders of the People's Socialist Party (Labor People's Socialist Party, "popular people" or simply "Trudoviks") and a member of its Central Committee.

In 1909, his book “Political and Social Ideas of the Decembrists” was published, which was recognized by historians as the first and largest work. pre-revolutionary historiography about the Decembrists. IN AND. Semevsky for the first time in the literature widely and systematically used the investigation file about the Decembrists, attracted to the study of their ideology a huge circle of primary sources, documents and materials of personal origin, collected by his brother, M.I. Semevsky and the editors of the magazine "Russian Antiquity". However, Semevsky did not set himself the goal of studying the Decembrist movement as a whole, in its historical development. He was not interested in the history of the uprising itself. He studied only the “ideas” of the Decembrists, systematizing them mainly according to formal and thematic features (“ judicial reform”, “freedom of the press”, “peasant question”, etc.). He not only strongly rejected, but simply did not use the Marxist principles of class analysis in his work, considering the Decembrists "non-class intelligentsia."

With the onset of a new reaction, the magazines "Byloye" and the "Past Years" that came to replace it were closed by the government. IN AND. Semevsky is haunted by the dream of heading his own historical journal.

This dream could come true only in 1913, when they began to publish their joint monthly with S.P. Melgunov "Voice of the Past". This journal left a noticeable mark in Russian historiography. Following the example of Russkaya Starina, Past and Past Years, he continued to publish materials on the history of the liberation movement in Russia, letters, diaries, memoirs, analytical and historical-journalistic articles by a number of authors belonging to various political parties. The magazine was declared as "non-partisan", and therefore both moderate liberals and radical communists were published on its pages.

The main leader of the magazine was the young, energetic S.P. Melgunov, and V.I. Semevsky acted only as a co-editor.

September 26 (November 4), 1916 Vasily Ivanovich Semevsky died. He was buried in Petrograd on the Literary bridges of the Volkovsky cemetery. The magazine "Voice of the Sunless" in the October issue of 1916 reprinted all the responses to the death of Vasily Ivanovich that appeared in the Russian press.

The magazine, edited by Melgunov, continued to appear intermittently throughout the revolutionary years and further up to the NEP, already in Soviet Russia, until it was finally closed in 1923. With the emigration of Melgunov, he continued abroad: "The voice of the past on a foreign side" (since 1926).

During the life of V.I. Semevsky also began serious work with the materials collected by his brother about M.V. Petrashevsky and Petrashevites. Some of his studies on the views of the Petrashevites on the peasant question and M.V. Petrashevsky in Siberia appeared in 1911-1915 in various historical collections and in the Voice of the Past magazine. However, the first part of the unfinished work “M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky and the Petrashevites” was published only after the death of the author, in 1922. Study “Cyril and Methodius Society. 1846-1847" was also first published in Moscow in 1918.

Archive V.I. Semevsky

In the 1930s, Soviet scribes actively accused the émigré historian S.P. Melgunov of “stealing” part of the documents from V.I. Semevsky and exporting them abroad. (Rostov N. Archive of V.I. Semevsky // Literary heritage. - M., 1937). In fact, after the death of V.I. Semevsky, the personal archive of the historian and the editorial materials of the journal "Voice of the Past" were concentrated by S.P. Melgunov in Moscow, in his own apartment. In 1922, S.P. Melgunov, together with his wife, was expelled from Soviet Russia. His apartment, personal property, archive and library were confiscated by the authorities. The exiled historian simply physically could not take anything with him without the knowledge of the authorities. Subsequently, it was alleged that all the papers found in the apartment of S.P. Melgunov, were transferred for storage to the Library of the Communist Academy, making up the so-called "Semevsky Archive". This long-suffering archive, especially in the 1920s and 1930s, was constantly shuffled and redrawn: parts of the fund were transferred to other museums and archives, a number of materials were returned to the authors or their heirs. In 1956, what was left of the V.I. Semevsky and the editorial archive of the journal "Voice of the Past" entered the Archives of the USSR Academy of Sciences. After its reformation, three archival funds were formed in the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences: V.I. Semevsky (F. 489. Op. 1-4), S.P. Melgunov (F. 647. Op. 1) and the editors of the magazine "Voice of the Past" (F. 646. Op. 1). Modern historians to this day cannot find many historical important documents, the presence of which was pointed out in his works by one of the founders S.P. Melgunov.

In the 1950s, certain materials from the Semevsky fund were used in the performance of major monographic studies by historians M.V. Nechkina and N.L. Rubinstein. Unfortunately, they did not affect, in fact, the biographies of V.I. Semevsky. The first short scientific biography of the historian was written by S.I. Volkov, who undertook the systematic development of the Semevsky fund in the archives of the USSR Academy of Sciences. S.I. Volkov also planned to write a monograph about V.I. Semevsky, but due to the death of the author, the book remained only in development.

The value of the works of V.I. Semevsky in Russian historiography

Before V.I. Semevsky in Russian historical science, the history of the peasantry was not considered separately by anyone. In a number of his works, Semevsky draws the following conclusion: the theoretical basis for the emancipation of the peasantry was worked out by the best representatives of the progressive Russian intelligentsia; the program for the emancipation of the peasants, put forward by the Russian intelligentsia, later became a government program, albeit with significant reservations: the peasants were not saved all the land that was provided to them by the landowners for use.

From the point of view of the Marxists, Semevsky idealized the peasant community, incorrectly explained the reasons for the abolition of serfdom, and so on. This makes him related to the "populists". In Soviet historiographic works, the works of Semevsky were unequivocally classified as "populist" historiography, along with the same Lavrov, Mikhailovsky, Oganovsky, etc. Nevertheless, almost all subsequent Marxist historians who dealt with the peasant question actively turned to the works of Semevsky as the most authoritative specialist in this field. They really wanted to make a historian who openly sympathized revolutionary movement, "their".

The beginning of the praise of V.I. Semevsky was supposed to be the recognized coryphaeus of Soviet historical science M.N. Pokrovsky. It was he who, in one of his lectures, read to the students of the Institute of Red Professors “How and by whom Russian history was written before the Marxists”, noted that democracy, although “elementary, simplified”, favorably distinguishes Semevsky from the bourgeois forgers of history. Pokrovsky found that the monograph by V.I. Semevsky "Peasants in the reign of Empress Catherine II" is an extensive introduction to the history of the Pugachev rebellion, which Semevsky allegedly intended to present as the beginning class struggle peasantry against their oppressors. Although it is reliably known that the historian himself did not plan to write about Pugachev, and even from a “class” position. Pokrovsky's statement that Semevsky "dealt with issues boycotted by official historians" is also inaccurate.

In the study of the history of the peasantry and the history of the Decembrists, Semevsky was not an absolute pioneer. But it is he who owns the most monumental, scrupulous, works based on the vast array of historical sources. After the debunking of Pokrovsky and his school, the attitude towards the works of Semevsky became even more critical. Soviet historiography of the second half of the 1930s and the first half of the 1950s mainly looked for erroneous statements in his works.

For the first time, an assessment of populist historiography found its integral reflection in the course of lectures by N.L. Rubinshtein, who, following V.O. Klyuchevsky, noted the inconsistency of the methodological constructions of V.I. Semevsky. The peasant question in the historian's study is seen by the author as "torn off from the general socio-economic development of Russia", becomes "an ideological problem that develops on its own course ...". Rubinstein fully attributed these provisions to the history of the Decembrists, Petrashevists and the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood.

The Soviet historiographical tradition in the coverage of the scientific heritage of Semevsky, as well as all populist historiography, was clearly manifested in the creation of a multi-volume generalizing work on the history of historical science in the USSR and lecture courses on the historiography of the history of the USSR. Among the merits of Semevsky, the researchers again attributed the use huge amount archival materials when writing works on the history of peasants. According to A.L. Shapiro, with whom it is quite possible to agree, “historians still draw information about landownership, about the size and movement of the peasant population, about the situation of peasants, about the situation of courtyards and much more” from the first volume of “Peasants in the reign of Empress Catherine II”.

In the language of Yandex, TIC (thematic citation index) of works by V.I. Semevsky remained unusually high throughout Soviet historiography.

In the early 1970s, the Leningrad historian Yu.M. Kritsky made the first (and so far the only) attempt at a dissertation study of the historical views of V.I. Semevsky. The innovation of Kritsky manifested itself in the desire to present the historian as a supporter of the "American" path of development of capitalism in agriculture, but the Soviet historian in his work could not ignore the Soviet historiographic tradition, laid down by Pokrovsky.

As we can see, the study of the life path and scientific heritage of Semevsky was fragmentary in Soviet historical science. Judgments, characteristics and evaluations of his work corresponded to the dominant ideology of Marxism-Leninism.

A complete and thorough study of the works and biography of V.I. Semevsky has not yet been undertaken by non-Marxist historians. Modern researchers almost completely ignore the problems characteristic of populist historiography of the late 19th century, and the name of V.I. Semevsky - once the most quoted historian - is completely forgotten. He is remembered only in connection with his activities in the journal "Voice of the Past", and even sometimes confused with M.I. Semevsky, whose popularity as a liberal public figure and collector of historical documents in recent times is growing steadily.

In conclusion, I would like to say, perhaps, a banal thing: there is a time to scatter stones, and there is a time to collect them. In the case of the Semevsky brothers, this well-known aphorism takes on a special meaning. The feat of historical asceticism accomplished by the collector-enthusiast Mikhail Ivanovich Semevsky was never appreciated by his contemporaries. Having made a huge complex of historical materials available to researchers, Semevsky Sr. did not pursue the goal of personal enrichment - he worked exclusively for the future. And this was fully appreciated by historians of subsequent generations, including his younger brother, Vasily Ivanovich Semevsky. He was the first to be able to generalize, analyze and create on the basis of available materials historical writings who laid the foundations for studying the history of social thought and the liberation movement in all subsequent Russian historiography of the 20th century.

In modern historical science, as well as in Russian society as a whole, the crisis tendency of “spitting” on one’s historical past is gradually fading away. Unfortunately, today it is being replaced by historical "amnesia" and the complete inability of the younger generation to navigate even in the space of past events that is not too distant in time. We are not interested in who is to blame for this: domestic media, politicians or the current system of public education. There is a time to scatter the stones collected before us by previous generations. But will we have time to collect them?..

Elena Shirokova

According to materials:

Vasily Ivanovich Semevsky on the site Ludi.ru

Gavrilov S.V. Scientific heritage of V.I. Semevsky in Soviet historiography // New Historical Bulletin, 2008 - No. 17 (1) nivestnik.ru

Kokh O.B. A hero of his time (Strokes to the portrait of M.I. Semevsky) / / Pages of historical local history. Pskov, 2001 - No. 14. - P.46-60.

In 1765, by decree of Her Imperial Majesty Catherine II, the oldest public organization- Free Economic Society. It was independent of the Government, which is why it was called Free. The special position and rights of the organization were confirmed by each successor of Catherine II during his accession to the throne. And even more than that, quite often the Free Economic Society received impressive sums from the treasury to implement their ideas.

Purpose of the Free Economic Society

At the origin of the formation of the organization was a whole group of courtiers, representing the interests of liberal-minded nobles and scientists, headed by M.V. Lomonosov. At that time, these people put forward very revolutionary ideas:

1. Development of the monetary economy.
2. The growth of industrial production.
3. Abolition of serfdom.

The truth that ruled then did not support them. And only Catherine II allowed the project to begin and encouraged it in every possible way. Free Economic declared the primacy of the interests of the state, which should develop based on effective economic activity.

Beginning of work

And back in 1765, finally, the Free Economic Society was adopted. The first step was to hold a competition among 160 specialists representing various states. The main topic was the distribution of the right to land owners to bring maximum benefit to their country.

The main merits of IVEO before the Empire

The creation of the Free Economic Society was of great importance for the state. Among the merits of the organization both to the reigning dynasty and to the people of the country, it should be noted:

1. Initiation of the abolition of serfdom.
2. Universal Primary Education.
3. Beginning of work of statistical committees.
4. The laying of the first cheese factories.
5. Distribution and popularization of new species and varieties of various cultivated plants (in particular, potatoes and others).

Publishing and educational activities

Members of the organization tried to convey their work on the intensification of agricultural production, increasing the industrial power of the state and many other topics to the widest possible masses of the population. The Free Economic Society of Russia published both monographs and periodicals. The library of the organization consisted of almost two hundred thousand monographs, and in the collection of Zemstvo publications there were more than forty thousand copies of brochures and books. AT different time were such great thinkers Russian Empire, as A. M. Butlerov, G. R. Derzhavin, D. I. Mendeleev, N. V. Vereshchagin, P. P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, V. V. Dokuchaev, A. and L. Euler, A S. Stroganov, V. G. Korolenko, L. N. Tolstoy, A. A. Nartov, A. N. Senyavin and many others.

Contribution to the defense of the country

First World War forced to mobilize everything that the Russian Empire had. The Free Economic Society did not stand aside either. In its structure in Moscow, a special unit was created for the needs of the troops - Voentorg. His tasks included providing officers who received direct involvement in combat operations, various goods at reduced prices.

Fall and rebirth

The activities of the IEVO structures were severely undermined by the world war and subsequent revolutions. And after the events of 1917, the organization of Russian economists ceased to exist. Work resumed only after many years. Restoration began in the 1970s public association leading economists. At this time, there was a need to improve economic activity states. It was then that economists organized their own organization - the NEO. The newly formed Community carried out work throughout the country. Already at the end of the eighties, the transformation of the NEO took place. It became known as the "All-Union Economic Community".

Modern activities of VEO

In the early 1990s, a significant event took place. The Organization of Russian Economists again regained its former historical name. Now it has become known as the Free Economic Society of Russia. A great contribution to the restoration of the work of the organization was made by Professor Popov. Today VEO operates in every region of Russia. This organization employs thousands of scientists and various specialists. The VEO seeks to use historical experience to play a major role in understanding the problems facing the national economy of the country. The organization aims to raise Russian entrepreneurship. This large army of economists and administrative workers must find a new approach to solving the pressing economic problems of the country's development.

Research

The organization is engaged in major scientific programs. The most famous of them:

Modern VEO Editions

In Russia, the organization again began to publish "Scientific Works". During the first three years of activity, 4 volumes were printed, which are devoted to the most pressing problems of the domestic economy. In the "Scientific Works" articles are printed most of Russia. VEO also released:

1. Analytical and information publications.
2. "Economic Bulletin of Russia".
3. Monthly magazine "The Past: History and Management Experience".

Revival of reviews

Via vigorous activity The VEO has restored the tradition of holding various national competitions. At the end of the 1990s, the Moscow government and the VEO held reviews in which young scientists, many students and pupils took part. Two topics were considered: "Russia and the beginning of the 21st century" and "Moscow - the basis of the country's economic development." Being a part of the International Union, which united the workers of the economic sector, the VEO performs work to improve the country's integration ties in the existing system.

VEO developments

Among the numerous works, a few stand out:

1. Employment of the population, problems of unemployment.
2. Investments, finances and the possibility of cash investments.
3. Further improvement of the banking system.
4. Caspian Sea: problems, choice of directions and priority solutions.
5. Ecological problems.
6. Increasing economic growth.

All proposed works of the VEO are supported and approved by the President and the Government of the Russian Federation.

Material from ENE

The oldest of the scientific societies of Russia. Established in the city, as it seems, on the initiative of Empress Catherine II, which is evident from the first composition of the members of the society, who were close to the court of the empress. The goal of the society was to disseminate among the people useful and necessary knowledge for agriculture and house building, to study the state of Russian agriculture and the conditions of the economic life of the country, as well as the state of agricultural technology in Western European states. In the first period of the existence of the society, issues were put on the agenda that are still being discussed today: the establishment of spare stores for the food of the peasants, the introduction of public plowing, etc. Empress Catherine II herself raised the issue of the benefits of forms of land tenure (communal and private) and benefits for Agriculture free and serf labor, which caused a whole literature (see a complete analysis of it in 1 volume of the work of V. I. Semevsky: “The Peasant Question in Russia in the 18th and the First Half of the 19th Centuries”). In the course of its existence, the V.E.O. managed to show energetic activity aimed at achieving the goal outlined in the charter. He initiated the collection of information about the economic life of Russia. The program compiled by him, with a variety of questions, was sent to individuals and institutions. The answers received provide very interesting material for comparing not only the methods of managing the economy of that and the present time, but also the economic situation of different regions of Russia. The distribution of the program and the collection of information continued for three reigns. In the reign of Nicholas I, regarding the variability of bread prices, which landowners endured, the V. Economic Society, on the initiative of S. Maltsev, drew attention to this issue and published a "Code of Opinions on Average Bread Prices" (g.). The society also collected information about the state of the economy in foreign countries. the very same big fact in the activities of the society for the study of Russian agricultural life - a joint sending of expeditions with the geographical society to study the grain trade and productivity in Russia (see the "Proceedings" of these expeditions). When (g.) the question arose about the study of chernozem, as a productive force, and its distribution, the society published the work of V. V. Dokuchaev: "Russian chernozem." To clarify the question of the soils of Russia, a "soil commission" arose under the Society. V. economic society, seeking to disseminate useful information about agriculture and its various branches among landowners, published more than 160 works, both original and translated, concerning mainly agriculture. In addition, it published and publishes periodicals: "Proceedings of the V. Economic Society" (see), etc. In order to publish the national agricultural library, the so-called Mordvin capital has been collected, which has now reached 43,000 rubles. The society took measures to spread the culture of useful plants (potatoes, cotton, etc.), to improve flax and hemp. The organization of the sale of seeds undertaken by him was not successful. It was engaged in the improvement of Russian cattle, contributed to the development of the dairy industry, spending on this business, in the 1860s. (at the call of N.V. Vereshchagin), up to 10 thousand rubles. It took care of beekeeping already under Empress Catherine II, but in particular did a lot on this issue thanks to the famous chemist A. M. Butlerov, who managed to interest many in the publication of the “Bee Leaf” (see). The rich library of the society, consisting of more than 26,000 volumes of works of an economic and agricultural nature, is accessible to all. The society arranged agricultural exhibitions, awarded outstanding figures in the field of agriculture, took and is taking measures to spread smallpox vaccination (74,000 rubles were spent on this in the year), and organized public lectures. Within its walls, reports are constantly read on the burning issues of the people's and agriculture.

V. E. society, according to the new charter (g.), is divided into three departments: the first - agricultural, the second - technical agricultural production and agricultural mechanics, and the third - political economy and agricultural statistics. The society has a literacy committee (see this word). The Free Economic Society is headed by a president elected by its members, and its branches are headed by chairmen elected by them. The general meeting is chaired by the president. The secretary elected by the society is in charge of office work, the vice-president and members of the council are also elected. The places of president, chairmen, and others were occupied in V. E. society by many prominent persons, such as, for example, the well-known statesman N. S. Mordvinov, K. D. Kavelin, A. M. Butlerov, and others. Both the government and private individuals provided benefits and donations to the V.E. society, thanks to which the V.E. economic society is currently the richest of all scientific societies in Russia: it has valuable property (a house, a library, etc.), valued at 185 thousand rubles. , and money capital, placed in% securities, worth 373 thousand rubles.

Free economic society (addition to the article)

(on the organization and activities of the society before the city, see the corresponding article) - 1891-1904 in the existence of V. E. O. can be divided into two periods: the first - before the year, is characterized by increased work in general, the second, starting from g. - an almost complete suspension of its activities. During the first period, not a single major phenomenon in the agricultural and economic life of Russia escaped general attention. Particular attention, expressed in a number of reports, was drawn to questions about the reform of the peasant bank (in the city); on corporal punishment, for the abolition of which a special petition was filed with the government (), and on agricultural artels, moreover, their initiator in the South of Russia, Levitsky, received for his case from the general. grant(). The agricultural crisis that broke out in Russia in the 1990s, and the questions connected with it (falling prices for bread, resettlement, elevators, etc.), occupied a number of III branches; a new direction in our financial policy and the reform of monetary circulation, as well as the question of land valuation, put forward by the government in the city, were more than once subjected to detailed development in the statistical commission of the general. and in joint meetings with the Soil Commission; at the beginning of the year, the statistical commission devoted to this question, as well as to the question of Zemstvo statistical work in general, a number of meetings, at which, in addition to members of the commission living in St. Petersburg, non-residents (79 people) who came from 25 different provinces took part. The results of the work of these meetings are placed in the "Proceedings" of the Society. (, Nos. 2 and 3) and came out in a special edition: “Proceedings of the Commission on Zemstvo Statistics” (St. Petersburg,). The movement of Russian thought in the sphere economic issues, known as "Marxism", could not help but draw the attention of the members of the V.E.O.: a number of meetings of the III Division were devoted to this issue. (at the beginning of the year), at which, among other things, the main representatives of the direction, P. V. Struve and M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, made their presentations. Crop failures and famine that engulfed large areas European Russia in, and years., were subjected to careful study by V. E. O. In 1891 and 1892. questions about the disaster, about the causes of its occurrence and about measures against the recurrence of similar crop failures in the future, were discussed in detail in general; a special bureau was founded to collect information about crop failures in the field; finally, the general meeting allocated 5,000 r. from the funds of the general to help the starving, and the literacy committee, which was under the V.E.O., collected 28,000 rubles by subscription, for which they opened up to 200 canteens for students in starving areas folk schools. The question was raised even more broadly in the hungry year of 1897. As soon as it became clear that a significant part of Russia was threatened by starvation, the V.E.O. raised the question of studying the terrible phenomenon and the related food business in the country. For information on this issue, appealed through a special publication to the local forces; in March in total. 5 meetings were held, specially devoted to the issue of crop failure and food; at these meetings, in addition to members of the community, many zemstvo and public figures who came from the provinces took part; a number of systematically compiled reports were read and discussed, the extent of the disaster and means for its mitigation were clarified (see "Proceedings" of V. E. O., No. 3 and separately published "The Food Question in 1897-98", St. Petersburg, ). Then the society allocated a certain amount from its own funds to help the starving and elected a special committee to collect donations in favor of the victims of crop failure and organize the distribution of the collected amounts. The committee in a short time collected over 128,000 rubles, which were sent to the affected areas (in 21 provinces). For some reason, the higher administration did not recognize true dimensions disaster, and the committee, by her order, was closed in the midst of its activities. During the period under review, V. Ekon. Tot. It should be noted a number of studies undertaken by him (in 1896-98) of various localities in soil, hydrological (P.V. Ototsky) and geobotanical (N.A. Troitsky) relations. In addition to the usual annual exhibitions of seeds in the society itself, in the fall of the year in St. Petersburg they arranged an all-Russian exhibition of the dairy industry and convened a congress of farmers and butter makers; Exhibitors from Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway took part in the exhibition besides Russians. In the city, the government closed the Econ. Tot. St. Petersburg committee of literacy (see), than its wide and highly enlightening activity was stopped; even the history of this institution, compiled by D. D. Protopopov (“History of St. Petersburg Committee. Literate; from to the city”, St. Petersburg,) and published by V. Ekon. General, was destroyed in the administration. okay. At the beginning of the year, the question of the reorganization of society itself was raised in government spheres. 21 Apr. his general meeting was informed of the Highest order of April 8 of this year, which, “according to the most humble report of the ministers of agriculture and state property and internal affairs, in view of the need to revise the charter of the Imp. V. Ecom. General. ”, in the general meetings and branches, access to outside visitors was suspended, the very activity of the general. placed under the control of the Minister of Agriculture. and Mrs. property, and to consider the current charter and to develop a new draft, a special temporary commission was formed under the chairmanship of V. I. Veshnyakov (see), which included eight members of the council of the society and the same number of members of the society at the invitation of the Minister of Agriculture. The general meeting of the society, after listening to this order, decided: until the activity of the society enters into normal conditions with the resolution of the statutory issue, suspend this activity in those parts of it that are provided for by the Highest command and which are subject to the control of the Minister of Agriculture. Further, the meeting blurted out “the firm conviction that Imp. Free Economy. Obshch., which is the oldest public institution in Russia, which sought to express the true needs of the time and serve the interests of the whole people, can fruitfully develop its activities only while maintaining the principles of publicity, openness, complete independence and freedom scientific research” (“Tr. Imp, V. Ekon. General”, Nos. 4 and 5, 29-32). The Veshnyakov Commission completed its studies by the beginning of the year and submitted the draft charter it had worked out to the Minister of Land; but about the further course of the case V. Ekon. So far, the society knows nothing, and it has been forced to remain inactive for 5 years. They continue to work, although far from being as intensive as in normal times, the soil commissions (formed in the city), statistical commissions (formed in the city), free distribution of books (), on the peasant question, which are attached to the society; the latter resumed its work in the city, when in government spheres the development of the question of reforming the position of peasants in legal and economic relations began. B. Economy. General, publishes: “Proceedings” (see; due to the suspension of the activities of the general and lack of materials, “Trudy” was not published in the city), “Soil Science” (organ of the soil commission, from the city) and “Beekeeping Leaf” (see. , from the year under the editorship of Professor N. Kulagin). In addition, V. Ekon. Tot. published a number of scientific works, both of the society itself and others, as well as many cheap books for the people. From the publications of recent years are issued: "The reform of monetary circulation" (); Dr. A. Semplovsky - "Guide to the cultivation and improvement of cultivated plants" (); F. A. Shcherbina - “Peasant budgets” (); “Primary public education” (under the editorship of G. Falbork and V. Chernolusky; 3 volumes have been published); “Proceedings of the Statistics Subsection of the XI Congress Rus. eating. and doctors in St. Petersburg.” (); V. F. Karavaeva - “Bibliographic review of zem. stat. lit. since the establishment of zemstvos” (1902-4; 1st issue published). From cheap editions in the city came out in the amount of 20,000 copies. each: "The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe", "Judgment Day" (Korolenko), "Fables of I. A. Krylov" and others; brochures by A. M. Butlerov - “Proper beekeeping” (4th edition published in the city) and “How to drive bees” (in the city - 6th edition in 25,000 copies). Smallpox vaccination institution V. Ekon. Tot. continues to work in the same direction (calf housing, detritus leave, smallpox inoculation and smallpox inoculation training in practice); in July and Aug. During the smallpox epidemic in St. Petersburg, within a month and a half, smallpox was vaccinated to 20,269 people, while usually there are 3-5 thousand vaccinations during a whole year. Property V. Ekon. General: a house in St. Petersburg (the cost is approx. 200 thousand rubles with a place); library, consisting of 3 departments: general - 60,000 volumes, zemstvo - 34,000 (the richest in Russia, comprising up to 90% of all zemstvo publications) and pedagogical - 13,000 volumes; museums, of which special attention deserves soil(pedological) Museum named after V. V. Dokuchaev, consisting of collections collected by the late V. V. Dokuchaev (see) and his numerous students; this museum was donated by V.Ekonomich. Tot. P.V. Ototsky in the city of the Book Storeroom (general editions) contained St. 48000 copies for 40 tr. - Capitals total. by the beginning of the year were in percent. common noun papers the amount of 448,000 rubles, of which 331,200 rubles. inviolable and 97,700 rubles. - special appointments. Personnel V. Economic. Tot. to the city: honorary members - 20, actual members - 506, members of employees - 378. Council of the general. consists of 13 persons, headed by the President of the Society. - gr. P. A. Heyden, s., and vice-president - acad. A. S. Famintsyn, from

The article reproduced material from the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron.

Free Economic Society, the oldest Russian scientific society; founded in . V. e. about. brought to life, ch. arr., the needs of the noble villages. economy, which experienced many difficulties due to the increasing economic unprofitability of serf labor. V. e. about. set as its goal the study of the economic situation in Russia, the spread of agricultural. knowledge and study of foreign village-hoz. technology. After the liberation of the peasants V. e. about. continued the study of the productive forces of Russia, studied the conditions of grain trade, community issues, money circulation in Russia, crop failure 1891-1892, agrarian movement 1900-1905. Late 19th and early 20th centuries. around V. e. about. the liberal intelligentsia was grouped, which, during the periods of the upsurge of the labor movement, came forward with constitutional demands. In view of this, the government tried in every possible way to suppress the activities of V. e. about. In 1897-98, the meetings of the Society were the scene of disputes between populists and Marxists. V.'s activity e. about. after the revolution of 1917 it gradually came to naught; many prominent figures of the Ob-va emigrated abroad, turning into ardent counter-revolutionaries.

The article reproduced the text from the Small Soviet Encyclopedia.

Free Economic Society(VEO), one of the oldest in the world and the first economic society in Russia (free - formally independent of government departments). It was established in St. Petersburg in 1765 by large landowners who, in the conditions of the growth of the market and commercial agriculture, sought to rationalize agriculture and increase the productivity of serf labor. The founding of the VEO was one of the manifestations of the policy enlightened absolutism. The VEO began its activity by announcing competitive tasks, publishing the Proceedings of the VEO (1766-1915, more than 280 volumes) and appendices to them. The first competition was announced at the initiative of Catherine II in 1766: “What is the property of the farmer (peasant) in the land he cultivates, or in movables, and what right can he have for both for the benefit of the people?”. Of the 160 responses by Russian and foreign authors, Op. jurist A. Ya. Polenov, who criticized serfdom. The answer aroused dissatisfaction with the competition committee of the VEO and was not published. Until 1861, 243 competitive problems of a political, economic, scientific and economic nature were announced. Political and economic issues concerned 3 problems: 1) land ownership and serf relations, 2) the comparative advantage of corvée and dues, 3) the use of hired labor in agriculture.

The Society published the first statistical and geographical studies of Russia. VEO competitions, periodicals contributed to the introduction of industrial crops, improved agricultural tools, the development of animal husbandry (especially sheep breeding), beekeeping, sericulture, sugar beet, distillery, linen industry in patrimonial farms in agriculture. At the end of the 18th century agronomists A. T. Bolotov, I. M. Komov, V. A. Levshin, scientist A. A. Nartov, a well-known political figure M. I. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, Admiral A. I. Sinyavin, poet G. R. Derzhavin. In the 1st half of the 19th century. N. S. Mordvinov, K. D. Kavelin, and I. V. Vernadsky took an active part in its work. In the post-reform period, the VEO played an advanced social role and was one of the centers of economic thought of the liberal landowners and the bourgeoisie. In the 60-70s. discussed the development of the peasant land community. In the late 90s. in the VEO there were public disputes between "legal Marxists" and populists about the "destiny of capitalism" in Russia. In the 60-80s. society conducted a large scientific agronomic activity. In 1861-1915 D. I. Mendeleev, V. V. Dokuchaev, A. M. Butlerov, A. N. Beketov, P. P. Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky, Yu. E. Yanson, N. F. Annensky, M. M. Kovalevsky, L. N. Tolstoy, A. B. Struve, M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, O. D. Forsh, E. V. Tarle.

In 1900, the tsarist government launched an offensive against the VEO, seeking to turn it into a narrow technical and agronomic institution. The famine relief committees (founded in the 1990s) and the literacy committee (founded in 1861) were closed, a demand was put forward to revise the charter of the society, and unauthorized persons were banned from attending VEO meetings. Despite this, the VEO in 1905-1906 published reviews of the agrarian movement in Russia, in 1907-11 questionnaires on the attitude of the peasantry to the Stolypin agrarian reform. In 1915 VEO activities actually ceased, in 1919 the society was formally liquidated.

Literature:

• Khodnev A. I., History of the Imperial Free Economic Society from 1765 to 1865, St. Petersburg, 1865;
• Beketov A.N., Historical outline 25-year activity of the Imperial Free Economic Society from 1865 to 1890, St. Petersburg. 1890;
• Kovalevsky M. M., On the 150th anniversary of the Imperial Free Economic Society, Vestnik Evropy, 1915, book. 12;
• Bak I. S., A. Ya. Polenov, in: Historical notes, vol. 28, [M.], 1949;
• Oreshkin V. I., Free economic society in Russia (1765-1917), Historical and economic essay, M., 1963.

N. A. Rabkina.

This article or section uses text

NEW DOCUMENTS ON THE DISCUSSION OF THE PEASANT QUESTION IN 1766-1768

The end of the 60s of the XVIII century. is the time when, for the first time in the history of Russia, discussions begin on the issue of serfdom and on granting peasants the right to own property in movable and immovable property. The discussion of this issue acquires all greater value, and it gradually turns into central question social and political life of that time. The promotion of the peasant question was due to a number of reasons, related primarily to the great internal inconsistency that was characteristic of the socio-economic development of Russia. The development of commodity production, its ever greater penetration into the bowels of the serf economy and the formation of new capitalist relations were combined with the preservation and expansion of the rights and privileges of the nobility, with the spread of serfdom in breadth and depth. The desire of the landowners to increase the profitability of their estates runs into increased resistance from the peasantry, their lack of interest in raising labor productivity. In search of a way out of this impasse, part of the nobility turns to projects to rationalize their economy and introduce certain agrotechnical measures, to projects aimed at making the peasant interested in the results of his labor, in making the peasant's labor more productive. Thus the question of peasant property arises.

To a certain extent, the beginning of the discussion of this issue is facilitated by the fact that Catherine II and her entourage are pursuing a policy of “enlightened absolutism” during this period and are striving to present the Russian autocracy as a kind of supra-class force that cares equally about the well-being of all subjects in general and in that the number of peasants. This happened just at the time when the Catherine's government was carrying out a massive distribution to the landowners of land inhabited by state peasants, and was issuing monstrous decrees that significantly worsened the legal and economic situation peasants. Catherine II made extensive use of liberal phraseology, which was supposed to testify to the intention of the tsarist government to improve the situation of serfs, expand their property rights and limit the arbitrariness of the landowners. A striking example of this demagogic phraseology of Catherine II is the “liberal” phrases of her “Instruction”, which, although in an extremely vague form, say that serfs are not interested in the development of agriculture and therefore it is expedient to “establish something useful for their own slaves of property” by laws. and "to prescribe to the landowners by law that they dispose of their requisitions with great consideration."

Simultaneously with the compilation of the “Instruction”, Catherine II sends a letter to the newly created Free Economic Society, in which she proposes for discussion the question “What does the estate and heritage of the cultivators consist of or should consist of for the firm spread of agriculture?” . This letter lay in the VEO without any movement for almost a year (until November 1766). The reason for this is not at all that the Society "did not pay any attention to him", as V. I. Semevsky thinks, but that the Society, which then consisted of a small group of nobility and several foreigners who served in the Academy of Sciences and the Medical College , considered the discussion of this issue not only untimely, but also extremely dangerous. The discovered documents show this quite clearly.

Only after receiving the second letter of Catherine II, to which a thousand chervonets were enclosed, when there was no longer any doubt that the author of these letters, signed with the initials “I. E., is Empress Catherine herself, the Free Economic Society raised the issue of peasant property as a topic for the competition for the best work. The course and results of the competition were the subject of study of two chapters of the monograph by V.I. Semevsky "The Peasant Question in Russia".

V. I. Semevsky studied the huge archival material and involved in scientific circulation a lot of important and new materials. In particular, he studied the file from the archives of the Free Economic Society, in which most of surviving competition entries. Unfortunately, during the liquidation of the Free Economic Society and the transfer of its archive to the State Archive, this case was not received and was lost to science.

However, a number of important documents related to the 1766 competition remained unknown to the indefatigable researcher. This happened due to the fact that they ended up in other archival files that are not related to the competition of 1767, files containing documents of the society for the 70-80s and even the 90s. Some of the documents that Semevsky saw were used and characterized by him clearly insufficiently. Meanwhile, they make it possible to significantly complete and concretize the picture of the first discussion of the peasant question and show the attitude towards it both of individuals and of certain social groups and classes.

Such documents are:

1. Opening speech by Leonard and Johann-Albrecht Euler.

This document is of outstanding interest, if only because the colossal literary heritage of L. Euler does not contain such speeches on socio-political and socio-economic issues. In the summer of 1766 L. Euler returned to Russia and resumed his work at the Academy of Sciences. His son I. Euler was also accepted there. On November 6, 1766, Leonhard and Johann Euler were accepted as members of the Free Economic Society. Entering the Society, the Eulers made a speech, the focus of which was the question of peasant property. For the great mathematician, as it were, it is an axiom that agriculture develops and the country grows rich only when the peasant has the right to own movable and immovable property. It seems equally undoubted to him that those countries in which serfdom prevails and the peasants are deprived of the right to property are in a state of decline. However, having put forward these anti-serfdom and purely bourgeois principles, Euler turns out to be extremely indecisive as soon as he comes to expounding the possibilities of their practical implementation. Although he declares that delaying the solution of this question is "boring and dangerous", that it will not benefit either the peasant or the landowner, he at the same time calls the difficulties in the practical implementation of the question of granting the peasant the right to property "almost insurmountable". And yet, in spite of all these difficulties, Euler considers it necessary that society concentrate the efforts of all patriots and find effective ways to solve this exceptionally important issue.

A copy of Euler's opening speech in German has been preserved in the archives of the Free Economic Society. It's written gothic font, clerk's hand, on half sheets. Immediately after the copy of the German text of Euler's speech is the text of the translation into Russian made at the same time, as the note on the first page shows. Since the members of the Free Economic Society were familiar with Euler's speech in this particular translation, it is advisable to keep it. It is characteristic of the position of the society that, although Euler, as a world-famous scientist, enjoyed exceptionally great authority, not only was his speech not published in the publications of the society, but there is no mention of it even in the protocols.

The fact that the provisions put forward by L. Euler in his opening speech were not accidental is convincingly evidenced by the fact that when the question arose in society about the publication in Russian of the work of Bearde de Labey, which received the first prize, then L. and I. Euler were among the few members of the Society who spoke in favor of positive decision question. The majority of the Society, however, strongly opposed the publication of Bearde's work in Russian. Of the 15 members, 12 voted against the publication of Bearde's work.

2. Decision of the competition committee.

The first competitive answers were read and discussed at a meeting of the Society. However, the number of responses was so great that after lengthy disputes, it was decided to create three commissions for preliminary disassembly and evaluation of the work. As a result of the work of these commissions, 16 papers were selected. After that, as can be seen from the protocol of the Free Economic Society of 19/111, 1768, “For a second detailed consideration of all the pieces put into the competition, of which there are 15 ...”, a “special committee” consisting of 3 Chernyshev, A. Stroganov, V. Orlov, I. Taubert, T. Klingsteth and F. Epinus.

In April 1768, the competition committee summed up its work and drew up a conclusion. The solution is of exceptional interest. It clearly shows that the majority of the members of the Society, including those whom V. I. Semevsky considered the most liberal, were terrified of a broad discussion of the peasant question. Being forced to announce a competition on the issue of peasant property, the Free Economic Society did everything possible to ensure that the discussion of the issue of peasant property did not lead to "violation of peace and order in the state." For this purpose, entries were sent from one member to another in a specially made locked box. It was for these purposes that the competition committee strongly ruled out the possibility of publishing in Russian even the work that the Society itself would recognize as the best. At the same time, he agreed to the publication of her and other prized works in German and French. This is the best way to say that the Free Economic Society, which expressed the interests of the nobility, was afraid of the influence and spread of ideas about the need to limit serfdom and grant the peasants property rights. The publication of awarded works in foreign languages ​​made them inaccessible to more or less wide circles of Russian society and, in essence, limited the circle of readers of these works to a small number of noblemen. Thus limiting the possibility of a broad discussion of the peasant question and trying to hide from Russian society the direction and course of this discussion, the Free Economic Society acted as the forerunner of the Unspoken Committee and secret committees on the peasant question. The feudal protective sentiments in the Society intensified especially in the summer of 1768. At the end of April of this year, the meeting unanimously decided: “The translation of the main piece (the work of Bearde - M. B.) should be published in the future eighth part of the works.” But when, at the end of April - May 1768, a discussion of the peasant question began in the Legislative Commission, none of the members of the Free Economic Society spoke or supported proposals aimed at limiting serfdom and expanding the property rights of peasants. But the deputies of the Legislative Commission were 10 members of the Society: G. Orlov, R. Vorontsov, A. Vyazemsky, A. Stroganov, 3. Chernyshev, A. Olsufiev, A. Melgunov, A. Nartov, G. Miller, T. Klingstet. Moreover, the speeches of G. Korobin, Y. Kozelsky, I. Chuprov, A. Maslov and other deputies so frightened the members of the Society that now the publication of Bearde's work in Russian seemed extremely dangerous to them. Even a direct instruction from the empress did not help, saying that she "does not find anything in this work that could not be printed." Only after a month of disputes and new pressure, carried out by Catherine, who understood that the refusal to print the awarded work turns the competition into a direct farce and exposes the true positions of the Free Economic Society, it was decided to print Bearde's work in Russian, although the majority of the members of the Society were negative about this. . Recall that it was about the work of Bearde, which even Prince. M. Shcherbatov, who occupied an ultra-reactionary position in the peasant question, considered it an example of a reasonable solution to the problem.

In the light of what has been said, it is quite understandable why the commission demanded that A. Ya. Polenov (the author of work No. 148) remake his work and strongly forbade its publication.

The original decision of the competition committee is in the fund of the Free Economic Society in case No. 388 (“Miscellaneous Affairs of the Economic Society”). It is signed by all members of the committee. There is no date, but based on the fact that on April 9 the commission's decision regarding the award of the first prize to Bearde's work was approved by the general meeting of the members of the Society, it is obvious that it refers to the first days of April.

3. Statement by Stehlin, Taubert and Klingstet.

The "Statement" is directly adjacent to the previous document and makes it possible to clarify the issue of the struggle that unfolded in the Free Economic Society around the issue of publishing Bearde's work in Russian. As already mentioned, at the first meeting of the Society on July 16, 1768, only two votes were cast in favor of printing, and 12 votes against. By the July 23 meeting, a number of members of the Society sent letters expressing their opinion on this issue. As a result, the votes were distributed as follows: 11 in favor of publishing, 15 against, and one (A. Vyazemsky) abstained, referring to the fact that he does not know French and therefore cannot determine his attitude.

Formally, the issue had already been resolved: the Society, by a majority of votes, found it impossible to publish Bearde's work in Russian. A paradoxical situation arose: the empress spoke in favor of printing, the most distinguished and occupying the most prominent positions in the government of the country members of the Society - G. Orlov, R. Vorontsov, V. Orlov, Z. Chernyshev, Y. Sievers, I. Melisino . In search of a way out of this situation, three of the members who voted against publication wrote and read out a statement at the meeting itself. Still considering the publication of Bearde's work inexpedient, they, proceeding from the fact that "the members who rule the most important posts in the state," voted for the publication, and the issue under discussion was more political than economic, joined those who voted for the publication. Characteristically, no one else joined this statement, and it was not possible to achieve a unanimous solution of the issue, which the authors of the statement clearly counted on. However, the statement of Shtelin, Taubert, Klingshtet changed the ratio of votes, and the meeting adopted the following decision: among those who agreed were the very members with whose opinion they wished to conform and proposed the performance shown, then the number of those who agreed to the publication of this work in Russian turned out to be two more than those who disagreed, and therefore the meeting determined the translation of this work by Mr. Bearde to print.

Thus, Catherine II and part of the nobles - members of the Society considered it expedient to publish the work of Bearde, since, despite the presence of the first "liberal" part in it, this work proved that at the moment the liberation of the peasants and the granting of property rights to them is not only untimely, but also harmful. Granting this right to the peasants was postponed by Bearde until the time when the peasants would, in the opinion of the landlords themselves, "enlighten enough and prepared for the perception of freedom." This suited both the Catherine's government and part of the nobles, who played liberalism.

Other members of the Free Economic Society, however, reflected the views of that part of the nobility that considered the existing system unshakable and considered the discussion of the issue of peasant property as a recognition of the need to change it. Although these changes were postponed indefinitely, they considered the wide discussion of this issue harmful and dangerous, and therefore objected to the publication of Bearde's work.

4. Russian work No. 71.

As is known, 162 works were sent to the competition organized by the Free Economic Society. Of these, seven were Russian, however, at the disposal of V. I. Semevsky were only the works of A. Polenov, I. Stepanov (deputy of the Legislative Commission from the Vereya nobility), Alexandrov (stable commissar) and the work of an unknown author, which Semevsky considered a parody of the opinion of the serfs . The researcher considered the rest of the work destroyed and bitterly regretted it. Fortunately, V. I. Semevsky was mistaken. Part of the competition works was preserved not in the case that he used, but in others. Among these works, which remained unknown to Semevsky, was a Russian work by an unknown author under No. 71. As is clear from the minutes of the Free Economic Society, this work in Russian with the motto "Hie ver absiduum atque alienis mensibus aestas: bis gravidae pecudes, bis pomis utiles arbos" was sent from Moscow in the second half of September or early October 1767 and on October 3 registered under No. 71.

The author of the work is a supporter of granting peasants ownership of movable and immovable property. He proves that serf labor is unproductive, that the preservation of the existing situation leads to the inevitable decline of agriculture, that depriving the peasants of property is contrary to the interests of society and will sooner or later lead to its disintegration. The free labor of the owner of the land, according to the author, will arouse the interest of the peasants in expanding the plowing, in its better processing "to enrich them and the whole society."

Although the author does not specifically analyze the situation of the Russian peasants and does not say anything about the nobility, the course of his reasoning and the main provisions of the work are such that the nobility simply does not have a place in the author’s scheme. competition is not related). Understanding by "position" the occupations of various social groups, unknown author emphasizes that the honor of the "position" is determined by its usefulness to society and the conscientiousness of its performance. The logical conclusion from this position is his assertion that the “smallest” and lowest “positions” in society are not only not “vile”, but also honorable. The author ends his work by stating that all people should have "equal pleasures" in society. Deviation from this principle, “contempt and destruction” of people performing a “useful position”, deprivation of their inalienable human rights turns them “into inhumanity” and is “extreme injustice and obvious harm to society.”

Undoubtedly, it is the anti-noble orientation of the work that will serve as the reason that the commission for considering competitive works in Russian and French immediately rejected this work and considered it not worthy of the attention of the general meeting or the competition committee.

As mentioned above, the author of this work is unknown. But its content suggests that he belonged to the circle of educated commoners. The following circumstances speak in favor of this: the anti-noble orientation of the work, the knowledge of the Latin language by the author, the presence in the work of a number of examples and references to figures and events of the distant past of other countries. His reasoning in the second part of the work on office and virtue confirms the above assumption.

5. Russian work No. 99 with a letter.

Like work No. 71, this work remained unknown to V. I. Semevsky. It was discovered in the same file, where the Euler speech was also preserved. Unlike other works, it has neither the name of the author nor the motto, but is provided with a very interesting letter to the Free Economic Society. In this letter, the author explains why he decided to send his work to the Society, as well as the reasons why he refused to send an envelope with the motto and name of the author.

The work entered the Free Economic Society in the autumn of 1767 and was registered under No. 99 as a work "in Russian without a motto with a letter" . The absence of a motto led to the fact that, at the suggestion of the commission, it was decided not to read it, because it does not have a motto with it, below other circumstances required for such pieces.

This small work is very interesting already because it is evidence of the relevance of the issue of peasant property in Russia at that time. It was his production that forced the author, who lived, as can be seen from the letter, in a remote village, to take up "an unusual tool for writers - the pen."

Who was this unknown author who resolutely spoke out in favor of the "unrestricted" ownership of the peasants in movable property and the "inalienable, hereditary" ownership of the land by the peasant and his "endless descendants"? To what social group did the author belong, who claimed that the peasant proprietor would expand the plowing, improve the cultivation of the land, increase its fertilization, and protect his meadow and forest? It is difficult to answer this question. In any case, it is difficult to assume that the author was a landowner sitting in the backwoods. After all, the overwhelming majority of the provincial nobility was characterized by extreme reactionaryness, unwillingness to even hear about the possibility of any weakening of serfdom and a decrease in the rights of the nobility. The noble reasoning was also typical that if a peasant was given land, he would get drunk, let the arable land and meadows fall, cut down the forest, and bring agriculture into complete decline. The author of work No. 99 proves the exact opposite. The nature of the letter and stylistic features they say that its author was not particularly literate. The author is especially at odds with syntax. Even for the middle of the XVIII century, when the syntax was extremely unstable, this work stands out sharply total absence punctuation marks, with the exception of the semicolon, which is in the most unexpected places, including those where no signs are required at all. The author's handwriting is characterized by features common in the first half of the century and by no means typical of the middle of the century, and even more so of its second half: an abundance of portable letters, continuous spelling words, etc. It is possible that the author of this work was some kind of one-palace, arable soldier, raznochinets. But this, of course, is only an assumption that cannot be documented.

6. Competitive work of Voltaire.

The outstanding French educator was one of the first to submit his work to the competition of the Free Economic Society. Already at the meeting of the Society on March 7, 1767, it was registered under No. 9 as a French work with the motto "Si populus dives, rex dives". Almost a year later (February 13, 1768), it was completely read at a meeting of the Society by I. Chernyshev, and “although, in the opinion of some members of the city, it could not be equated with piece No. competitive". Thus, the work of Voltaire was among those 16 works that were admitted to the "second round of the competition" and entered the specially created competition committee.

As evidenced by the committee's decision, Voltaire's work was assigned to them in the "third class", i.e. among those works that, although they do not deserve a prize, when the general list of works received for the competition is published, “some praise will be attributed to them” . This decision of the competition committee was approved by the general meeting of the Society on April 29, 1768. In the preface to the publication of the competition works, it was said that "besides those works that are recognized as worthy of the Accessit, some other works have been praised by the members of the society." Six works were assigned to their number, including the work of Voltaire.

Not surprisingly, such an assessment of the work could not satisfy Voltaire. Therefore, he did not declare his authorship. However, while working on his book, Semevsky drew attention to two letters from Catherine II to Voltaire, which indicate Voltaire's interest in evaluating the works sent to the competition. Subsequently, Semevsky established that the text of the competition work No. 9 coincides with the article "Property", published in the sixth volume of the second edition of Voltaire's Philosophical Lexicon, but a number of places in the competition work in the printed edition were omitted. Thus, the fact of Voltaire's participation in the competition of the Free Economic Society was established and the work presented by him was discovered. However, this work has not been published in Russian. Semevsky limited himself to a summary of it on a page and a half, but this presentation by no means covers the entire content of Voltaire's work and does not reflect the full richness of Voltaire's views on the peasant question.

Unfortunately, Voltaire's work was in a lost archival file and we do not have its full text. We have at our disposal only the printed French text and extracts from the full text of the work made by V. I. Semevsky. Most of the extracts completely coincide with the printed text, but some of them have no analogies in the printed text (we give Semevsky's extracts in the notes).

V. I. Semevsky, outlining the content of Voltaire’s work, noted: “Voltaire does not even insist to the same extent as Bearde on providing landed property to the peasants.” With this remark, Semevsky created a misconception about Voltaire's position. In fact, Voltaire resolutely defended the bourgeois principle of peasant ownership of land. The interests of the bourgeois development of France demanded that the growing capitalist industry be provided with a labor force free not only from serfdom, but also from the means and instruments of production. In full accordance with this, Voltaire in his work states: “Not all peasants will be rich, but it is not necessary that they all be rich. There is a need for people who have nothing but their hands and the will to work... They will be free to sell their labor to whoever pays them the best. This freedom will replace their property” (see the translation of Voltaire’s work in this publication, pp. 413-414). Such a statement by Voltaire served as the basis for the said conclusion of Semevsky.

In full accordance with the concepts of the French enlighteners, Voltaire, with all the force of sarcasm, falls upon church land ownership and demands from the state its confiscation and the release of the monastery peasants. But if for France this formulation of the question was very relevant, then for Russia it could not have such significance. As is known, the secularization of monastic estates in Russia has already been carried out. This is what contributed to the illusions of Voltaire and other Western European enlighteners, who considered secularization as the first step in the process of eliminating serfdom in Russia. But secularization did not fundamentally change the position of the former monastic peasants. It did not weaken, but strengthened the autocratic-feudal system in Russia. The task was to eliminate serfdom, to eliminate landownership, which was the basis of serfdom.

It was precisely in the solution of this question that the weaknesses of Voltaire's views came out with particular sharpness. According to Voltaire, the sovereign has the right only to call on the landlords to follow his example in freeing the peasants, but has no right to force them to do so. This is a glaring contradiction typical of the moderate political program Voltaire, was a prime example weaknesses of the Western European enlighteners, which made it possible for Catherine II and her entourage to speculate on the ideas of the enlighteners and use them for their own feudal purposes.

Familiarization with the competitive work of Voltaire introduces a number of new features both in the study of the competition of 1766-1768, and in understanding the policy of Catherine II.

7. Two editions of the competitive work of A. Ya. Polenov.

Of all the works sent to the competition of the Free Economic Society, the work of Alexei Yakovlevich Polenov is of the greatest interest both in its content and in its fate.

The soldier's son Alexei Polenov was admitted to the academic gymnasium in 1749, and in 1759 he was "promoted to students." In the summer of 1761, by a Senate decree, student Polenov was instructed to "translate from German and Latin into Russian the Eastland and Livland rights" for the College of Justice. The volume of work was so great that Polenov was not able to continue normal studies at the university. Therefore, he turned to the office of the Academy of Sciences with a request to appoint him to a full-time position so that he would continue to attend lectures at the university in jurisprudence. The office instructed professors Kotelnikov, Brown, Fischer and Feodorovich to examine Polenov and give an opinion on what title he deserved. The report of the examiners read, "... the student Alexei Polenov was examined in the sciences and languages ​​of Latin and German, in which Polenov showed himself very well in the exam, and especially in Latin and translations from it into Russian", and therefore the examiners believed that " he is worthy of a good salary both in science and diligence and in the state of a decent life as a translator with the award of a good salary. In January 1762, Polenov was approved as a translator with a salary of 200 rubles a year.

But neither the work of the translator, nor the lectures on law, which he continued to listen to, did not satisfy Polenov. In August 1762, he wrote to the office of the Academy: “When I was promoted to translator, I was ordered by order from the office to practice only translations Swedish rights for the College of Justice and also go to Mr. Professor Feodorovich to listen to practical lectures. As for the translations, then, as well as the office, it is not unknown, I have translated enough of them, but to this day they are lying around and have not yet been corrected; so, apparently, I wasted both labor and time in vain, and in the future it will be impossible to avoid this if I only remain in this business. And Mr. prof. Feodorovich's lectures likewise cannot bring me any benefit.

Due to a number of reasons related to the acute internal struggle that was going on at the Academy during this period, Polenov's report was unexpectedly given a quick move, and he, together with adjunct A. Protasov and student I. Lepekhin, was sent to continue his education at the University of Strasbourg, where and arrived on November 29, 1762. The instruction of the academic conference ordered Polenov to study the humanities, German and French languages ​​and “especially study antiquities and history, jurisprudence and natural and public law before proceeding to jurisprudence itself, and then to complete the entire course of jurisprudence » .

Polenov stayed abroad until the spring of 1767. As documents from the academic archive show, the purpose of the trip was not only to prepare Polenov to teach law at an academic university, but also “to bring all the laws and regulations of the local state, following the example of other states, into a good and decent system.” For these purposes, in 1765 he was sent "everything possible to collect decrees and books belonging to that, as well as the beginning of Mr. Struba already composed for this matter." However, by the time Polenov returned to Russia, the situation had changed dramatically. In 1766, Polenov had a sharp clash with an academic conference, which blamed him for spending too much time studying history, which, in her opinion, could not be useful in his future profession. Polenov gave a sharp answer to this ridiculous accusation, full of dignity and consciousness of his own righteousness, which only led to increased cavils against him and his recall from abroad.

When he returned to the Academy, he found the academic university in a state of complete collapse. In fact, there were almost no students in it, and the question of Polenov's teaching activity disappeared. The academic conference was headed by Academician Shtelin, who was extremely hostile to Polenov and declared that lawyers were not needed at the Academy and Polenov had nothing to do there. Something happened that Polenov feared even abroad: he did not receive the title of an adjunct, much less a professor. It would seem that a well-educated lawyer who was specially engaged in the study of Russian legislation is a real treasure for the Legislative Commission, which began its work at that time, but he was not attracted there either. I had to return to the modest position of an interpreter, which he held before leaving abroad. He helps S. Bashilov in the publication of the Nikon Chronicle, tries to prepare Ivan the Terrible's Sudebnik for publication, but the academic conference intervenes and transfers this publication to Bashilov. Then Polenov asked to be allowed to translate and publish one of the most important and most radical works of C. Montesquieu - "Reflections on the causes of the greatness and fall of the Romans".

At the same time, he writes a paper for participation in the competition of the Free Economic Society. On February 6, it was received by the Society, listed under No. 148 as a Russian work with the motto "Plus boni mores bold", Semevsky, however, did not make this comparison. He limited himself to citing a few lines issued in the second edition or subjected to softening of the wording. After Semevsky, no one has seen this second edition. The case in which she was involved disappeared, and the opinion was established in the literature that the changes made at the request of the Free Economic Society amounted to the removal or softening of certain formulations and provisions relating to the general theoretical part of the work. This opinion is shared, in particular, by I. S. Bak. L. B. Svetlov also talks about the removal of "the most harsh and unacceptable places for the tsarist censorship." Neither in Buck's article, nor in the publication of Polenov's work by Svetlov, the second "corrected" edition is analyzed.

In the Moscow branch of the archive of the Academy of Sciences in the fund of V.I. Semevsky, it was possible to find a complete copy of the text of the second edition of Polenov’s work, taken by him in the archive of the Free Economic Society. This edition is of great interest. Its study shows that for the landowners from the Free Economic Society, it was not Polenov’s individual “excessively strong expressions” that were unacceptable, but his entire work. Therefore, the second edition of Polenov's work not only differs greatly in its content from the first edition, but also puts forward propositions directly opposite to those of the first edition on a number of issues. In essence, this is not a second edition, but an independent work. Suffice it to say that approximately 36% of the text of the first work was not included in the second edition. About 28% were revised and only 36% of the text of the first edition was transferred to the second edition unchanged.

What turned out to be unacceptable and was removed?

1) Removed all the places where the author speaks of the plight of the Russian serfs, the arbitrariness of the Russian landowners and the lack of rights of the peasants. Thus, the text of the chapter "The plight of our peasants" has been completely removed. Removed the text that the existence of serfdom has a corrupting effect on the whole society and poses a great danger to it, that it will sooner or later lead to an uprising of serfs (from the chapter "Advantages of property"),

2) Removed a significant part of the text of the chapter "On the origin of the slave state", linking the origin of slavery with violence and the consequences of war.

3) A significant part of the chapters "On ownership in movable property", "Regulation of permanent services and taxes to the sovereign and master" and "On the establishment of peasant courts" have been removed. In addition, some phrases and words are thrown out, the removal of which significantly changes the content and meaning of the work. Let's look at this with a specific example.

Speaking about the significance of peasant property, Polenov wrote in the first edition: “I think, and not without reason, that property in a movable and immovable estate can be considered one almost and, moreover, a very fair way to encourage and correct the peasantry.” Polenov's idea boils down to the fact that granting the peasantry the right to property is the only way improving the condition of the peasantry. In the second edition, the words “almost one” are omitted, and this is valent, quam bone legus ”and, in derogation from the accepted rules, was read by A. Nartov on the same day at the general meeting of the Society. On March 19, she was included in the number of "competitive" and transferred to the competition committee. At a meeting of the competition committee, it caused sharp controversy, and then a special decision was made against it, which noted that it contained "many excessively strong and indecent expressions in the local state." The Committee decided to "order the author to forward it immediately", promising that in this case his work would be classified as "second class", but without the right to publish.

There is no doubt that Polenov quickly found out about the decision of the commission, especially since his old comrade from the Academy worked in the Free Economic Society and trip abroad Academician Protasov. He was in charge of drawing up the minutes and other papers of the Society, its correspondence, etc. . The decision of the competition committee also passed through his hands. Polenov, from his own experience, already knew what this meant and what threatens "indecent expressions in the local state." The wording "to order to immediately remake" left no doubt on this score. But this is not enough. The competition committee included the president of the Academy, Count V. G. Orlov, and Shtelin was the secretary of the Free Economic Society. There was no way out - I had to correct the work and remove from it everything that seemed “too strong and indecent”.

However, even after Polenov was forced to radically redo his work and presented it again to the competition committee, the latter refrained from deciding on its award. The surviving copy of the decision on this issue says: “Although the former strong and indecent expressions are thrown out by an unknown writer; However, the question still remains, in which class should I include it? And since most of the members have already read this piece, would it not be deigned to make a decision about it by balloting and voting? And only at the general meeting of the Society on April 23, 1768, it was decided: “Piece No. 148 ... to attach to other pieces that have entered the second class; however, do not print it. And on August 30, it was decided to award Polenov with a "gold medal of 12 chervons".

The awarded works by Bearde, Welner, Graslin, von Meck were published in a special collection in the original language. Bearde's work was also published in Russian in the next volume of the Proceedings of the Free Economic Society, and in 1862 it was reprinted again in the Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. The work of Polenov, which the Society forbade to print, turned out to be buried in the archives of the Free Economic Society. Only a century later, in 1865, the grandson of A. Ya. Polenov, D. V. Polenov, published in the Russian Archive the original text of the work, preserved in the Polenov family archive. The final text of the work continued to lie in the archive until it was discovered by V. I. Semevsky, who was working on the book “The Peasant Question in Russia”. Correctly noting that “this new edition of his work is interesting for us not in itself, but rather in comparison with the first one: by comparing them with each other, we can determine with accuracy that it seemed then too much gives the phrase a completely different meaning. There are many such examples.

The reason for removing these texts is quite obvious: Polenov proceeds from the needs and interests of the peasants and actively defends them.

The situation is similar with the changes made to the text of these chapters. As a rule, Polenov's clear and unambiguous phrases are replaced by very vague ones, devoid of both sharpness and anti-serfdom orientation. Speaking about the “spiritual and bodily qualities” of a serf, Polenov wrote in the first edition: “This sad object that turns before my eyes is nothing more than living images of laziness, negligence, distrust, and fear; in a word, he bears all the inscribed signs of a disastrous life and misfortune that oppresses him. In the second edition, this place already sounds like this: "... according to a detailed study, we will not see anything that could serve both to his praise and to our pleasure." As you can see, an indefinite phrase appeared, devoid of any social content. Such changes are typical for the entire text of the second edition. Looking at them, you see how right G.V. Plekhanov was, who wrote that “Polenov largely left the noble point of view” and with him, as well as with representatives of the third estate in the West, “the ideologists of the Russian nobility still never came to an agreement would" .

As the second edition of Polenov's work shows, the ideologists of the Russian nobility, who were part of the Free Economic Society and led its activities, "did not come to terms" with Polenov, not only in relation to the critical part of his work, and not only in relation to the initial theoretical premises of his work. For them, even that weakest and most inconsistent part of Polenov's work, which was devoted to practical proposals, turned out to be unacceptable. At first glance, this may seem strange. After all, Polenov's practical proposals were extremely timid and inconsistent and fundamentally differed little from Bearde's practical proposals. But the fact is that for all their timidity and inconsistency, these practical proposals proceeded, as Polenov repeatedly noted in the first edition of his work, from the desire to “protect these poor people”, stop the “plunder and ruin” of the peasants by the landowners, “protect peasants from the insolence of their landowners, who torment them without any mercy or mercy, taking away everything that comes into their eyes, and through this they lead them into unspeakable poverty, from which they will never be able to get rid of. In addition, Polenov's proposals seemed to the leaders of the Free Economic Society to be excessive, unprofitable both for the landlords and for the feudal state.

Therefore, the second part of Polenov's work has undergone no less changes than the first. Let's see what practically expressed the processing of the second part.

In full accordance with educational concepts, Polenov paid great attention to the question of enlightening the peasantry and assigned a special chapter to this issue. He proposed to establish schools in all large villages, to which all the children of peasants who had reached the age of 10 were to attend. Peasant children from small villages had to go to schools in large villages. Textbooks should be free for the first time, and then be sold at a minimum price.

The second edition refers to the establishment of schools only in those large villages where they "for many reasons can always remain intact." From each small village only one or two people are sent to school, "who, having learned to read and write there, after each in their village can teach others." The term of study was limited to one winter.

Polenov, in the first edition, suggested "bringing doctors in large villages", and eventually doctors, each of whom was to be assigned a "well-known district, which would include a fair number of villages." He justified his proposal by the fact that it is especially important for peasants who perform hard physical work to maintain health. In the second edition, it is already said that the landowners should send one person per 1000 m.p. to study medicine, and the peasants would support them at their own expense. Doctors are no longer provided for villages, but for county and provincial towns.

Polenov provided for the creation of peasant courts to resolve disputes between landowners and peasants and between peasants, and the purpose of such courts was to protect the peasants from the arbitrariness of the landowners, and in the second edition there is no question of any protection, and the court and the chief of police are already elected, in full in accordance with the orders of the nobility to the Legislative Commission, the nobles and from the nobility.

Polenov in the first edition raised the question that even if the peasant once received the means of production from the landowner, this should not lead to the “benefactor” arrogating to himself the right to arbitrarily dispose of his movable property. He argued that if even the slightest power over the peasant's property was left to the landowner, then the peasant would "never be able to rise." In the second edition, the first part of Polenov's position is thrown out, and the second is significantly softened.

We have listed only the most important changes, but there are enough of them to see that Polenov's work has undergone a radical revision, has lost its anti-serf orientation, has ceased to consider the issue of peasant property from the standpoint of protecting the peasantry from the arbitrariness of the landowners, has lost its most powerful critical part, which depicted the position of the Russian peasants, and has become little differ from the works of foreigners who received a prize at the competition, and in some parts even echoed the noble performances in the Legislative Commission.

The operation carried out with Polenov’s work at the request of the competition committee, as well as the decision of the competition committee itself, perfectly shows the true attitude of the leaders of the Free Economic Society to the issue raised, their unwillingness to take any practical measures that would change and improve the situation of the peasants, and at least in to some extent weakened or reduced the power and property rights of the landowners.

This position is confirmed by the fate of Polenov himself. As already noted, there was practically no place for him in the Academy of Sciences, and he was deprived of the opportunity to conduct both teaching and scientific work in the field of law. He was not involved in the activities of the Legislative Commission. Participation in the competition of the Free Economic Society did not improve his position at all. Rather, on the contrary, it increased the hostile and suspicious attitude towards him on the part of the reactionary leadership of the Academy. He was not even accepted as a member of the Free Economic Society. The only "mercy" shown to him at that time was promotion to the rank of "translator of three colleges" in 1769. But this "mercy" clearly showed that he would remain a translator at the Academy for the rest of his life.

V. I. Semevsky expresses surprise that Catherine II, no doubt familiar with Polenov’s work, did nothing to elect him as an academician, and “... failed to use his abilities with more useful» . This surprise is caused only by the role that Semevsky assigns to Catherine II, and by the fact that he takes seriously her liberal demagogic phraseology. In fact, it would be surprising if such a person as Polenov were "set in motion" in Catherine's Russia. The anti-noble orientation of his competitive work does not need comments. Let us add to this his review of the current Russian legislation contained in one of his letters from abroad. “I analyze the code and decrees, and, apart from disorder, confusion and untruth, I find almost nothing: I noticed such notable errors in our rights that they can sometimes cause great harm to both the sovereign and the people; however, despite all this, work, time and prudence can overcome everything. In what direction Polenov considered it necessary to revise Russian legislation can be judged by his competitive work. But just this seemed to the ruling circles of serf-owning Russia not only untimely, but dangerous and harmful.

Seeing that all attempts to find application for his knowledge at the Academy were in vain, Polenov left the Academy in April 1771. In his petition to the academic office, he motivated his step as follows: “So that the applied work and time for my teaching would not be completely in vain, I took the intention of bothering the Academy of Sciences with my most humble petition: that I be allowed to look for places in such a team where actually up to jurisprudence concerning cases ". Such a "team" turned out to be one of the departments of the Senate, where Polenov pulled the bureaucratic strap of the secretary for about 20 years.

The first edition of Polenov's work is given after its publication in the Russian Archive. The text of the second edition is given line by line according to its copy, which has been preserved in the fund of V.I. Semevsky in the Moscow branch of the archive of the Academy of Sciences.

x

x

I Semevsky

Boris Nikolayevich, Soviet economic geographer, doctor of geographical sciences (since 1949). Member of the CPSU since 1942. Graduated Faculty of Economics Moscow agricultural academy. K. A. Timiryazev (1931). Professor, Head of the Department of Economic Geography (since 1959), Dean (since 1970) of the Faculty of Geography of Leningrad University. Major works in economic geography foreign countries and on general theoretical questions of economic geography. Vice President of the Geographical Society of the USSR (since 1970).

Works: Agricultural development of deserts, L., 1937; USA. Economic and geographical essay, M., 1963; Questions of the theory of economic geography, L., 1964; Economic geography of foreign countries, parts 1-2, M., 1968-72 (co-author and editor); Economic geography of Cuba, L., 1970; Introduction to economic geography, L., 1972.

II Semevsky

Vasily Ivanovich, Russian historian. Graduated from St. Petersburg University (1872). In 1882-86 assistant professor at St. Petersburg University (suspended from teaching for a "harmful direction"); I have been teaching students at home for many years. In 1891 he made a trip to Siberia to work in the archives. S. actively participated in public life, in the protests of the St. Petersburg intelligentsia against the repressive measures of the autocracy. In January 1905 he was briefly arrested. In 1905, chairman of the Committee for Assistance to Liberated Prisoners of Shlisselburg, member of the Committee for Assistance to Political Exiles. Since 1906 he has been a member of the People's Socialist Party (See). Participated in 1913 in the creation of the magazine "" and was one of its editors. S. was a historian of the liberal populist direction. Studied the history of the peasantry, the working class, the liberation movement in Russia. His works are written from a democratic position, with the involvement of a huge amount of factual material. S. did not make broad generalizations, believing that an objective presentation of the facts itself leads to correct conclusions. The works retain their significance as collections of large and reliable factual material. Member of the Society of Russian Literature (since 1880), Free Economic Society (since 1895).

Op.: Peasants in the reign of Empress Catherine II, vol. 1-2, St. Petersburg, 1881-1901; The Peasant Question in Russia in the 18th and First Half of the 19th Centuries, vol. 1-2, St. Petersburg, 1888; Workers in the Siberian gold mines, vol. 1-2, St. Petersburg, 1898; Political and social ideas of the Decembrists, St. Petersburg, 1909; Cyril and Methodius Society. 1846-1847, ; M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky and the Petrashevites, part 1, M., 1922.

Lit.: Historiography of the history of the USSR from ancient times to the Great October socialist revolution, 2nd ed., M., 1971, p. 290-94; Volkov S. I., V. I. Semevsky. (TO scientific biography), "History of the USSR", 1959, No. 5; Kritsky Yu. M., V. I. Semevsky and censorship, "History of the USSR", 1970, No. 3; History of historical science in the USSR. pre-October period. Bibliography, M., 1965.

V. I. Semevsky.

III Semevsky

Mikhail Ivanovich, Russian historian, journalist, public figure. Brother of V.I. Semevsky (See). He graduated from the Konstantinovsky Cadet Corps (1855). He served in the military (until 1861) and state (until 1882) service, participated (since 1877) in the St. Petersburg city government. From 1856 he published articles on Russian history (mainly in the 18th-1st half of the 19th centuries), collaborated in the publications of the Free Russian Printing House (See) in London. In 1870-92, the publisher of the historical magazine "", actively searched in the provincial and family archives documents for publication, encouraged experienced people to write memoirs. His album Acquaintances (1888) contains autobiographical notes of 850 persons. He published notes by A. T. Bolotov, Ya. P. Shakhovsky, E. Minich, memoirs and letters of the Decembrists.

Works: Essays and stories from Russian history of the 18th century, 2nd ed., vols. 1-3, St. Petersburg, 1883-84.

Lit.: Timoshchuk V. V., M. I. Semevsky, founder and editor of the historical journal "Russian Antiquity". His life and work. 1837-1892, St. Petersburg, 1895 (list of works by S.).