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 a central issue of the socio-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. This is how 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 carried out a massive distribution to the landowners of land inhabited by state peasants, and issued monstrous decrees that significantly worsened the legal and economic situation of the 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 business. 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 as a theme for the competition for best work raised the question of peasant property. 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 a huge archival material and involved in scientific circulation a lot of important and new materials. In particular, he studied the file from the archive of the Free Economic Society, which contained most of the surviving competitive works. Unfortunately, this is the case with the liquidation of the Free Economic Society and the transfer of its archive to State Archive did not arrive and turned out to be lost for science.

However, a number of important documents related to the competition of 1766 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 of ownership to 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.

Copy of Euler's opening speech on German preserved in the archives of the Free Economic Society. It is written in gothic type, by a clerk's hand, on half-sheets. Directly behind copy German text Euler's speech is the text of a translation into Russian made at the same time, as evidenced by the note on the first page. 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 those few members of the Society who spoke in favor of a positive solution to the issue. 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 broad circles Russian society and essentially limited the circle of readers of these works to a small number of nobles. 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. Korob'in, 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. Didn't even help direct indication the empress, who reported 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 Bearde's work, since, despite the presence of the first "liberal" part in it, this work proved that in this moment emancipating the peasants and granting them the right to own property 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 delayed for indefinite term, they considered a 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 their 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 “an extreme injustice and a clear 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 which social group belonged to the author, who claimed that the peasant owner would expand the plowing, improve the cultivation of the land, increase its fertilizer, 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, 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 indicate that its author was not particularly literate. The author is especially at odds with syntax. Even for the middle of the 18th century, when the syntax was extremely unstable, this work is strikingly distinguished by the complete absence of punctuation marks, with the exception of the semicolon, which appears 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 attributed 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, the work of Voltaire was in the deceased archiving and we do not have the full text. We only have 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 insist even to the same extent as Bearde on providing the peasants land property» . 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 landowners 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 Western European enlighteners, who made it possible for Catherine II and her entourage to speculate on the ideas of the enlighteners and use them for their 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, the student Polenov was instructed to "translate the Eastland and Livland rights from German and Latin into Russian" for the College of Justice. The volume of work was so great that Polenov was unable 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 position with the fact that he will continue to listen to lectures at the university on 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 in 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 humanities, German and French, and "especially to 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 academic university in a state of total collapse. In fact, there were almost no students in it, and the question of teaching activities Polenov dropped out. 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 Montesquieu's most important and most radical works, 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 introduces huge 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 the second edition, but 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 "one almost" are omitted, and this is valent, quam bone legus "and, in a digression from accepted rules, on the same day was read by A. Nartov 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. Similar examples many can be cited.

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 the question of the enlightenment of the peasantry and devoted a special chapter to this question. 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 substantiated his proposal by the fact that the peasants who were carrying out heavy physical work health is especially important. 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 police chief 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 they are enough 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 situation Russian peasants, and began to differ little from the work of foreigners who received a prize at the competition, and in some parts even echoed the speeches of the nobility 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, who was 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 inflict great harm and the sovereign and the people; however, despite all this, work, time and prudence can overcome everything. In what direction Polenov considered it necessary to rework Russian legislation can be judged from his competitive work. But that's just how it seemed ruling circles feudal Russia is 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.

Free Economic Society- the oldest of the scientific societies of Russia. Established in 1765, 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 situation of Russian agriculture and the conditions economic life countries, as well as the provisions of agricultural machinery in the Western European states. In the first period of the existence of the society, issues were put on the queue that are still being discussed today: the establishment of spare stores for the food of the peasants, the introduction of public plowing, etc. She herself raised the question of the benefits of forms of land ownership (communal and private) and the advantages for agriculture economy of free and serf labor, which caused a whole literature (see a complete analysis of it in 1 volume of works. The Free Economic Society of I. Semevsky: "The Peasant Question in Russia in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries."). In the course of its existence, the Free Economic Society of E. O. managed to show an energetic, aimed at achieving the goal outlined in the charter. He owns the initiative to collect information about economic life Russia. The program compiled by him, with a variety of questions, was sent to individuals and institutions. The answers received provide material for comparison not only of the methods of managing the economy of that and the present time, but also of the economic situation of different localities in Russia. The distribution of the program and the collection of information continued for three reigns. In the reign of Nicholas I, due to the variability of bread prices, which landowners endured, the Free Economic Society Economic Society, on the initiative of S. a, drew attention to this issue and published a "Code of Opinions on Average Bread Prices" (1847). The society also collected information about the state of the economy in foreign countries. The most important fact in the activities of the society for the study of Russian agricultural life is the joint geographical society sending expeditions to study the grain trade and productivity in Russia (see "Proceedings" of these expeditions). When (1876) the question arose about the study of chernozem as a productive force, and its distribution, the society published an essay Free Economic Society a: "Russian Chernozem". To clarify the question of the soils of Russia, a "soil commission" arose during e. Free economic society an economic society, seeking to spread among the landowners useful information about agriculture and its various branches, published more than 160 essays, both original and translated, concerning mainly agriculture. In addition, it has published and publishes periodicals: "Proceedings of the Free Economic Society of the 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. took steps to spread the culture useful plants(potato, cotton, etc.), to the improvement of 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. Free Economic Society a), up to 10 thousand rubles. It took care of beekeeping already under Empress Catherine II, but in particular it did a lot on this issue thanks to famous chemist A. M., who managed to interest many in the publication of the "Bee Leaf" (see). the rich library of the society, consisting of more than 26 thousand volumes of works of an economic and agricultural nature, is available to everyone. The society arranged agricultural exhibitions, awarded outstanding figures in the field of agriculture, took and is taking measures to spread smallpox vaccination (74 thousand rubles were spent on this in 1890), and organized public lectures. Within its walls, reports are constantly read on the burning issues of the people's and agriculture.

The free economic society of E. society, according to the new charter (1872), 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 president sits in the general assembly. The secretary elected by the society is in charge of office work, the members of the council are also elected. The positions of president, chairmen, and others in the Free Economic Society of E. society were occupied by many prominent persons, such as, for example, the well-known statesman N. S., K. D., A. M. Butlerov and others. Both individuals and the Free Economic Society of E. provided benefits and donations to the society, thanks to which at present the Free Economic Society is the richest economic society of all scientific societies of Russia: it has valuable property (a house, etc.), valued at 185 thousand rubles, and money capital, placed in% securities, worth 373 thousand rubles.

See "History of the Free Economic Society of E. O. from 1765 to 1865", compiled on behalf of the society by its secretary A. I. m (1865); " Historical outline twenty-five years of activity of the Free Economic Society of the Economic Society from 1865 to 1890, compiled by A. N. m (1890).

Free Economic Society.

I Semevsky

Boris Nikolaevich [b.21.2 (6.3.) 1907, p. Verkhovye, now the Smolensk region], Soviet economic geographer, doctor geographical sciences(since 1949). Member of the CPSU since 1942. Graduated from the Faculty of Economics of the Moscow Agricultural Academy. academy. K. A. Timiryazev (1931). Professor, Head of the Department of Economic Geography (since 1959), Dean (since 1970) of the Faculty of Geography 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. Participated in 1913 in the creation of the magazine "Voice of the Past" 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 actual material. S. did not make broad generalizations, believing that an objective presentation of the facts itself leads to the 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., 1918]; 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.

III Semevsky

Mikhail Ivanovich, Russian historian, journalist, public figure. Brother of V. I. Semevsky (See Semevsky). 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 and first half of the 19th centuries), and contributed to publications by the Free Russian Printing House in London. In 1870-92, the publisher of the historical journal Russkaya Starina, actively searched for in provincial and family archives documents for publication, encouraged experienced people to writing memoirs. His album Acquaintances (1888) contains autobiographical notes of 850 individuals. He published notes by A. T. Bolotov, Ya. P. Shakhovsky, E. Minich, memoirs and letters of the Decembrists.

Cit.: Essays and stories from the Russian history XVIII in., 2nd ed., vol. 1-3, St. Petersburg, 1883-84.

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

• - Semevsky - a famous scientist, was born in 1848. After completing the course at the 1st St. Petersburg gymnasium, he entered for two years, in order to study natural sciences, to the medical-surgical academy, and then moved to ...

  Biographical Dictionary

• - Semevsky - a public figure and writer, studied in the Polotsk cadet corps and a noble regiment; served as an officer in the Life Guards Pavlovsky Regiment ...

  Biographical Dictionary

• - Russian populist historian, one of the founders of the People's Socialist Party and a member of its Central Committee. Founder and editor of the magazine "Voice of the Past" ...
• - Russian historian, journalist. Brother of V. I. Semevsky. Correspondent of the Free Russian Printing House in London. Founder and publisher-editor of the magazine "Russian Starina"...

  Big encyclopedic dictionary

• - 1. Vasily Ivanovich - Russian. historian, populist directions in Russian historiography. From noble family. In 1872 he graduated from the history and philology. f-t Petersburg...

  Soviet historical encyclopedia

• - genus. in 1818, d. in 1875, the official editor-publisher of the first issues of the Russian Starina magazine, second cousin Mikh. Iv. Semevsky...
• - famous scientist...

  Big biographical encyclopedia

• - Writer, journalist and social activist

  Big biographical encyclopedia

• - 1. Vasily Ivanovich, historian of populist orientation. Brother of M. I. Semevsky. In 1906, one of the founders of the People's Socialist Party and a member of its Central Committee. Founder and editor of the magazine "Voice of the Past" ...

  Russian encyclopedia

• - Vladimir Nikolayevich - owl. mountain scientist. Sciences, Dr. tech. sciences, prof. ...

  Geological Encyclopedia

• - famous scientist, b. in 1848. At the end of the course at the 1st St. Petersburg gymnasium, he entered the Medico-Surgical Academy for two years to study the natural sciences, and then switched to the historical and philological ...
• - public figure and writer, studied at the Polotsk Cadet Corps and the noble regiment; served as an officer in the L.-Gds. Pavlovsk regiment...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - I Semevsky Boris Nikolaevich, Soviet economic geographer, doctor of geographical sciences. Member of the CPSU since 1942. Graduated from the Faculty of Economics of the Moscow Agricultural Academy. academy. K. A. Timiryazev...

In 1765, by decree of Her Imperial Majesty Catherine II, the oldest social organization- Freestyle 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 source 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 had great value 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 various times, such major thinkers of the 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 were directly involved in hostilities with 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. In the seventies of the last century, the restoration of the public association of leading economists began. At this time, the need arose again to improve the economic activities of the state. 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. Huge contribution in the restoration of the work of the organization did Professor Popov. Today VEO operates in every region of Russia. This organization employs thousands of scientists and various specialists. WEO 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 new approach to address urgent economic problems development of the country.

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 topical issues 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

By using 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 beginning of XXI century", as well as "Moscow is the basis of the country's economic development". Being a member of International Union, which united the workers of the economic sector, the VEO is working to improve the country's integration ties in the current 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. Environmental 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 food for 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 advantages for agriculture of free and serf labor, which caused a whole literature (see its full analysis 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 most important fact in the activity of the society for the study of Russian agricultural life is the 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 use of the rich library of the society, consisting of more than 26 thousand volumes of works of an economic and agricultural nature, is available to everyone. 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 of economic questions, known under the name of "Marxism", could not fail to draw the attention of the members of the V.E.O. (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, which engulfed large areas of 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 famine, the V.E.O. raised the question of studying the terrible phenomenon and the food supply in the country associated with it. 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. its general meeting was informed of the Highest order of April 8 this year, which, “according to the most humble report of the ministers of agriculture and state property and internal affairs, in view of the foreshadowed by His Imperial Majesty 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. General, which is the oldest public institution in Russia, which sought to express true needs 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 of scientific research” (“Tr. ). 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 not nearly as intensively as in normal time Soil commissions attached to the society (formed in the city), statistical (), free distribution of books (), on the peasant question; 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. issued a series scientific papers, both 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” (); "Initial 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 in 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 assignments. Personnel B. 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 the grain trade, community issues, money turnover 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 on 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 whole 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 sketch of the 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