Nikolai Ivanovich Turgenev October 23, 1789, Simbirsk (now Ulyanovsk) - November 10, 1871, Villa Verbois, near Bougival in the vicinity of Paris) - Russian economist and publicist, an active participant in the Decembrist movement.

One of the largest figures of Russian liberalism. He continued his activities both in exile (from 1826; convicted in absentia), and after the amnesty under Alexander II.

Education

Son of I. P. Turgenev (1752-1807), brother of A. I. Turgenev. Born in 1789 in Simbirsk.

He began his education at the Moscow University Noble Boarding School and Moscow University, and completed it in Göttingen, where he studied history, jurisprudence, political economy and financial law. In 1812 he returned to his homeland, but the following year he was appointed to the famous Prussian reformer Heinrich Stein, who at that time was the representative of the Russian and Austrian emperors, as well as the Prussian king, for the organization of Germany. Turgenev returned to Russia only three years later. Constant relations with Stein helped expand Turgenev's horizons, and he retained good memories of him. In turn, Stein said about Turgenev that his name “is equivalent to the names of honesty and honor.” His stay in Germany and conversations with Stein contributed to the development of Turgenev’s views on the peasant question.

"Experience in the Theory of Taxes"

At the end of 1818, Turgenev published his book “Experience in the Theory of Taxes,” in which in places he touched on serfdom in Russia. Along with general views on serfdom, Turgenev considered the best way to reduce the number of banknotes to be “the sale of state property together with the peasants." At the same time, he proposed to define by law the rights and obligations of both these peasants and their new landowners and thus set “an excellent and beneficial example for all landowners in general.” As for Turgenev’s general financial views expressed in The Theory of Taxes, he advised striving for complete freedom of trade, vigorously protested against high customs duties, argued that the government should try, as far as possible, to reduce the burden of taxes on the “common people”, expressed against the tax exemption of the nobility and, in support of his thought, referred to the taxation of the lands of this class in Prussia. According to Turgenev, the tax should be levied on net income, and not on wages, and per capita taxes are “traces of the lack of education of previous times.” In addition, they were offered exemption from taxes on basic needs. Faulty payers should not have been subject to corporal punishment, since taxes should have been taken “not from the person of the subject, but from his estate.” He believed that imprisonment should also be avoided, as a completely inappropriate means. When introducing changes concerning the well-being of the entire state, it was necessary, in Turgenev’s opinion, to be more consistent with the benefits of landowners and farmers than merchants. In his opinion, the prosperity of the people, and not the existence of many factories and manufactories, constitutes the main sign of the people's well-being. The success of collecting taxes, in addition to the people's wealth, also depends on the type of government of the state and the “spirit of the people”: “the willingness to pay taxes is most visible in republics, the aversion to taxes is in despotic states.” Turgenev ended his book with the following words: “ the improvement of the credit system will go along with the improvement of political legislation, especially the improvement of the representation of the people».

On the back title page The book was printed with the order of the author: “ The author, taking upon himself all the costs of printing this book, provides the money that will be obtained from the sale of it, in favor of the peasants imprisoned for arrears in taxes." According to the testimony of his associates, this order testified to Turgenev’s insufficiently deep acquaintance with Russian legislation that time. Decembrist Alexander Muravyov wrote in his memoirs “My Journal” (“Mon Jornal”): “ Nikolai Turgenev announced in the first edition of “Essay on Taxes” that the money raised from the sale of the book was assigned to ransom serfs imprisoned for debts, while peasants could not be imprisoned for debts; by law they could be given loan no more than 5 rubles».

Turgenev's book had a success that was completely unprecedented in Russia for such serious works: it was published in November 1818, and by the end of the year it was almost all sold out, and in May 1819 its second edition appeared. After 1825 it was banned: it was searched for and all found copies were taken away.

Note on serfdom

In the summer of 1818, Turgenev went to the Simbirsk village, which belonged to him along with his two brothers, and replaced corvee there with quitrent. At the same time, the peasants pledged to pay two-thirds of their previous income. Somewhat later, he entered into an agreement with the peasants, which he later likened to the contracts concluded on the basis of the decree of April 2, 1842, when peasants were released on duty.

In 1819, St. Petersburg Governor-General Miloradovich instructed Turgenev to draw up a note on serfdom, which he was to present to the emperor. In a note compiled by Turgenev, he indicated that the government should take the initiative to limit serfdom and eliminate the burden of excessive corvée on the peasants, the sale of people individually and cruel treatment of them, and the peasants themselves should be given the right to complain against the landowners. In addition to these measures, Turgenev proposed making some changes to the 1803 law on “free cultivators” and allowing landowners to retain ownership of the land when concluding voluntary conditions with the peasants, that is, releasing entire estates without land, and granting the peasants the right to move. Its implementation would undermine the influence of the law of 1803, which prevented the delanding of estates upon their liberation. After reading Turgenev’s note, the sovereign expressed his approval of it and told Miloradovich that, having selected the best from the projects he had collected, he would finally “do something” for the serfs. However, only in 1833 was it prohibited to sell people separately from their families, and in 1841 - to buy serfs without land for everyone who did not have inhabited estates. The extent and types of punishments to which a landowner could subject his peasants were first determined in 1846. To implement his favorite idea of ​​​​the abolition of serfdom, Turgenev considered the assistance of poets and writers extremely important, and he argued to many of them that it was necessary to write on this topic.

Union of Welfare

In 1819, Turgenev became a member of the Union of Welfare. At the beginning of 1820, at the suggestion of Pestel, a meeting of the root duma of the “Union of Welfare” was held in St. Petersburg, where there were heated debates about what form of government should be in Russia: a republic or a monarchy. When Turgenev’s turn came, he said: “ un président sans phrases", and during the voting everyone unanimously voted for a republic. However, later in the projects of the St. Petersburg members of the secret society, the desire for a limited monarchy prevailed.

Some members of the Union of Welfare, finding its activities insufficiently energetic, came to the idea of ​​​​the need to close or transform it. In January 1821, about 20 members of the society gathered in Moscow for this purpose, among whom were Turgenev, Yakushkin, von Wisins and others. It was decided to change not only the charter of the society, but also its composition (since information was received that the government knew about its existence), declaring everywhere that the “Union of Welfare” would cease to exist forever. In this way, unreliable members were removed from society. Yakushkin in his notes states that at the same time a new charter was drawn up, which was divided into two parts: in the first, the same philanthropic goals were proposed for new entrants as in the previous charter; the second part, according to Yakushkin, was written by Turgenev for members of the highest rank; here it has already been directly stated that the goal of society is to limit autocracy in Russia, for which it was recognized as necessary to act on the troops and prepare them just in case. For the first time, it was necessary to establish four main dumas: one in St. Petersburg, the other in Moscow, the third was to be formed in the Smolensk province by Yakushkin, the fourth was to be put in order in Tulchin by Burtsev. At a more crowded meeting of society members, Turgenev, as president of the meeting, announced that the Union of Welfare no longer existed and outlined the reasons for its destruction. Returning to St. Petersburg, Turgenev announced that the members who were at the congress in Moscow found it necessary to stop the activities of the Union of Welfare.

Fonvizin in his notes says that “the abolition was imaginary” and the union “remained the same as it was, but its members were ordered to act more carefully.” Turgenev, in a letter to the editor of Kolokol (1863) regarding Yakushkin’s notes published in the previous year, resolutely denied that he had drawn up the second part of the society’s charter and said that he had only drawn up a note on the formation of committees from former members of the society in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Smolensk to spread the idea of ​​​​the liberation of the peasants, he subsequently narrowed and weakened his participation in the secret society.

Turgenev and the Northern Society of Decembrists

Yakushkin argued that in the new society, created mainly by the energy of Nikita Muravyov (as can be seen from other sources, only in 1822), Turgenev was present “at many meetings.” On the contrary, Turgenev himself completely denied his participation in the secret society after the closure of the Union of Welfare. However, the historian of the reign of Alexander I, Bogdanovich, based on the unpublished testimony of some Decembrists, argued that Turgenev, together with N. Muravyov and E. Obolensky, was elected in 1822 as a member of the Duma of the “Northern Society”. The following year he was again elected unanimously, but declined due to ill health. At a meeting with Mitkov (whom, as can be seen from Nikolai Turgenev’s letters to his brothers, he accepted into the society, although he later claimed that he did not accept anyone into the society), Turgenev read a draft on the composition and structure of the society, dividing its members into connected(juniors) and convinced(seniors). Only with his departure abroad did Turgenev completely stop relations with the secret society. Yakushkin’s testimony and Bogdanovich’s story in the most important respects (that is, regarding Turgenev’s participation in the secret society and after the congress in Moscow) are also confirmed by the testimony of S. G. Volkonsky in his memoirs:

On my annual trips to St. Petersburg (after the congress in Moscow), I not only had meetings and conversations with Turgenev, but it was decided by the Southern Duma to give him a full report on our actions, and he was revered by the Southern Duma as a most zealous worker. - I remember that during one of these meetings, while talking about the actions of the Southern Duma, he asked me: “What, Prince, have you prepared your brigade for an uprising at the beginning of our common cause? ... In the preliminary charters, different parts of the administration were distributed to various persons for processing; legal proceedings and financial parts were entrusted to Turgenev... Turgenev’s works did not fall into the hands of the government, but... everything that he said in print about finance and legal proceedings for Russia during his... stay in foreign lands is a summary of what it was prepared for use during a revolution

The discrepancy between how things really happened and what Turgenev wrote in his book “La Russie et les Russes” (1847) can only be explained by the desire to present in a generally softened form the activities of secret societies, whose members were languishing even at that time in Siberia. The “exculpatory note” he placed in the first volume of this work should most likely be looked at not as a historical source, but as the speech of a lawyer who refutes the accusations contained in the “Report of the Investigative Commission.” Even in the 1860s. Turgenev, perhaps, believed that the time had not yet come to speak with complete frankness about a secret society. In one of his brochures in 1867, he wrote:

I always looked very calmly at the unexpected turning point that followed in my life at that time; but at the time when I wrote (“La Russie et les Russes”), the people whom I considered the best the noblest people in the world and of whose innocence I was convinced, as in my own, languished in Siberia. That's what tormented me... Some of them knew nothing about the riot... Why were they convicted? For words and for words... Even admitting that these words were taken as intent, the conviction remains incorrect, illegal... Moreover, the words on which the condemnation is based were uttered for several years only by a very few and, moreover, were always refuted by others

In the already mentioned letter of 1863, Turgenev wrote:

What fate befell Pestel, whom the investigation and court found most guilty? Let us assume that all the testimony attributed to him is true. But what did he do, what did he do? Absolutely nothing! What did all those who lived in Moscow and in various places of the empire do, not knowing what was happening in St. Petersburg? Nothing! Meanwhile, execution and exile did not escape them either. So, these people suffered for their opinions or for words for which no one can be held accountable when the words were not spoken publicly

Thus, Turgenev continued to participate in the secret society after 1821, and it is precisely his participation in meetings of members of the society that should largely be attributed to the thoughtfulness of the plan of state reforms that was found in the papers of the prince. Trubetskoy and which was very similar to Nikita Muravyov’s project. The plan included: freedom of the press, freedom of worship, abolition of the ownership of serfs, equality of all citizens before the law, and therefore the abolition of military courts and all judicial commissions, granting the right to each citizen to choose an occupation and occupy all positions, addition of poll taxes and arrears , abolition of conscription and military settlements, reduction of service life for lower ranks and equalization of military service between all classes (conscription), establishment of volost, district, provincial and regional administrations and the appointment of members of their choice to replace all officials, publicity of the court, introduction of juries in criminal and civil courts. Most of these basic principles were present in all of Turgenev’s later works. The plans of members of the Northern Society also included the dissolution of the standing army and the formation of an internal people's guard. In the same project, found in the papers of the book. Trubetskoy, was interpreted, among other things, about the People's Assembly, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Duma and the power of the emperor.

Government activities

Since returning to Russia in 1816, Turgenev served in the commission for drafting laws, in the Ministry of Finance and in the office of the State Council, where he was assistant secretary of state. His official activity was especially useful in everything that related to peasant affairs. The following year, Turgenev's health required a long vacation abroad.

In the summer of 1825, he received a letter abroad from the Minister of Finance Kankrin, who, by imperial command, offered him the position of director of the department of manufactures in his ministry. This shows that Emperor Alexander I continued to treat him favorably. One day the king said: “If you believed everything that was said and repeated about him, there would be a reason to destroy him. I know his extreme opinions, but I also know that he is an honest man, and that is enough for me.” Turgenev rejected Kankrin's proposal, since he did not sympathize with his intentions to patronize industry at any cost. This refusal saved him.

Arraignment and conviction in absentia

In January 1826, Turgenev went to England and there he learned that he was involved in the Decembrist cause. He hastened to send an explanatory note to St. Petersburg by mail regarding his participation in secret societies. In it, he claimed that he was a member only of the “Union of Welfare,” which had long been closed, explained the nature of this society and insisted that he did not belong to any other secret union, having no relations, neither written nor personal, with members of later secret societies and being completely alien to the events of December 14, he cannot be responsible for what happened without his knowledge and in his absence.

Soon after that, the secretary of the Russian embassy in London came to Turgenev and conveyed to him an invitation from the count. Nesselrode (by order of Emperor Nicholas) to appear before supreme court, with a warning that if he refuses to appear, he will be tried as a state criminal. Turgenev replied that the explanatory note he had recently sent regarding his participation in secret societies made his presence in St. Petersburg completely unnecessary; Moreover, his state of health does not allow him to undertake such a journey. Then Gorchakov showed the dispatch to gr. Nesselrode told the Russian chargé d'affaires that, in the event of Turgenev's refusal to appear, he should inform the English ministry “what kind of people it gives refuge to.” It turned out that the English Minister Canning was demanded to extradite Turgenev, but without success.

Turgenev later learned that Russian envoys throughout the European continent were ordered to arrest him wherever he happened to be; they even thought of capturing him in England with the help of secret agents.

The Supreme Criminal Court found that “act. stat. owls Turgenev, according to the testimony of 24 accomplices, was an active member of a secret society, participated in the establishment, restoration, meetings and dissemination of it with the involvement of others, equally participated in the intention to introduce republican rule and, retiring abroad, he, at the call of the government, did not appear for justification, which confirmed the testimony made against him.”

The court sentenced Turgenev to death, and the emperor ordered, depriving him of his ranks and nobility, to exile him forever to hard labor.

Life abroad

Turgenev bore the blow dealt to him very cheerfully and only under the influence of the advice of his brother Alexander sent a short letter to Emperor Nicholas in April 1827, in which he pleaded guilty only to failure to appear and explained that there was a prejudice against him and therefore he could not think that his will be judged impartially, especially since the government itself recognized him as a criminal even before the court’s decision. In addition, Zhukovsky, a friend of the Turgenev brothers, in the same year presented to the sovereign a detailed exculpatory note from Turgenev and his own note about him, which ended with a request that if the verdict cannot be destroyed (“at least now”), then order our missions not to disturb Turgenev anywhere in Europe.

However, Zhukovsky’s petition was unsuccessful, and as early as 1830 Turgenev did not have the right to stay on the continent, but already in 1833 he lived in Paris.

In the first twenty years of Turgenev's life abroad, his brother Alexander sought his acquittal by all means. In 1837, in order to improve the financial situation of his brother Nikolai and his family, Alexander Turgenev sold the family estate in Simbirsk Turgenevo, receiving a very significant amount for it; its exact size is unknown, but in 1835 it was sold to another person for 412,000 rubles. Assign. The estate passed into the hands of his cousin Boris Petrovich, who gave his word of honor “to love and favor the peasants,” but nevertheless, it was still a sale of peasants, against which in the era of Alexander I both brothers were always indignant. In explanation (but not justification) of this fact, it should be mentioned that after Alexander’s death, his brother Nikolai, as a state criminal, could not inherit the estate and would remain with the family without any means.

"Russia and the Russians"

In 1842, Turgenev N.I. completed most of the work, which consisted of memories of participation in a secret society and a description of the social and political structure of Russia; but did not publish it until the death of his brother Alexander, so as not to harm him. Zhukovsky especially insisted on this, who generally did not advise printing T.’s notes abroad, but suggested sending them to Emperor Nicholas, “mentally reconciling with him” in order to bring known truths and facts “to the soul of the emperor.” The death of his brother (1845) freed T.’s hands, and, having added to the manuscript a section called “Pia Desideria”, which contained plans for the desired transformations, he published his work in 1847 under the title “La Russie et les Russes”, in three volumes. The most important sections of this work are devoted to two main issues that most interested T.: the abolition of serfdom and the transformation of the political system of Russia. This work by T. was the only composition in the era of the emperor. Nicholas, in whom Russian political liberalism received quite complete expression. In the third part of this book, the author presents an extensive plan for reforms, which he divides into two categories: 1) those that are possible under the existence of autocracy, and 2) those that are part of the necessary, in his opinion, political reforms. Among the first he lists the liberation of the peasants, which he puts in first place; then follow: the organization of the judicial part with the introduction of jury trials and the abolition of corporal punishment; arrangement of the administrative part on the basis of an elective principle, with the establishment of local self-government, expansion of freedom of the press, etc. To the second category, that is, to the number of principles that must be sanctified by the basic Russian law (T. calls it “Russian Truth”, just as Pestel entitled his project of state reforms), the author includes equality before the law, freedom of speech and press, freedom of conscience, a representative form of government (moreover, he gives preference to the establishment of one chamber and considers the desire to install an aristocracy in our country to be completely inconsistent with the conditions of our life); here he also includes ministerial responsibility and independence judiciary. T. intended to organize the elections to the “People's Duma” in this way: he considered it sufficient that, with a population of 50 million in Russia, there would be a million voters, with them distributed among 200 electoral colleges. Voters can be scientists and everyone involved in public education and training, officials, starting from a certain rank, all holding positions of choice, officers, artists who have workshops and students, merchants, manufacturers, and finally, artisans who have had a workshop for several years. As for the right to be a voter on the basis of ownership of land property, the author proposes to establish a certain size of it, which is not the same in different regions of Russia. Houses of known value should also qualify them to be voters. The author does not mention the participation of peasant communities in the election of deputies to the People's Duma, but stipulates that clergy should not be deprived of the right to participate in elections. When assessing T.'s plan, one must not forget that in France at the time of the publication of his work there was a very limited number of voters. Turgenev devotes a lot of space to describing the situation of peasants in general and solving the issue of abolishing serfdom. Even before leaving Russia, it occurred to him that the government could make a loan abroad to buy out the serfs. Another suggestion was to issue redemption certificates representing the value of the land and yielding 5%: the money they replaced could be issued as a loan to peasants who wished to buy out, who would contribute 6 or more rubles per hundred to pay interest and repay the debt . However, not content with a gradual redemption of freedom, T. advises to proceed directly to the final liberation of the peasants, which can be either only personal, or with the provision of ownership or possession of a certain plot of land. With personal liberation, it will only be necessary to restore the freedom of the peasants to move to known time year, and it will be necessary to replace the poll tax with a land tax. He considers personal liberation the most possible and feasible. In the third volume, T. speaks out somewhat more decisively for emancipation with land, however, in the form of the largest allotment he proposes 1 tithe per capita or 3 tithes per tax. Offering a very insignificant maximum allotment, the author, at least, does not find it necessary to give the landowners any reward for it, just like for their personal liberation. Thus, the land allotment proposed by T. is similar to the free allotment in the amount of 1/4 of the highest allotment, which (at the insistence of Prince Gagarin) came into force on February 19 and had such an adverse effect on the economic situation of the peasants who accepted it. Partly because T. did not energetically enough defend the need to provide peasants with land, he did not yet understand at that time all the benefits of communal land ownership, with the existence of which the difference between liberation with land and without land seemed less significant to him. T.'s negative attitude towards the community was in connection with the same attitude towards socialist theories. He considered Pestel’s socialist dreams a utopia. In his main book, he called those who strive for the “organization of labor” “Catholics of industry” because they, in his opinion, wish to apply the Catholic principles of “authority and uniformity” to industry. In one of his political brochures (1848) he says: “socialist and communist teachings would like to return peoples to barbarism.” Meanwhile, he still had some understanding of the positive meaning of socialism. So, when in 1843 Prince Vyazemsky spoke very cynically about “social humane ideas,” T., in a letter to his brother, sharply rebuking Vyazemsky, wrote: “I find in these still rough and unpolished ideas the first impulses of human conscience towards further improvement the human condition and human societies. “Social questions are now mixed into all political subjects,” which “are still in their infancy, but they cannot be neglected... The source of all these, not yet mature theories, all these delusions, is holy: this is the desire for the good of humanity.”

Amnesty. Publications on the peasant question

With the accession to the throne of the Emperor. Alexander II T. was returned to his rank and nobility. After that, he visited Russia three times - in 1857, 1859 and 1864. During the reign of Alexander II, T. took an active part in the discussion of the issue of the abolition of serfdom, publishing several brochures and articles on this subject in Russian and French (some without the name of the author). In 1858, he published a brochure called “It’s Time,” in which he proved the inconvenience of transitional, preparatory measures and the necessity and benefit of quick and decisive measures, the impossibility of redemption either by the government or by the peasants themselves, and repeated his proposal to cede small plots to them. In the brochure “On the power and effect of the rescripts of November 20, 1857” T. advised facilitating the conclusion of voluntary transactions. In "The Bell" (1858), he argued the injustice of the ransom of both the peasant's person and land, and the danger of issuing too many bonds to satisfy the landowners, since their value could quickly fall. In the book “The Question of Liberation and the Question of Peasant Management,” published the following year, the author proposed establishing a one-year period for voluntary transactions between landowners and peasants, and then declaring compulsory liberation on the following conditions: peasants would be allocated / 3 of all land during the year, with the exception of all forests, but it should not exceed 3 dessiatines. for tax, or l / 5 des. per capita, with the inclusion of estate land in this number, whereby / 3 of the debts lying on the allotted lands should be accepted into the treasury account, and the owners of unmortgaged estates should be paid the corresponding amount in money. In this book, T. for the first time proposes to preserve communal land ownership during the liberation of the peasants and give it greater development, since, despite some of its harmful aspects, it played an important role in the history of our peasants and, moreover, greatly facilitates and accelerates their liberation. After two years, serfdom must be abolished. In the article, placed. in “The Bell” of 1859, T. proves that it is not the peasants who should buy their freedom, but the landowners who need to atone for the injustice of serfdom. It must be abolished by the autocratic government, but the participation of the landowners themselves in the reform process is not desirable, as the experience of the Baltic provinces has shown. Here the author changed his previous view on the issue of remuneration for landowners, “since it was demanded from all sides,” although he continued to consider it unfair. Taking into account the valuation of estates when mortgaging them in credit institutions, T. proposes to establish a universal remuneration rate of 26 rubles. for a tithe. In 1860, T. published in French “ The last word on the emancipation of serfs in Russia,” where, comparing his opinions with the draft of the editorial commissions, he finds his system of small but free allotments more convenient than allocating 2-5 dessiatines per capita (as the editorial commissions proposed), but with their redemption themselves peasants. He admits that if his proposal is implemented, many peasants will turn into farm laborers, but, in his opinion, the proletariat must still arise in Russia, since communal land ownership will certainly disappear after the abolition of serfdom. The inconvenience of large redeemable plots is that if the redemption payments are guaranteed by mutual guarantee, then the peasant will remain essentially attached to the land, since the community will not release its member until he pays his part of the ransom. The system of small plots is also convenient because the liberation of the peasants could be carried out extremely quickly. Proving that peasants have the right to receive a small plot of land for free, T. refers to the example of Prussia, as well as to the fact that our landowners have certain obligations regarding the peasants - feeding them during crop failures and responsibility for paying taxes; so, as the periodical press has proven, the peasants are, in essence, co-owners of the land. T. had the opportunity to apply his views. He inherited a small estate (in Kashirsky district, Tula province), in which the peasants (181 male souls) were partly on corvée, partly on quitrent. Corvee workers wished to switch to quitrent, which was established (1859) at the rate of 20 rubles per tax. T. proposed, and they agreed to pay the same amount, but on different grounds: l/3 of the land, including estates, is allocated to the peasants, and the remaining ²/3, with the exception of the landowner’s estate and forest, are leased to them for 4 rubles. for a tithe. T. admits that the rent is somewhat high, since in the surrounding areas land was given for no more than 3 rubles. for a tithe, but, taking into account the donation equal to / 3 lands, he considered this payment fair. It should be noted that the peasants received less than 3 dessiatines as a gift. per family, that is, less than the maximum allotment that T himself proposed in his writings. However, in the agreement with the peasants it was said that if the conditions of liberation established by the government were more profitable for them, then they could accept them instead of those appointed in agreement; and besides, T. established a school, a hospital and an almshouse on this estate, and also ensured the comfortable existence of the church clergy. In the brochure “On the New System of Peasants” (1861), published after the promulgation of the Regulations on February 19, T. still continues to defend his system of small plots, but already allows (although he previously considered this undesirable) that the peasant has the right to for permanent use for certain duties or even for the redemption of an additional allotment up to the size established by the new Regulations. T. is amazed that the drafters of this Regulation allowed the continuation of corporal punishment; He constantly advocated against them, among other things, in the brochure “On Jury Trials and Police Courts in Russia” published shortly before (1860).

Political reform projects

Having lived to see his most cherished dream come true, T. did not stop working, continuing to point out the need for further transformations. Thus, in his book “A Look at the Affairs of Russia” (1862) it is worth noting the proposal to introduce local self-government. In his opinion, the “district council” should have consisted of at least 25 people from the “landowning classes,” that is, nobles, peasants, etc.; meetings of this council should be temporary, periodic, twice a year, and for permanent work it elects several members, for example three. The author also allows a small number of representatives from merchants and townsfolk into a similar provincial council. These local elected institutions should be given the allocation of zemstvo duties, management of communications, the establishment of schools and, in general, concern for local needs related to the well-being of the masses. Pointing out the need for other reforms, T. proposes to entrust their preparation to commissions formed following the example of the editorial commissions that developed the draft peasant reform, that is, from persons not in the public service. In the book “What to Wish for Russia,” T. honestly admits that life in many respects has outpaced his projects. Thus, regarding the peasant reform, he says that if we were limited to small land plots, this would not correspond to the desires of the peasants. “Finding that a sufficient amount of land not only provides the peasant with his daily life, but gives him some feeling - perhaps only a ghost - of independence, close to independence, we are convinced that the method of liberation with large plots of land was the best for the peasants , and for the state, despite the burdens that he placed on ... the agricultural class, despite the length of time in which the peasants will bear a heavy burden. From everything we see, we can conclude that the peasants first and most of all wanted and want to have land, to retain for themselves in general those plots that they used; It is also obvious that for this they are ready to pay the ransom rent,” even if it “was difficult for them.” This is enough to “prefer the method of liberation with land adopted by the Regulations of February 19 to the one we proposed.” But at the same time, the author laments that “the accomplishment of the holy work of liberation was not without blood, without sacrifices. To establish freedom, they sometimes resorted to the same means that were used to introduce military settlements; against perplexed, noisy men, measures were sometimes taken that could only be excusable against declared enemies and rebels.” Regarding the law on zemstvo, T. makes some comments, but still he finds that our zemstvo self-government is distinguished by the real, true nature of this type of institution. As for the judicial system and legal proceedings, the basic principles of publicity, jury trials, and the complete transformation of the investigative procedure in criminal cases have found, in T.’s opinion, “an excellent application and development in the new structure of courts and legal proceedings,” but he is already noticing some sad phenomena in the judicial world, and also mourns the possibility in Russia of “the jurisdiction of private individuals, not living in a state of siege, by a military court, condemning them to death.” To complete the work of reform, in T.'s opinion, it was possible only in one way: by convening a Zemstvo Sobor with granting it all the rights usually belonging to legislative assemblies, and, by the way, the right of initiative. The author believes that for a long, very long time the Zemsky Sobor will be only an advisory meeting, but it is very important that its convening will ensure complete publicity. “From all corners of Russia” will gather “400 or 500 people, chosen by all the people, all classes, in proportion to their significance, not only intellectual or moral,” but also numerical. Thus, regarding the spread of voting rights, T.’s newest plan is broader and more democratic than his proposals in the book “La Russie et les Russes.” But, on the other hand, while continuing to hold the opinion of the need for one chamber, T. considers it possible for the government to grant itself the appointment, at its discretion, of a certain number of members of the council, for example, 1/4 or 5 of all representatives; Thus, he explains, the conservative element, which other states are looking for in the highest legislative assemblies, will be included in the composition of the Zemsky Sobor itself. The establishment of a Zemstvo Sobor, in which deputies from Poland should also find a place, will contribute to a final and fair solution to the Polish question.

Death

On October 29, 1871, T. died, aged 82, quietly, almost suddenly, without previous illness, in his villa Verbois in the outskirts of Paris.

Family

Wife (since 1833 in Geneva) - Clara Gastonovna de Viaris (12/2/1814 - 12/13/1891).

• Fanny (1835-1890).
• Albert (Alexander, 1843-1892) - artist and art historian.
• Peter (1853-1912) - sculptor.

• Alexander (1784-1845) - public figure, archaeographer and writer, friend of A. S. Pushkin.
• Sergei (1792-1827) - diplomat
• Andrey (1781-1803) - poet.
• Marisha (1781-1781)

Interesting fact

Rumors that England handed over Turgenev to Nicholas I, and the Decembrist was brought to St. Petersburg by sea, directly influenced Pushkin’s writing of the famous poem addressed to Vyazemsky:

So the sea, the ancient murderer, ignites your genius? You glorify the formidable trident with the golden lyre of Neptune. Don't praise him. In our vile age, the Gray Neptune of the Earth is an ally. In all the elements, man is a Tyrant, a traitor or a prisoner.

The last two lines of this poem have become textbook.

Turgenev Nikolai Ivanovich quotes

Make it so that lies, enmity and superstition are trampled into dust, exterminated forever, and so that the beginning of evil, atrocity unrelated to mortals, so that fanaticism perishes - and happy is man!

Come, O Truth, and settle among us, Come, eradicate the ingrained vice, Make our enemies become friends, And so that the innocent will not be driven away by pain.

Delightful dreams, moments of pleasure, Joy in sorrow, consolation in misfortune, Memories! remain forever for sensitive souls, an indispensable guarantee.

The Law of Nature is the most holy, which everyone must preserve, and the true, purest reason must be the Shield of the Law.

In times of boring sadness and unhappiness, When everything is cloudy and there is bad weather outside; When my little siskin sits with his nose drooping, And everything around me looks like September; When, having collected firewood, I flood my fireplace and fan the blue flame with bellows, - Then with despondency I sit down opposite it, Forgetting the whole world and my friend, I talk alone with my imagination. And, seeing the course of things and the rush of time, The misfortune of all people, the insignificance of their lives, Which is short, like the quickest moment, - I get lost in my thoughts, I forget myself; But suddenly I turn my embarrassed gaze to the fireplace and see that the coals have already gone out there. This is the fate of all people, the reward for vanity: The heat in the coal disappears - and the coal goes out; So, after all the glory, the mortal dies!

Education

Turgenev's book was a success, completely unprecedented in Russia for such serious works: it was published in November, and by the end of the year it was almost all sold out, and in May of the following year its second edition appeared. After 1825, she was persecuted: she was searched for and all found specimens were taken away.

Note on serfdom

N. I. Turgenev. Portrait by E. I. Esterreich, 1823

Political reform projects

Having lived to see his most cherished dream come true, T. did not stop working, continuing to point out the need for further transformations. Thus, in his book “A Look at the Affairs of Russia” (), it is worth noting the proposal to introduce local self-government. In his opinion, the “district council” should have consisted of at least 25 people from the “landowning classes,” that is, nobles, peasants, etc.; meetings of this council should be temporary, periodic, twice a year, and for permanent work it elects several members, for example three. The author also allows a small number of representatives from merchants and townsfolk into a similar provincial council. These local elected institutions should be given the allocation of zemstvo duties, management of communications, the establishment of schools and, in general, concern for local needs related to the well-being of the masses. Pointing out the need for other reforms, T. proposes to entrust their preparation to commissions formed following the example of the editorial commissions that developed the draft peasant reform, that is, from persons not in the public service. In the book “What to Wish for Russia,” T. honestly admits that life in many respects has outpaced his projects. Thus, regarding the peasant reform, he says that if we were limited to small land plots, this would not correspond to the desires of the peasants. “Finding that a sufficient amount of land not only provides the peasant with his daily life, but gives him some feeling - perhaps only a ghost - of independence, close to independence, we are convinced that the method of liberation with large plots of land was the best for the peasants , and for the state, despite the burdens that he placed on ... the agricultural class, despite the length of time in which the peasants will bear a heavy burden. From everything we see, we can conclude that the peasants first and most of all wanted and want to have land, to retain for themselves in general those plots that they used; It is also obvious that for this they are ready to pay the ransom rent,” even if it “was difficult for them.” This is enough to “prefer the method of liberation with land adopted by the Regulations of February 19 to the one we proposed.” But at the same time, the author laments that “the accomplishment of the holy work of liberation was not without blood, without sacrifices. To establish freedom, they sometimes resorted to the same means that were used to introduce military settlements; against perplexed, noisy men, measures were sometimes taken that could only be excusable against declared enemies and rebels.” Regarding the law on zemstvo, T. makes some comments, but still he finds that our zemstvo self-government is distinguished by the real, true nature of this type of institution. As for the judicial system and legal proceedings, the basic principles of publicity, jury trials, and the complete transformation of the investigative procedure in criminal cases have found, in T.’s opinion, “an excellent application and development in the new structure of courts and legal proceedings,” but he is already noticing some sad phenomena in the judicial world, and also mourns the possibility in Russia of “the jurisdiction of private individuals, not living in a state of siege, by a military court, condemning them to death.” To complete the work of reform, in T.'s opinion, it was possible only in one way: by convening a Zemstvo Sobor with granting it all the rights usually belonging to legislative assemblies, and, by the way, the right of initiative. The author believes that for a long, very long time the Zemsky Sobor will be only an advisory meeting, but it is very important that its convening will ensure complete publicity. “From all corners of Russia” will gather “400 or 500 people, chosen by all the people, all classes, in proportion to their significance, not only intellectual or moral,” but also numerical. Thus, regarding the spread of voting rights, T.’s newest plan is broader and more democratic than his proposals in the book “La Russie et les Russes.” But, on the other hand, while continuing to hold the opinion of the need for one chamber, T. considers it possible for the government to grant itself the appointment, at its discretion, of a certain number of members of the council, for example, 1/4 or 1/5 of all representatives; Thus, he explains, the conservative element, which other states are looking for in the highest legislative assemblies, will be included in the composition of the Zemsky Sobor itself. The establishment of a Zemsky Sobor, in which deputies from

On October 29 (November 10) of this year, 1871, he died in his villa Verbois (Ver-Bois - or “Green Grove”, as the deceased called it), near Bougival in the outskirts of Paris, one of the most remarkable and - we will add boldly, as if answering to by the unhypocritical judgment of posterity, - one of the noblest Russian people, Nikolai Ivanovich Turgenev.

We do not intend now to enter into a detailed assessment of the deceased as a political figure, scientist and publicist: Mr. Pypin’s excellent articles, in which he so often relies on the testimony of Nikolai Ivanovich and quotes him, again turned into Lately the attention of the thinking part of the public to this exile of a special kind, who, having spent almost half a century away from his homeland, lived, one might say, only in Russia and for Russia. Of course, not a single future Russian historian, when he has to set out the gradual phases of our social development in the 19th century, will pass over N. I. Turgenev in silence; he will point to him as one of the most typical representatives of that significant era, which was given the name Alexander and during which the beginnings of the transformations that took place under another Alexander were laid or instigated.

We will limit ourselves to communicating some biographical and bibliographic data and to the best of our ability to reproduce the personal character and image of a person to whom a feeling of deep heartfelt respect tied us more than the ties of distant kinship.

Nikolai Ivanovich was born not in 1787 or 1790, as was erroneously shown in several biographies, but on October 11 (22), 1789 - from Ivan Petrovich Turgenev and Ekaterina Alexandrovna, née Kachalova. He was born in Simbirsk, where he spent his first childhood, but was brought up in Moscow, on Maroseyka, in a house that belonged to his family (now this house is the property of the Botkins). He had three older brothers: Ivan, who died in childhood, Andrei, who died in 1803, Alexander, who died in 1845, and one younger brother, Sergei, who died in 1827. Father, Ivan Petrovich, did not long outlive his favorite, Andrei, Zhukovsky’s friend; mother died much later. The significance of this entire Turgenev family is quite well known: it has more than once served as the subject of literary and critical research. It can be said without exaggeration that they themselves belonged to the best people and were in close contact with others the best people that time. Their activities left a noticeable and not useless, not inglorious mark. Nikolai Ivanovich, following the example of his brother Alexander, who studied at the University of Gottingen, also in 1810 and 1811 listened to lectures at the same university from the then famous professors - Schletser, Geeren, Goede and others; He was engaged primarily in political economy, financial and cameral sciences. Having visited Paris in 1811, where he saw Napoleon at the height of his glory, but already foresaw his fall, he spent the 12th year in Russia, and in the 13th year he was, as is known, seconded to the famous Stein, whose memory he he respected old age as a shrine; Stein himself had a feeling of friendliness towards his young assistant: the name of Nikolai Turgenev, in his words, was “equivalent to the names of honesty and honor.” Nikolai Ivanovich accompanied our army as a government commissar in the campaign of the 14th and 15th years, and at the beginning of 1816 he returned to Russia, despite the convictions of Stein, who wanted to keep him with him. Soon afterwards he published his “Experience in the Theory of Taxes”. In this work, which immediately brought him honorable fame, he, in his own words, took advantage of every opportunity presented to him to attack, from a state and financial point of view, serfdom or lawlessness, this enemy with which he had fought his whole life - fought longer than anyone and, perhaps, before all his contemporaries. Appointed Secretary of State under the State Council, Nikolai Ivanovich in 1819 presented Emperor Alexander, through Count Miloradovich, with a note entitled: “Something about serfdom in Russia.” The idea he expressed in this note was that the autocracy alone could put an end to slavery, that it alone could save Russia from such a shame. This thought struck the emperor, and he told the count that he would take the best from this note, the noble frankness of which did not resort to any tricks or nuances, and “will certainly do something for the peasants.” History knows the reasons why this promise was left unfulfilled. We won't go into them. N.I. Turgenev held the position of Secretary of State until 1824. Having left Russia to improve his health in April of the same year, he saw her only in 1857 - already an old man. We are also aware of the reasons that turned a man for whom everything seemed to promise a brilliant career, who was awaiting a ministerial portfolio, about whom Emperor Alexander himself more than once expressed that he alone could replace Speransky - which turned, we say, this man into a state criminal, sentenced to death. The persistence with which N. Turgenev, refuting the arguments of the report of the investigative commission, asserted his innocence in the case of December 14 is also known. His failure to appear when summoned from abroad sealed his fate, although in our laws at that time there was no specific punishment for failure to appear. N. Turgenev's misfortune was great, the blow that fell on him was strong; but even in his very misfortune, he could console himself with the fact that Stein, the friend and mentor of his youth, resolutely and constantly refused to allow the legality of his condemnation... Humboldt thought the same and spoke the same way. The opinion of Stein and Humboldt was subsequently shared even by some of those who condemned N. Turgenev!

The truth of these last words can be confirmed, in addition to the book “La Russie et les Russes”, by the letters of Alexander Turgenev to his brother Nikolai, collected by the deceased and almost finished printing in Leipzig (let us point out, by the way, those letters where A.I. Turgenev cites words of Prince Kozlovsky). The family of N.I. Turgenev considers it their duty to fulfill his intention, and these letters will soon appear in the light. The proof copy is in our hands, and we can testify to their interest and importance for the study of the era that followed 1825. These letters show A.I. Turgenev himself in a very attractive light - a man who, as far as we can judge, is not entirely correctly assessed by our generation.

Nikolai Turgenev, having lost his dearly beloved brother Sergei abroad (the deep affection of all members of the Turgenev family for each other is, as it were, their distinctive feature), retired first to England, then to Switzerland, where he met his future wife, Clara, the daughter of a Sardinian , Marquis Viaris, a brave officer of Napoleonic troops, to whom his comrades on the battlefield of Preussisch-Eylau unanimously awarded the title of baron of the empire granted to their division. N. Turgenev married the girl Viaris in Geneva in 1833, and had two sons and a daughter with her. In 1857 he visited Russia for the first time, in 1859 for the second time, and in 1864 he saw it again with the feeling of Simeon, crying out: “Now let us go!..” The hated slavery finally stopped! The reigning sovereign safely returned his ranks and noble dignity, but if the elder’s heart was filled with a feeling of grateful love for the monarch, then, of course, not so much for this mercy, which in the eyes of Turgenev was nothing more than an act of justice, but for the commission, force Tsarist autocracy, all his cherished hopes and dreams! However, here are his own words:

“If... I was so devoted to Alexander the First for his mere desire to liberate the peasants, then what should my feelings be towards the one who accomplished this liberation, and did so in such a wise way? Not one of those liberated has more love and devotion in his soul for the liberator than I do, seeing finally overthrown the evil that tormented me throughout my entire life!

In 1871, N. Turgenev died quietly, almost suddenly, without previous illness. Two days before, despite his eighty-two years, he had still been out on horseback.

N. I. Turgenev tirelessly, with all the fervor of a young man, with all the constancy of a husband, followed everything that happened in Russia, good and bad, joyful and sad, and responded in living words and printed speech to all the vital issues of our life. Here is, if possible, a complete list of the books and brochures he published:

h) Un dernier mot sur l’emancipation des serfs. 1860.

Moreover, a letter from N. Turgenev to A.I. Herzen was placed in the “Bell”. He was also one of the founders (in 1854) of an association in Paris called: "General Christian Union" (Alliance chretienne universelle). Nikolai Ivanovich, like his entire family, was imbued with a deeply religious feeling, not exclusively fanatical, but free and broad.

Let us now say a few words about him, about his character. There is an excellent English expression: “A single-minded man, singleness of mind,” which perfectly defines the very essence of N. I. Turgenev. In the mouths of the British, these expressions sound like special praise: they denote not only the immutability, “sameness” of beliefs, but also their truthfulness and sincerity. N. Turgenev himself speaks about himself - and with every right: “I remained true to my convictions. My opinions have never changed” (“Russian Foreign Collection”. Part V, preface). There is a French saying:

L'homme absurde est celui qui ne change jamais… -

but N. Turgenev was not afraid to be this “homme absurde”. However, one should not think that he remains deaf and blind to the truth; Without retreating a single step from his principles, he was ready to allow different ways of applying them. He was too conscientious, there was too little personal egoism and conceit in him, not to recognize the superiority of someone else's method over the invented one. Not yet knowing how the government would allow it, he proposed to cede one third of all the land to the peasants free of charge, and on this basis, in 1859, he arranged a voluntary division with the peasants on the estate he had inherited. They were satisfied, but this did not prevent Nikolai Ivanovich from subsequently recognizing the superiority of the system introduced by the government. This “sameness” and completeness of convictions gave Nikolai Ivanovich, of course, a certain, if not exclusivity, then one-sidedness... But almost all efficient minds are one-sided. Fiction and art interested him little: he was primarily a political man, a statesman, highly gifted with a sense of balance and proportion. Count Kapodistrias, a good judge, spoke of him that he would be statesman even in England. Along with the firmness and unchangeability of his convictions, in the soul of Nikolai Ivanovich lived an indestructible love for justice, for fairness, for reasonable freedom - and the same hatred for oppression and crooked justice. A man with a soft and tender heart, he despised weakness, flabbiness, and fear of responsibility. Rudeness, disrespect for the human person, cruelty outraged him unspeakably. “Je hais cruellement la cruaute,” he could say together with Moiteny. Compassion for every misfortune was also an outstanding feature of his character, and not passive compassion, but active, almost zealous; There was no person who gave more willingly, more generously and quickly. He really, in the exact sense of the word, made sacrifices with joy, almost with gratitude to the one who gave him the opportunity to make these sacrifices. His great, magnanimous heart responded to everything with that strength of feeling, with that impulse and ardor that you somehow don’t meet in our era! Like many of his peers, this old man remained a youth at heart, and the freshness and brightness of the impressions of this tireless fighter was touching and amazing for all of us, who were so tired early and so weakly carried away! We have already mentioned above, speaking about his feelings for the sovereign, how ardently he knew how to love those in whom he saw the benefactors of his homeland... We can add that we have rarely seen something more touching than N. Turgenev, standing with tears running down his cheeks in the church of the Parisian embassy during a prayer service for the sovereign, on the day when news arrived of the appearance of the manifesto on February 19; It has rarely happened to hear something more sincerely escaping from the depths of a touched soul than his exclamation: “I didn’t think that after Stein I could love anyone the way I loved Nikolai Milyutin!”

“Le trait caracteristique de la vie de l’etre vraiment excellent a qui nous rendons les derniers devoirs,” Mr. M. P., a forty-year-old friend of his family, rightly said at the funeral of H. Turgenev. “Ce fut sa perseverante et inebranlable fidelite, son ardent et infatigable devouement a toutes les causes justes et humaines. Toutes et partout lui tenaient a coeur... Ce qu’un apo;tre disait jadis: “Oa souffre-t-on que je ne souffre, oa se rejouiton que je ne me rejouisse?” N. Tourgueneff le pouvait dire aussi. Qui ne l'a surpris et souvent, pleurant d'indignation au recit d'une iniquite, ou pleurant de joie, comme d'un bonheur personnel, au spectacle d'une delivrance?

Let's add a few more words about him.

Despite his many years of stay abroad, N. I. Turgenev remained a Russian man from head to toe - and not only a Russian, a Moscow man. This native Russian essence was expressed in everything: in the technique, in all movements, in all the behavior, in the very pronunciation of the French language - there is nothing to mention about the Russian language. It used to be, being under the roof of this cordial, hospitable hospitable host (he lived on a large scale - it is known that his brother, Alexander Ivanovich, saved him his entire fortune), listening to his somewhat heavy, but always sincere, sensible and honest speech, you I couldn’t help wondering why you were sitting in front of the fireplace in a foreign-style office, and not in the warm and spacious living room of an old-school Moscow house somewhere on the Arbat, or on Prechistenka, or on the same Maroseyka, where N. Turgenev spent his first youth ? He spoke willingly; but all his thoughts were so focused on the present or the future that he spoke little about the past; and about his own past - never again. No complaint ever came from his lips; the absence of personal concern and personal demands attracted the hearts of his family, friends, and servants themselves. It was impossible to say about him that he was a “praiser of antiquity” - laudator temporis acti. Any news from his homeland was picked up by him on the fly: he listened to stories about her with greed, with passionate enthusiasm; he believed in her, in our people, in our strength, in our future, in our talents. “How they started writing now!” - he used to say, sometimes pointing to a rather ordinary, but well-intentioned - and, most importantly, independent magazine article! But nothing outraged him more than the news of the injustice committed in our vast fatherland. It seemed to him an anachronism during the reign of Alexander II. He did not allow her, he was worried, he was angry, he was angry with “righteous anger” - his righliteous anger, as one English woman friend put it about him; he was indignant, perhaps even more than those who themselves suffered this injustice. An exile, a permanent resident of France, he was a patriot par excellence... In the Polish question, in the question of the Baltic Sea region, this patriotism was shown, perhaps even with excessive harshness...

And such and such a completely Russian person was destined to live and die abroad!

But let’s not regret him too much... Let’s rather be inspired by his example! The example of a person who is unswervingly devoted to what he recognized as the truth is useful and necessary for all of us Russians! Of the possible benefits available to people, many fell to his lot: he tasted the full happiness of family life and devoted friendship; he saw, he felt the fulfillment of his most cherished thoughts... Let us hope that for those of them that have not yet been fulfilled and to which he dedicated his last work, over time the turn will also come and that their fulfillment will delight him, even in the grave, with a new dawn of happiness , which it will bring to the Russian people so beloved by him!

His memory will remain forever precious to all who knew him; but Russia will not forget one of its best sons!

Paris

Nikolai Ivanovich Turgenev October 23, 1789, Simbirsk (now Ulyanovsk) - November 10, 1871, Villa Verbois, near Bougival in the vicinity of Paris) - Russian economist and publicist, an active participant in the Decembrist movement. One of the largest figures of Russian liberalism. He continued his activities both in exile (from 1826; convicted in absentia), and after the amnesty under Alexander II.

Education

Son of I. P. Turgenev (1752-1807), brother of A. I. Turgenev. Born in 1789 in Simbirsk.

He began his education at the Moscow University Noble Boarding School and Moscow University, and completed it in Göttingen, where he studied history, jurisprudence, political economy and financial law. In 1812 he returned to his homeland, but the following year he was appointed to the famous Prussian reformer Heinrich Stein, who at that time was the representative of the Russian and Austrian emperors, as well as the Prussian king, for the organization of Germany. Turgenev returned to Russia only three years later. Constant relations with Stein helped expand Turgenev's horizons, and he retained good memories of him. In turn, Stein said about Turgenev that his name “is equivalent to the names of honesty and honor.” His stay in Germany and conversations with Stein contributed to the development of Turgenev’s views on the peasant question.

"Experience in the Theory of Taxes"

At the end of 1818, Turgenev published his book “Experience in the Theory of Taxes,” in which in places he touched on serfdom in Russia. Along with general views on serfdom, Turgenev considered the best way to reduce the number of banknotes to be “the sale of state property together with the peasants." At the same time, he proposed to define by law the rights and obligations of both these peasants and their new landowners and thus set “an excellent and beneficial example for all landowners in general.” As for Turgenev’s general financial views expressed in The Theory of Taxes, he advised striving for complete freedom of trade, vigorously protested against high customs duties, argued that the government should try, as far as possible, to reduce the burden of taxes on the “common people”, expressed against the tax exemption of the nobility and, in support of his thought, referred to the taxation of the lands of this class in Prussia. According to Turgenev, the tax should be levied on net income, and not on wages, and per capita taxes are “traces of the lack of education of previous times.” In addition, they were offered exemption from taxes on basic needs. Faulty payers should not have been subject to corporal punishment, since taxes should have been taken “not from the person of the subject, but from his estate.” He believed that imprisonment should also be avoided, as a completely inappropriate means. When introducing changes concerning the well-being of the entire state, it was necessary, in Turgenev’s opinion, to be more consistent with the benefits of landowners and farmers than merchants. In his opinion, the prosperity of the people, and not the existence of many factories and manufactories, constitutes the main sign of the people's well-being. The success of collecting taxes, in addition to the people's wealth, also depends on the type of government of the state and the “spirit of the people”: “the willingness to pay taxes is most visible in republics, the aversion to taxes is in despotic states.” Turgenev ended his book with the following words: “ the improvement of the credit system will go along with the improvement of political legislation, especially the improvement of the representation of the people».

On the back of the title page of the book was printed the author’s order: “ The author, taking upon himself all the costs of printing this book, provides the money that will be obtained from the sale of it, in favor of the peasants imprisoned for arrears in taxes." According to the testimony of his associates, this order indicated that Turgenev was not sufficiently familiar with the Russian legislation of that time. Decembrist Alexander Muravyov wrote in his memoirs “My Journal” (“Mon Jornal”): “ Nikolai Turgenev announced in the first edition of “Essay on Taxes” that the money raised from the sale of the book was assigned to ransom serfs imprisoned for debts, while peasants could not be imprisoned for debts; by law they could be given loan no more than 5 rubles».

Turgenev's book had a success that was completely unprecedented in Russia for such serious works: it was published in November 1818, and by the end of the year it was almost all sold out, and in May 1819 its second edition appeared. After 1825 it was banned: it was searched for and all found copies were taken away.

Note on serfdom

In the summer of 1818, Turgenev went to the Simbirsk village, which belonged to him along with his two brothers, and replaced corvee there with quitrent. At the same time, the peasants pledged to pay two-thirds of their previous income. Somewhat later, he entered into an agreement with the peasants, which he later likened to the contracts concluded on the basis of the decree of April 2, 1842, when peasants were released on duty.

In 1819, St. Petersburg Governor-General Miloradovich instructed Turgenev to draw up a note on serfdom, which he was to present to the emperor. In a note compiled by Turgenev, he indicated that the government should take the initiative to limit serfdom and eliminate the burden of excessive corvée on the peasants, the sale of people individually and cruel treatment of them, and the peasants themselves should be given the right to complain against the landowners. In addition to these measures, Turgenev proposed making some changes to the 1803 law on “free cultivators” and allowing landowners to retain ownership of the land when concluding voluntary conditions with the peasants, that is, releasing entire estates without land, and granting the peasants the right to move. Its implementation would undermine the influence of the law of 1803, which prevented the delanding of estates upon their liberation. After reading Turgenev’s note, the sovereign expressed his approval of it and told Miloradovich that, having selected the best from the projects he had collected, he would finally “do something” for the serfs. However, only in 1833 was it prohibited to sell people separately from their families, and in 1841 - to buy serfs without land for everyone who did not have inhabited estates. The extent and types of punishments to which a landowner could subject his peasants were first determined in 1846. To implement his favorite idea of ​​​​the abolition of serfdom, Turgenev considered the assistance of poets and writers extremely important, and he argued to many of them that it was necessary to write on this topic.

Union of Welfare

In 1819, Turgenev became a member of the Union of Welfare. At the beginning of 1820, at the suggestion of Pestel, a meeting of the root duma of the “Union of Welfare” was held in St. Petersburg, where there were heated debates about what form of government should be in Russia: a republic or a monarchy. When Turgenev’s turn came, he said: “ un président sans phrases", and during the voting everyone unanimously voted for a republic. However, later in the projects of the St. Petersburg members of the secret society, the desire for a limited monarchy prevailed.

Some members of the Union of Welfare, finding its activities insufficiently energetic, came to the idea of ​​​​the need to close or transform it. In January 1821, about 20 members of the society gathered in Moscow for this purpose, among whom were Turgenev, Yakushkin, von Wisins and others. It was decided to change not only the charter of the society, but also its composition (since information was received that the government knew about its existence), declaring everywhere that the “Union of Welfare” would cease to exist forever. In this way, unreliable members were removed from society. Yakushkin in his notes states that at the same time a new charter was drawn up, which was divided into two parts: in the first, the same philanthropic goals were proposed for new entrants as in the previous charter; the second part, according to Yakushkin, was written by Turgenev for members of the highest rank; here it has already been directly stated that the goal of society is to limit autocracy in Russia, for which it was recognized as necessary to act on the troops and prepare them just in case. For the first time, it was necessary to establish four main dumas: one in St. Petersburg, the other in Moscow, the third was to be formed in the Smolensk province by Yakushkin, the fourth was to be put in order in Tulchin by Burtsev. At a more crowded meeting of society members, Turgenev, as president of the meeting, announced that the Union of Welfare no longer existed and outlined the reasons for its destruction. Returning to St. Petersburg, Turgenev announced that the members who were at the congress in Moscow found it necessary to stop the activities of the Union of Welfare.

Fonvizin in his notes says that “the abolition was imaginary” and the union “remained the same as it was, but its members were ordered to act more carefully.” Turgenev, in a letter to the editor of Kolokol (1863) regarding Yakushkin’s notes published in the previous year, resolutely denied that he had drawn up the second part of the society’s charter and said that he had only drawn up a note on the formation of committees from former members of the society in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Smolensk to spread the idea of ​​​​the liberation of the peasants, he subsequently narrowed and weakened his participation in the secret society.

Turgenev and the Northern Society of Decembrists

Yakushkin argued that in the new society, created mainly by the energy of Nikita Muravyov (as can be seen from other sources, only in 1822), Turgenev was present “at many meetings.” On the contrary, Turgenev himself completely denied his participation in the secret society after the closure of the Union of Welfare. However, the historian of the reign of Alexander I, Bogdanovich, based on the unpublished testimony of some Decembrists, argued that Turgenev, together with N. Muravyov and E. Obolensky, was elected in 1822 as a member of the Duma of the “Northern Society”. The following year he was again elected unanimously, but declined due to ill health. At a meeting with Mitkov (whom, as can be seen from Nikolai Turgenev’s letters to his brothers, he accepted into the society, although he later claimed that he did not accept anyone into the society), Turgenev read a draft on the composition and structure of the society, dividing its members into connected(juniors) and convinced(seniors). Only with his departure abroad did Turgenev completely stop relations with the secret society. Yakushkin’s testimony and Bogdanovich’s story in the most important respects (that is, regarding Turgenev’s participation in the secret society and after the congress in Moscow) are also confirmed by the testimony of S. G. Volkonsky in his memoirs:

On my annual trips to St. Petersburg (after the congress in Moscow), I not only had meetings and conversations with Turgenev, but it was decided by the Southern Duma to give him a full report on our actions, and he was revered by the Southern Duma as a most zealous worker. - I remember that during one of these meetings, while talking about the actions of the Southern Duma, he asked me: “What, Prince, have you prepared your brigade for an uprising at the beginning of our common cause? ... In the preliminary charters, different parts of the administration were distributed to various persons for processing; legal proceedings and financial parts were entrusted to Turgenev... Turgenev’s works did not fall into the hands of the government, but... everything that he said in print about finance and legal proceedings for Russia during his... stay in foreign lands is a summary of what it was prepared for use during a revolution

The discrepancy between how things really happened and what Turgenev wrote in his book “La Russie et les Russes” (1847) can only be explained by the desire to present in a generally softened form the activities of secret societies, whose members were languishing even at that time in Siberia. The “exculpatory note” he placed in the first volume of this work should most likely be looked at not as a historical source, but as the speech of a lawyer who refutes the accusations contained in the “Report of the Investigative Commission.” Even in the 1860s. Turgenev, perhaps, believed that the time had not yet come to speak with complete frankness about a secret society. In one of his brochures in 1867, he wrote:

I always looked very calmly at the unexpected turning point that followed in my life at that time; but at the time when I wrote (“La Russie et les Russes”), the people whom I considered the best, noblest people in the world and of whose innocence I was convinced, as in my own, were languishing in Siberia. That's what tormented me... Some of them knew nothing about the riot... Why were they convicted? For words and for words... Even admitting that these words were taken as intent, the conviction remains incorrect, illegal... Moreover, the words on which the condemnation is based were uttered for several years only by a very few and, moreover, were always refuted by others

In the already mentioned letter of 1863, Turgenev wrote:

What fate befell Pestel, whom the investigation and court found most guilty? Let us assume that all the testimony attributed to him is true. But what did he do, what did he do? Absolutely nothing! What did all those who lived in Moscow and in various places of the empire do, not knowing what was happening in St. Petersburg? Nothing! Meanwhile, execution and exile did not escape them either. So, these people suffered for their opinions or for words for which no one can be held accountable when the words were not spoken publicly

Thus, Turgenev continued to participate in the secret society after 1821, and it is precisely his participation in meetings of members of the society that should largely be attributed to the thoughtfulness of the plan of state reforms that was found in the papers of the prince. Trubetskoy and which was very similar to Nikita Muravyov’s project. The plan included: freedom of the press, freedom of worship, abolition of the ownership of serfs, equality of all citizens before the law, and therefore the abolition of military courts and all judicial commissions, granting the right to each citizen to choose an occupation and occupy all positions, addition of poll taxes and arrears , abolition of conscription and military settlements, reduction of service life for lower ranks and equalization of military service between all classes (conscription), establishment of volost, district, provincial and regional administrations and the appointment of members of their choice to replace all officials, publicity of the court, introduction of juries in criminal and civil courts. Most of these basic principles were present in all of Turgenev’s later works. The plans of members of the Northern Society also included the dissolution of the standing army and the formation of an internal people's guard. In the same project, found in the papers of the book. Trubetskoy, was interpreted, among other things, about the People's Assembly, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Duma and the power of the emperor.

Government activities

Since returning to Russia in 1816, Turgenev served in the commission for drafting laws, in the Ministry of Finance and in the office of the State Council, where he was assistant secretary of state. His official activity was especially useful in everything that related to peasant affairs. The following year, Turgenev's health required a long vacation abroad.

In the summer of 1825, he received a letter abroad from the Minister of Finance Kankrin, who, by imperial command, offered him the position of director of the department of manufactures in his ministry. This shows that Emperor Alexander I continued to treat him favorably. One day the king said: “If you believed everything that was said and repeated about him, there would be a reason to destroy him. I know his extreme opinions, but I also know that he is an honest man, and that is enough for me.” Turgenev rejected Kankrin's proposal, since he did not sympathize with his intentions to patronize industry at any cost. This refusal saved him.

Arraignment and conviction in absentia

In January 1826, Turgenev went to England and there he learned that he was involved in the Decembrist cause. He hastened to send an explanatory note to St. Petersburg by mail regarding his participation in secret societies. In it, he claimed that he was a member only of the “Union of Welfare,” which had long been closed, explained the nature of this society and insisted that he did not belong to any other secret union, having no relations, neither written nor personal, with members of later secret societies and being completely alien to the events of December 14, he cannot be responsible for what happened without his knowledge and in his absence.

Soon after that, the secretary of the Russian embassy in London came to Turgenev and conveyed to him an invitation from the count. Nesselrode (by order of Emperor Nicholas) to appear before the Supreme Court, with a warning that if he refuses to appear, he will be tried as a state criminal. Turgenev replied that the explanatory note he had recently sent regarding his participation in secret societies made his presence in St. Petersburg completely unnecessary; Moreover, his state of health does not allow him to undertake such a journey. Then Gorchakov showed the dispatch to gr. Nesselrode told the Russian chargé d'affaires that, in the event of Turgenev's refusal to appear, he should inform the English ministry “what kind of people it gives refuge to.” It turned out that the English Minister Canning was demanded to extradite Turgenev, but without success.

Turgenev later learned that Russian envoys throughout the European continent were ordered to arrest him wherever he happened to be; they even thought of capturing him in England with the help of secret agents.

The Supreme Criminal Court found that “act. stat. owls Turgenev, according to the testimony of 24 accomplices, was an active member of a secret society, participated in the establishment, restoration, meetings and dissemination of it with the involvement of others, equally participated in the intention to introduce republican rule and, retiring abroad, he, at the call of the government, did not appear for justification, which confirmed the testimony made against him.”

The court sentenced Turgenev to death, and the emperor ordered, depriving him of his ranks and nobility, to exile him forever to hard labor.

Life abroad

Turgenev bore the blow dealt to him very cheerfully and only under the influence of the advice of his brother Alexander sent a short letter to Emperor Nicholas in April 1827, in which he pleaded guilty only to failure to appear and explained that there was a prejudice against him and therefore he could not think that his will be judged impartially, especially since the government itself recognized him as a criminal even before the court’s decision. In addition, Zhukovsky, a friend of the Turgenev brothers, in the same year presented to the sovereign a detailed exculpatory note from Turgenev and his own note about him, which ended with a request that if the verdict cannot be destroyed (“at least now”), then order our missions not to disturb Turgenev anywhere in Europe.

However, Zhukovsky’s petition was unsuccessful, and as early as 1830 Turgenev did not have the right to stay on the continent, but already in 1833 he lived in Paris.

In the first twenty years of Turgenev's life abroad, his brother Alexander sought his acquittal by all means. In 1837, in order to improve the financial situation of his brother Nikolai and his family, Alexander Turgenev sold the family estate in Simbirsk Turgenevo, receiving a very significant amount for it; its exact size is unknown, but in 1835 it was sold to another person for 412,000 rubles. Assign. The estate passed into the hands of his cousin Boris Petrovich, who gave his word of honor “to love and favor the peasants,” but nevertheless, it was still a sale of peasants, against which in the era of Alexander I both brothers were always indignant. In explanation (but not justification) of this fact, it should be mentioned that after Alexander’s death, his brother Nikolai, as a state criminal, could not inherit the estate and would remain with the family without any means.

"Russia and the Russians"

In 1842, Turgenev N.I. completed most of the work, which consisted of memories of participation in a secret society and a description of the social and political structure of Russia; but did not publish it until the death of his brother Alexander, so as not to harm him. Zhukovsky especially insisted on this, who generally did not advise printing T.’s notes abroad, but suggested sending them to Emperor Nicholas, “mentally reconciling with him” in order to bring known truths and facts “to the soul of the emperor.” The death of his brother (1845) freed T.’s hands, and, having added to the manuscript a section called “Pia Desideria”, which contained plans for the desired transformations, he published his work in 1847 under the title “La Russie et les Russes”, in three volumes. The most important sections of this work are devoted to two main issues that most interested T.: the abolition of serfdom and the transformation of the political system of Russia. This work by T. was the only composition in the era of the emperor. Nicholas, in whom Russian political liberalism received quite complete expression. In the third part of this book, the author presents an extensive plan for reforms, which he divides into two categories: 1) those that are possible under the existence of autocracy, and 2) those that are part of the necessary, in his opinion, political reforms. Among the first he lists the liberation of the peasants, which he puts in first place; then follow: the organization of the judicial part with the introduction of jury trials and the abolition of corporal punishment; arrangement of the administrative part on the basis of an elective principle, with the establishment of local self-government, expansion of freedom of the press, etc. To the second category, that is, to the number of principles that must be sanctified by the basic Russian law (T. calls it “Russian Truth”, just as Pestel entitled his project of state reforms), the author includes equality before the law, freedom of speech and press, freedom of conscience, a representative form of government (moreover, he gives preference to the establishment of one chamber and considers the desire to install an aristocracy in our country to be completely inconsistent with the conditions of our life); here he also includes the responsibility of ministers and the independence of the judiciary. T. intended to organize the elections to the “People's Duma” in this way: he considered it sufficient that, with a population of 50 million in Russia, there would be a million voters, with them distributed among 200 electoral colleges. Voters can be scientists and everyone involved in public education and training, officials, starting from a certain rank, all holding positions of choice, officers, artists who have workshops and students, merchants, manufacturers, and finally, artisans who have had a workshop for several years. As for the right to be a voter on the basis of ownership of land property, the author proposes to establish a certain size of it, which is not the same in different regions of Russia. Houses of known value should also qualify them to be voters. The author does not mention the participation of peasant communities in the election of deputies to the People's Duma, but stipulates that clergy should not be deprived of the right to participate in elections. When assessing T.'s plan, one must not forget that in France at the time of the publication of his work there was a very limited number of voters. Turgenev devotes a lot of space to describing the situation of peasants in general and solving the issue of abolishing serfdom. Even before leaving Russia, it occurred to him that the government could make a loan abroad to buy out the serfs. Another suggestion was to issue redemption certificates representing the value of the land and yielding 5%: the money they replaced could be issued as a loan to peasants who wished to buy out, who would contribute 6 or more rubles per hundred to pay interest and repay the debt . However, not content with a gradual redemption of freedom, T. advises to proceed directly to the final liberation of the peasants, which can be either only personal, or with the provision of ownership or possession of a certain plot of land. With personal liberation, it will only be necessary to restore the freedom of the peasants to move at certain times of the year, and it will be necessary to replace the poll tax with a land tax. He considers personal liberation the most possible and feasible. In the third volume, T. speaks out somewhat more decisively for emancipation with land, however, in the form of the largest allotment he proposes 1 tithe per capita or 3 tithes per tax. Offering a very insignificant maximum allotment, the author, at least, does not find it necessary to give the landowners any reward for it, just like for their personal liberation. Thus, the land allotment proposed by T. is similar to the free allotment in the amount of 1/4 of the highest allotment, which (at the insistence of Prince Gagarin) came into force on February 19 and had such an adverse effect on the economic situation of the peasants who accepted it. Partly because T. did not energetically enough defend the need to provide peasants with land, he did not yet understand at that time all the benefits of communal land ownership, with the existence of which the difference between liberation with land and without land seemed less significant to him. Negative attitude T. towards the community was in connection with the same attitude towards socialist theories. He considered Pestel’s socialist dreams a utopia. In his main book, he called those who strive for the “organization of labor” “Catholics of industry” because they, in his opinion, wish to apply the Catholic principles of “authority and uniformity” to industry. In one of his political brochures (1848) he says: “socialist and communist teachings would like to return peoples to barbarism.” Meanwhile, he still had some understanding of the positive meaning of socialism. So, when in 1843 Prince Vyazemsky spoke very cynically about “social humane ideas,” T., in a letter to his brother, sharply rebuking Vyazemsky, wrote: “I find in these still rough and unpolished ideas the first impulses of human conscience towards further improvement the human condition and human societies. “Social questions are now mixed into all political subjects,” which “are still in their infancy, but they cannot be neglected... The source of all these, not yet mature theories, all these delusions, is holy: this is the desire for the good of humanity.”

Amnesty. Publications on the peasant question

With the accession to the throne of the Emperor. Alexander II T. was returned to his rank and nobility. After that, he visited Russia three times - in 1857, 1859 and 1864. During the reign of Alexander II, T. took an active part in the discussion of the issue of the abolition of serfdom, publishing several brochures and articles on this subject in Russian and French (some without the name of the author). In 1858, he published a brochure called “It’s Time,” in which he proved the inconvenience of transitional, preparatory measures and the necessity and benefit of quick and decisive measures, the impossibility of redemption either by the government or by the peasants themselves, and repeated his proposal to cede small plots to them. In the brochure “On the power and effect of the rescripts of November 20, 1857” T. advised facilitating the conclusion of voluntary transactions. In "The Bell" (1858), he argued the injustice of the ransom of both the peasant's person and land, and the danger of issuing too many bonds to satisfy the landowners, since their value could quickly fall. In the book “The Question of Liberation and the Question of Peasant Management,” published the following year, the author proposed establishing a one-year period for voluntary transactions between landowners and peasants, and then declaring compulsory liberation on the following conditions: peasants would be allocated / 3 of all land during the year, with the exception of all forests, but it should not exceed 3 dessiatines. for tax, or l / 5 des. per capita, with the inclusion of estate land in this number, whereby / 3 of the debts lying on the allotted lands should be accepted into the treasury account, and the owners of unmortgaged estates should be paid the corresponding amount in money. In this book, T. for the first time proposes to preserve communal land ownership during the liberation of the peasants and give it greater development, since, despite some of its harmful aspects, it played an important role in the history of our peasants and, moreover, greatly facilitates and accelerates their liberation. After two years, serfdom must be abolished. In the article, placed. in “The Bell” of 1859, T. proves that it is not the peasants who should buy their freedom, but the landowners who need to atone for the injustice of serfdom. It must be abolished by the autocratic government, but the participation of the landowners themselves in the reform process is not desirable, as the experience of the Baltic provinces has shown. Here the author changed his previous view on the issue of remuneration for landowners, “since it was demanded from all sides,” although he continued to consider it unfair. Taking into account the valuation of estates when mortgaging them in credit institutions, T. proposes to establish a universal remuneration rate of 26 rubles. for a tithe. In 1860, T. published in French “The Last Word on the Emancipation of Serfs in Russia,” where, comparing his opinions with the draft of the editorial commissions, he finds his system of small but free allotments more convenient than allotment per capita (as suggested by the editorial commissions). commission) 2-5 dessiatines, but with their redemption by the peasants themselves. He admits that if his proposal is implemented, many peasants will turn into farm laborers, but, in his opinion, the proletariat must still arise in Russia, since communal land ownership will certainly disappear after the abolition of serfdom. The inconvenience of large redeemable plots is that if the redemption payments are guaranteed by mutual guarantee, then the peasant will remain essentially attached to the land, since the community will not release its member until he pays his part of the ransom. The system of small plots is also convenient because the liberation of the peasants could be carried out extremely quickly. Proving that peasants have the right to receive a small plot of land for free, T. refers to the example of Prussia, as well as to the fact that our landowners have certain obligations regarding the peasants - feeding them during crop failures and responsibility for paying taxes; so, as the periodical press has proven, the peasants are, in essence, co-owners of the land. T. had the opportunity to apply his views. He inherited a small estate (in Kashirsky district, Tula province), in which the peasants (181 male souls) were partly on corvée, partly on quitrent. Corvee workers wished to switch to quitrent, which was established (1859) at the rate of 20 rubles per tax. T. proposed, and they agreed to pay the same amount, but on different grounds: l/3 of the land, including estates, is allocated to the peasants, and the remaining ²/3, with the exception of the landowner’s estate and forest, are leased to them for 4 rubles. for a tithe. T. admits that the rent is somewhat high, since in the surrounding areas land was given for no more than 3 rubles. for a tithe, but, taking into account the donation equal to / 3 lands, he considered this payment fair. It should be noted that the peasants received less than 3 dessiatines as a gift. per family, that is, less than the maximum allotment that T himself proposed in his writings. However, in the agreement with the peasants it was said that if the conditions of liberation established by the government were more profitable for them, then they could accept them instead of those appointed in agreement; and besides, T. established a school, a hospital and an almshouse on this estate, and also ensured the comfortable existence of the church clergy. In the brochure “On the New System of Peasants” (1861), published after the promulgation of the Regulations on February 19, T. still continues to defend his system of small plots, but already allows (although he previously considered this undesirable) that the peasant has the right to for permanent use for certain duties or even for the redemption of an additional allotment up to the size established by the new Regulations. T. is amazed that the drafters of this Regulation allowed the continuation of corporal punishment; He constantly advocated against them, among other things, in the brochure “On Jury Trials and Police Courts in Russia” published shortly before (1860).

Political reform projects

Having lived to see his most cherished dream come true, T. did not stop working, continuing to point out the need for further transformations. Thus, in his book “A Look at the Affairs of Russia” (1862) it is worth noting the proposal to introduce local self-government. In his opinion, the “district council” should have consisted of at least 25 people from the “landowning classes,” that is, nobles, peasants, etc.; meetings of this council should be temporary, periodic, twice a year, and for permanent work it elects several members, for example three. The author also allows a small number of representatives from merchants and townsfolk into a similar provincial council. These local elected institutions should be given the allocation of zemstvo duties, management of communications, the establishment of schools and, in general, concern for local needs related to the well-being of the masses. Pointing out the need for other reforms, T. proposes to entrust their preparation to commissions formed following the example of the editorial commissions that developed the draft peasant reform, that is, from persons not in the public service. In the book “What to Wish for Russia,” T. honestly admits that life in many respects has outpaced his projects. Thus, regarding the peasant reform, he says that if we were limited to small land plots, this would not correspond to the desires of the peasants. “Finding that a sufficient amount of land not only provides the peasant with his daily life, but gives him some feeling - perhaps only a ghost - of independence, close to independence, we are convinced that the method of liberation with large plots of land was the best for the peasants , and for the state, despite the burdens that he placed on ... the agricultural class, despite the length of time in which the peasants will bear a heavy burden. From everything we see, we can conclude that the peasants first and most of all wanted and want to have land, to retain for themselves in general those plots that they used; It is also obvious that for this they are ready to pay the ransom rent,” even if it “was difficult for them.” This is enough to “prefer the method of liberation with land adopted by the Regulations of February 19 to the one we proposed.” But at the same time, the author laments that “the accomplishment of the holy work of liberation was not without blood, without sacrifices. To establish freedom, they sometimes resorted to the same means that were used to introduce military settlements; against perplexed, noisy men, measures were sometimes taken that could only be excusable against declared enemies and rebels.” Regarding the law on zemstvo, T. makes some comments, but still he finds that our zemstvo self-government is distinguished by the real, true nature of this type of institution. As for the judicial system and legal proceedings, the basic principles of publicity, jury trials, and the complete transformation of the investigative procedure in criminal cases have found, in T.’s opinion, “an excellent application and development in the new structure of courts and legal proceedings,” but he is already noticing some sad phenomena in the judicial world, and also mourns the possibility in Russia of “the jurisdiction of private individuals, not living in a state of siege, by a military court, condemning them to death.” To complete the work of reform, in T.'s opinion, it was possible only in one way: by convening a Zemstvo Sobor with granting it all the rights usually belonging to legislative assemblies, and, by the way, the right of initiative. The author believes that for a long, very long time the Zemsky Sobor will be only an advisory meeting, but it is very important that its convening will ensure complete publicity. “From all corners of Russia” will gather “400 or 500 people, chosen by all the people, all classes, in proportion to their significance, not only intellectual or moral,” but also numerical. Thus, regarding the spread of voting rights, T.’s newest plan is broader and more democratic than his proposals in the book “La Russie et les Russes.” But, on the other hand, while continuing to hold the opinion of the need for one chamber, T. considers it possible for the government to grant itself the appointment, at its discretion, of a certain number of members of the council, for example, 1/4 or 5 of all representatives; Thus, he explains, the conservative element, which other states are looking for in the highest legislative assemblies, will be included in the composition of the Zemsky Sobor itself. The establishment of a Zemstvo Sobor, in which deputies from Poland should also find a place, will contribute to a final and fair solution to the Polish question.

Death

On October 29, 1871, T. died, aged 82, quietly, almost suddenly, without previous illness, in his villa Verbois in the outskirts of Paris.

Family

Wife (since 1833 in Geneva) - Clara Gastonovna de Viaris (12/2/1814 - 12/13/1891).

• Fanny (1835-1890).
• Albert (Alexander, 1843-1892) - artist and art historian.
• Peter (1853-1912) - sculptor.

• Alexander (1784-1845) - public figure, archaeographer and writer, friend of A. S. Pushkin.
• Sergei (1792-1827) - diplomat
• Andrey (1781-1803) - poet.
• Marisha (1781-1781)

Interesting fact

Rumors that England handed over Turgenev to Nicholas I, and the Decembrist was brought to St. Petersburg by sea, directly influenced Pushkin’s writing of the famous poem addressed to Vyazemsky:

So the sea, the ancient murderer, ignites your genius? You glorify the formidable trident with the golden lyre of Neptune. Don't praise him. In our vile age, the Gray Neptune of the Earth is an ally. In all the elements, man is a Tyrant, a traitor or a prisoner.

The last two lines of this poem have become textbook.

Nikolai Ivanovich Turgenev - quotes

Make it so that lies, enmity and superstition are trampled into dust, exterminated forever, and so that the beginning of evil, atrocity unrelated to mortals, so that fanaticism perishes - and happy is man!

Come, O Truth, and settle among us, Come, eradicate the ingrained vice, Make our enemies become friends, And so that the innocent will not be driven away by pain.

Delightful dreams, moments of pleasure, Joy in sorrow, consolation in misfortune, Memories! remain forever for sensitive souls, an indispensable guarantee.

The Law of Nature is the most holy, which everyone must preserve, and the true, purest reason must be the Shield of the Law.

In times of boring sadness and unhappiness, When everything is cloudy and there is bad weather outside; When my little siskin sits with his nose drooping, And everything around me looks like September; When, having collected firewood, I flood my fireplace and fan the blue flame with bellows, - Then with despondency I sit down opposite it, Forgetting the whole world and my friend, I talk alone with my imagination. And, seeing the course of things and the rush of time, The misfortune of all people, the insignificance of their lives, Which is short, like the quickest moment, - I get lost in my thoughts, I forget myself; But suddenly I turn my embarrassed gaze to the fireplace and see that the coals have already gone out there. This is the fate of all people, the reward for vanity: The heat in the coal disappears - and the coal goes out; So, after all the glory, the mortal dies!

The meaning of NIKOLAY IVANOVICH TURGENEV in Brief biographical encyclopedia

TURGENEV NIKOLAY IVANOVICH

Turgenev (Nikolai Ivanovich) - Decembrist, son of the freemason I.P. Turgenev, was born in 1789 in Simbirsk, received his education at the Moscow University Noble Boarding School and Moscow University, and completed it in Göttingen, where he studied history, jurisprudence, political economy and financial law. In 1812 he returned to his homeland, but the following year he was appointed to the famous Prussian reformer Baron Stein, who at that time was a commissioner from the emperors of the Russian and Austrian and Prussian kings for the organization of Germany. Turgenev returned to Russia only three years later. Constant relations with Stein should have greatly contributed to the expansion of Turgenev’s horizons, and he retained the most grateful memory of him: in turn, Stein said about Turgenev that his name was “equivalent to the name of honesty and honor.” His stay in Germany and conversations with Stein should have contributed to the development of his views on the peasant question. At the end of 1818, Turgenev published his book “An Experience in the Theory of Taxes,” which in some places touches on serfdom in Russia. However, along with general sound views on serfdom, Turgenev makes one very unsuccessful practical proposal. The best remedy to reduce the number of banknotes, he considers “the sale of state property together with the peasants.” At the same time, he proposes to define by law the rights and obligations of both these peasants and their new landowners, and thus set “an excellent and beneficial example for all landowners in general.” As for Turgenev’s general financial views expressed in “The Theory of Taxes,” he advises striving for complete freedom of trade, energetically rebels against high customs duties, argues that the government should try, as far as possible, to reduce the burden of taxes on the “common people,” expresses against the tax exemption of the nobility and, in support of his thought, refers to the taxation of the lands of this class in Prussia. The tax should be levied on net income, not on wages. Poll taxes are “traces of the lack of education of previous times.” It is desirable to exempt basic needs from taxes. Defective payers should not be subjected to corporal punishment, since taxes should be taken “not from the person of the subject, but from his estate”; In this case, deprivation of liberty should also be avoided, as a completely inappropriate means. When introducing changes affecting the well-being of the entire state, one should, according to Turgenev, be more consistent with the benefits of landowners and farmers than merchants. The prosperity of the people, and not the existence of many factories and manufactories, is the main sign of the people's well-being. The success of collecting taxes, in addition to the people's wealth, also depends on the type of government of the state and the “spirit of the people”: “the willingness to pay taxes is most visible in republics, the aversion to taxes is in despotic states.” Turgenev ends his book with the following words: “The improvement of the credit system will go along with the improvement of political legislation, especially with the improvement of the representation of the people.” Turgenev's book was a success completely unprecedented in Russia for such serious works: it was published in November 1818, and by the end of the year it was almost all sold out, and in May of the following year its second edition appeared. After 1825, she was persecuted: she was searched for and all found specimens were taken away. In the summer of 1818, Turgenev went to the Simbirsk village, which belonged to him together with two brothers, and replaced corvee there with quitrent; At the same time, the peasants undertook to pay two-thirds of their previous income. Somewhat later, he entered into an agreement with the peasants, which he later likened to the contracts concluded on the basis of the decree of April 2, 1842. when peasants were released on duty (see XVI, 699 - 700). In 1819 St. Petersburg. Governor General Miloradovich wished to have a note on serfdom to present to the sovereign, and Turgenev compiled it. In it, he points out that the government must take the initiative to limit serfdom and eliminate the burden of excessive corvee labor on the peasants, the selling of people individually and the cruel treatment of them; they should also be given the right to complain against the landowners. In addition to these measures, Turgenev proposed making some changes to the 1803 law on “free cultivators”, and, among other things, allowing landowners to retain ownership of land when concluding voluntary conditions with peasants, i.e., freeing entire estates without land , and grant the peasants the right of transition. This was a completely unsuccessful idea, since its implementation would undermine the beneficial influence of the law of 1803, the main significance of which was that it prevented the deprivation of land of entire estates during their liberation. After reading Turgenev's note, the sovereign expressed his approval of it and told Miloradovich that, having selected the best from the projects he had collected, he would finally “do something” for the serfs. However, only in 1833 was it prohibited to sell people separately from their families, and in 1841 - to buy serfs without land for everyone who did not have inhabited estates. The extent and types of punishments to which a landowner could subject his peasants were first determined in 1846. To implement his favorite idea of ​​​​the abolition of serfdom, Turgenev considered the assistance of poets and writers in general extremely important, and he proved to many of them how necessary it was to write on this topic . In 1819, Turgenev became a member of a secret society known as the “Union of Welfare” (see XII, 117 - 118). At the beginning of 1820, at the suggestion of Pestel, there was a meeting of the radical Duma of the Union of Welfare in St. Petersburg, where heated debates took place about what should be preferred: a republic or a monarchy. When Turgenev’s turn came, he said: “Un president sans phrases,” and during the voting everyone unanimously voted for the republic. However, later in the projects of the St. Petersburg members of the secret society, the desire for a limited monarchy prevailed. Some members of the Union of Welfare, finding its activities insufficiently energetic, came to the idea of ​​​​the need to close or transform it. In January 1821, about 20 members of the society gathered in Moscow for this purpose, including Turgenev, Yakushkin, Fonvizins and others. It was decided to change not only the charter of the society, but also its composition (since information was received that the government knew its existence), declaring everywhere that the “Union of Welfare” would cease to exist forever; thus, unreliable members were removed from society. Yakushkin in his notes states that at the same time a new charter was drawn up, which was divided into two parts: in the first, the same philanthropic goals were proposed for new entrants as in the previous charter; the second part, according to Yakushkin, was allegedly written by Turgenev for members of the highest rank; here it has already been directly stated that the goal of society is to limit autocracy in Russia, for which it was recognized as necessary to act on the troops and prepare them just in case. For the first time, it was necessary to establish four main dumas: one in St. Petersburg, another in Moscow, the third was to be formed in the Smolensk province by Yakushkin, the fourth was to be put in order in Tulchin by Burtsev. At a more crowded meeting of society members, Turgenev, as president of the meeting, announced that the Union of Welfare no longer existed and outlined the reasons for its destruction. Fonvizin in his notes says that “the abolition was imaginary,” and the union “remained the same as it was, but its members were ordered to act more carefully.” Turgenev, in a letter to the editor of Kolokol (1863) regarding Yakushkin’s notes published in the previous year, resolutely denies his drafting of the second part of the society’s charter and says that he only compiled a note on the formation of committees from former members of the society in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Smolensk to spread the idea of ​​​​the liberation of the peasants; but it should be noted that he subsequently narrowed and weakened his participation in the secret society too much, while Yakushkin calls him one of its “most significant and active” members. Returning to St. Petersburg, Turgenev announced that the members who were at the congress in Moscow found it necessary to stop the activities of the Union of Welfare. Yakushkin claims that in the new society, created mainly by the energy of Nikita Muravyov (as can be seen from other sources, only in 1822), Turgenev was present “at many meetings.” On the contrary, Turgenev himself completely denies his participation in the secret society after the closure of the Union of Welfare. However, the historian of the reign of Alexander I, Bogdanovich, based on the unpublished testimony of some Decembrists, claims that Turgenev, together with N. Muravyov and Prince Obolensky, was chosen in 1822. Member of the Council of the Northern Society. The following year he was elected again unanimously, but declined due to poor health. At a meeting with Mitkov (whom, as can be seen from N. Turgenev’s letters to his brothers, he accepted into the society, although he later claimed that he did not accept anyone into the society), Turgenev read a draft on the composition and structure of the society, dividing its members into united (junior) and convinced (elders). Only with his departure abroad did Turgenev completely stop relations with the secret society. Yakushkin’s testimony and Bogdanovich’s story in the most important respects (i.e. regarding Turgenev’s participation in the secret society and after the congress in Moscow) are also confirmed by the testimony of S.G. Volkonsky in his just published memoirs (St. Petersburg, 1901). “On my annual trips to St. Petersburg (after the congress in Moscow),” says Volkonsky, “I not only had meetings and conversations with Turgenev, but it was decided by the Southern Duma to give him a full report on our actions, and he was revered by the Southern Duma as most zealous activist. - I remember that during one of these meetings, while talking about the actions of the Southern Duma, he asked me: “What, Prince, have you prepared your brigade for an uprising at the beginning of our common cause?...” In preliminary charters, different parts of management were distributed to different persons for processing; judicial and financial parts were entrusted to Turgenev... Turgenev’s works did not fall into the hands of the government, but... everything that he said in print about finance and legal proceedings for Russia during his time. .. stay in foreign lands, there is a summary of what he had prepared for use during the coup.” We can explain the discrepancy between how things really were and what Turgenev wrote in his book “La Russie et les Russis” (1847) only by the desire to present in a generally softened form the activities of secret societies, whose members languished back in that time in Siberia. The “exculpatory note” he placed in the first volume of this work should be looked at not as a historical source, but as the speech of a lawyer who refutes the accusations contained in the “Report of the Investigative Commission.” Even in the 1860s, Turgenev may have believed that the time had not yet come to speak with complete frankness about a secret society. In one of his pamphlets from 1867, he says: “I always looked very calmly at the unexpected turning point that followed in my life; but at the time when I wrote (“La Russie et les Russes”), the people whom I considered the best , the noblest people in the world, and in whose innocence I was convinced, as in my own, languished in Siberia. That's what tormented me... Some of them knew nothing about the riot... Why were they convicted? For words and for words... Even admitting that these words were taken for intent, the conviction remains incorrect, illegal... Moreover, the words on which the conviction is based were uttered over several years, only by a very few and always moreover, refuted by others" ("Responses I to Chapter IX of the book "Count Bludov and His Time" by Eg. Kovalevsky. II to the article "Russian Invalid" about this book", P., 1867, pp. 24 - 25). In the above letter 1863 Turgenev says: “What fate befell Pestel, whom the investigation and court found most guilty? Let us assume that all the testimony attributed to him is true. But what did he do, what did he do? Absolutely nothing! What did all those who lived in Moscow and in various places of the empire do, not knowing what was happening in St. Petersburg? Nothing! Meanwhile, execution and exile did not escape them either. So, these people suffered for their opinions or for words for which no one can be held accountable when the words were not spoken publicly." We see, therefore, that Turgenev continued to participate in the secret society after 1821, and we believe , that to a large extent his participation in meetings of members of society should be attributed to the thoughtfulness of that plan of state reforms, which was found in the papers of Prince Trubetskoy and which was very similar to the project of Nikita Muravyov.It included: freedom of the press, freedom of worship, abolition of the ownership of serfs people, the equality of all citizens before the law and therefore the abolition of military courts and all judicial commissions; granting the right to each citizen to choose an occupation and occupy all positions; addition of poll taxes and arrears; abolition of conscription and military settlements; reduction of service life for lower ranks and equalization of military service between all classes (conscription); establishment of volost, district, provincial and regional administrations and the appointment of members of their choice to replace all officials; publicity of the court, introduction of juries in criminal and civil courts. We find most of these basic principles in all of Turgenev’s later works. The plans of members of the Northern Society also included the dissolution of the standing army and the formation of an internal people's guard. We know that in the same project, found in the papers of Prince Trubetskoy, it was interpreted, among other things, about the people’s council, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Duma, the power of the emperor, but the details are still unknown (Bogdanovich “History of the reign of Emperor Alexander I”, T. VI, appendix, pp. 56 - 57). Since his return to Russia in 1816, Turgenev served in the commission for drafting laws, at one time in the Ministry of Finance and, mainly, in the office of the State Council, where he was assistant secretary of state; his official activity was especially useful in everything that related to peasant affairs. The following year, Turgenev's health required a long vacation abroad. In the summer of 1825, he received a letter abroad from the Minister of Finance Kankrin, who, by Imperial command, offered him the position of director of the department of manufactures in his ministry; this proves that Emperor Alexander continued to treat him favorably. One day the sovereign said: “If you believed everything that was said and repeated about him, there would be reason to destroy him. I know his extreme opinions, but I also know that he is an honest man, and that is enough for me.” Turgenev rejected Kankrin's proposal, since he did not sympathize with his intentions to patronize industry at any cost. This refusal saved him. In January 1826, Turgenev went to England and there he learned that he was involved in the Decembrist cause. He hastened to send an explanatory note to St. Petersburg by mail regarding his participation in secret societies. In it, he claimed that he was a member only of the “Union of Welfare,” which had long been closed, explained the nature of this society and insisted that, not belonging to any other secret union, having no relations, either written or personal, with the participants later secret societies, and being completely alien to the events of December 14, he cannot be responsible for what happened without his knowledge and in his absence. Soon after, the secretary of the Russian embassy in London came to Turgenev and conveyed to him an invitation from Count Nesselrode (by order of Emperor Nicholas) to appear before the supreme court, with a warning that if he refused to appear, he would be tried as a state criminal. Turgenev replied that the explanatory note he had recently sent regarding his participation in secret societies made his presence in St. Petersburg completely unnecessary; Moreover, his state of health does not allow him to undertake such a journey. Then Gorchakov showed the dispatch to gr. Nesselrode to the Russian chargé d'affaires that, in the event of Turgenev's refusal to appear, he should inform the English ministry "what kind of people it gives refuge to." It turned out that the English Minister Canning was demanded to extradite Turgenev, but without success. Turgenev later learned that Russian envoys throughout the European continent were ordered to arrest him wherever he happened to be; they even thought of capturing him in England with the help of secret agents. The Supreme Criminal Court found that “the actual state councilor Turgenev, according to the testimony of 24 accomplices, was an active member of a secret society, participated in the establishment, restoration, meetings and dissemination of it with the involvement of others, he also participated in the intention to introduce republican rule and, retiring abroad, he , at the call of the government, did not appear for acquittal, which confirmed the testimony made against him.” The court sentenced Turgenev to death, and the sovereign ordered, depriving him of his ranks and nobility, to exile him forever to hard labor. Turgenev very cheerfully endured the blow inflicted on him and only under the influence of the advice of his brother Alexander sent a short letter to Emperor Nicholas in April 1827, in which he pleaded guilty only to failure to appear and explained that there was a prejudice against him, and therefore he could not think, that he would be judged impartially, especially since the government itself recognized him as a criminal even before the court’s decision. In addition, Zhukovsky, a friend of the Turgenev brothers, in the same year presented to the sovereign a detailed exculpatory note from Turgenev and his own note about him, which he ended with a request that if the verdict cannot be destroyed (“at least now”), then order our missions not to disturb Turgenev anywhere in Europe. However, Zhukovsky’s petition was unsuccessful, and as early as 1830 Turgenev did not have the right to stay on the continent; but in 1833 he was already living in Paris. In the first twenty years of Turgenev’s life abroad, his brother Alexander, ardently devoted to him, sought his acquittal by all means. In 1837, in order to improve the financial situation of his brother Nikolai and his family, Alexander Turgenev sold the family estate in Simbirsk, receiving a very significant amount for it; its exact size is unknown, but in 1835 it was sold to another person for 412,000 rubles in banknotes. The estate passed into the hands of a cousin, who gave his word of honor to “love and favor the peasants”; but nevertheless, it was still a sale of peasants, against which in the era of Alexander I both brothers were always indignant. In explanation (but not justification) of this fact, it should be mentioned that after the death of Alexander Turgenev, his brother, as a state criminal, could not inherit the estate and would be left with his family without any means. Back in 1842, Turgenev completed most of the work, which consisted of his personal memoirs, a detailed explanation regarding participation in a secret society and a description of the social and political structure of Russia; but he did not publish this book until the death of his brother Alexander, so as not to harm him. Zhukovsky especially insisted on this, who generally did not advise printing Turgenev’s notes abroad, but suggested sending them to Emperor Nicholas, “mentally reconciling with him” in order to bring known truths and facts “to the soul of the emperor.” The death of his brother (1845) freed Turgenev’s hands, and, having added to his manuscript a section called “Pia Desideria”, which contained plans for the desired transformations, he published his work in 1847 under the title: “La Russie et les Russes”, in three volumes . The most important sections of this work are devoted to the two main issues that most interested Turgenev: the abolition of serfdom and the transformation of the political system of Russia. This work by Turgenev was the only work in the era of Emperor Nicholas in which Russian political liberalism received fairly complete expression. In the third part of this book, the author presents an extensive plan for reforms, which he divides into two categories: 1) those that are possible under the existence of autocracy, and 2) those that are part of the necessary, in his opinion, political reforms. Among the first he lists the liberation of the peasants, which he puts in first place; then follow: the organization of the judicial part with the introduction of jury trials and the abolition of corporal punishment; arrangement of the administrative part on the basis of an elective principle, with the establishment of local self-government, expansion of freedom of the press, etc. To the second category, i.e., to the number of principles that should be sanctified by the basic Russian law (Turgenev calls it “Russian Truth”, just as Pestel entitled his project of state reforms), the author includes equality before the law, freedom of speech and press , freedom of conscience, a representative form of government (and he gives preference to the establishment of one chamber and considers the desire to install an aristocracy in our country to be completely inappropriate to the conditions of our life); here he also includes the responsibility of ministers and the independence of the judiciary. Turgenev intended to organize the elections to the “People's Duma” in this way: he considered it sufficient that, with a population of 50 million in Russia, there would be a million voters, with them distributed among 200 electoral colleges. Voters can be scientists and everyone involved in public education and training, officials, starting from a certain rank, all holding positions of choice, officers, artists who have workshops and students, merchants, manufacturers, and finally, artisans who have had a workshop for several years. As for the right to be a voter on the basis of ownership of land property, the author proposes to establish a certain amount of it, which varies in different regions of Russia. Houses of known value should also qualify them to be voters. The author does not mention the participation of peasant communities in the election of deputies to the People's Duma, but stipulates that clergy should not be deprived of the right to participate in elections. When assessing Turgenev’s plan, one must not forget that in France at the time of the publication of his work there was a very limited number of voters. Turgenev devotes a lot of space to describing the situation of peasants in general and solving the issue of abolishing serfdom. Even before leaving Russia, it occurred to him that the government could make a loan abroad to buy out the serfs. Another suggestion was to issue redemption certificates representing the value of the land and yielding 5%: the money they replaced could be issued as a loan to peasants who wished to buy out, who would contribute 6 or more rubles per hundred to pay interest and repay the debt . However, not content with a gradual redemption of freedom, Turgenev advises to proceed directly to the final liberation of the peasants, which can be either only personal, or with the provision of ownership or possession of a certain plot of land. With personal liberation, it will only be necessary to restore the freedom of the peasants to move at certain times of the year, and it will be necessary to replace the poll tax with a land tax. He considers personal liberation the most possible and feasible. In the third volume, Turgenev speaks out somewhat more decisively for liberation with land, and, however, in the form of the largest allotment he proposes 1 tithe per capita or 3 tithes per tax. Offering a very insignificant maximum allotment, the author, at least, does not find it necessary to give the landowners any reward for it, just like for their personal liberation. Thus, the land allotment proposed by Turgenev is similar to the free allotment in the amount of 1/4 of the highest allotment, which (at the insistence of Prince Gagarin) came into force on February 19 and had such an adverse effect on the economic situation of the peasants who accepted it. Partly because Turgenev did not energetically enough defend the need to provide peasants with land, he did not yet understand at that time all the benefits of communal land ownership, with the existence of which the difference between liberation with land and without land seemed less significant to him. Turgenev's negative attitude towards the community was in connection with the same attitude towards socialist theories. He considered Pestel's socialist dreams a utopia. In his main book he called those who strive for the "organization of labor" "Catholics of industry" because they, in his opinion, wish to apply the Catholic principles of "authority and uniformity" to industry. In one of his political brochures (1848) he says: “socialist and communist teachings would like to return peoples to barbarism.” Meanwhile, he still had some understanding of the positive meaning of socialism. Thus, when in 1843 Prince Vyazemsky spoke very cynically about “social humane ideas,” Turgenev, in a letter to his brother, sharply rebuking Vyazemsky, wrote: “I find in these still crude and unpolished ideas the first impulses of human conscience towards further improvement of the state man and human societies. All political subjects are now mixed with social questions," which "are still in their infancy, but they cannot be neglected... The source of all these, not yet mature theories, all these delusions is holy: this is the desire for the good of humanity." With the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander II, Turgenev was restored to his rank and nobility. After that, he visited Russia three times - in 1857, 1859 and 1864. During the reign of Alexander II, Turgenev took an active part in discussing the issue of abolition of serfdom, publishing several brochures and articles on this subject in Russian and French (some without the author's name). In 1858, he published a brochure called “It’s Time,” in which he proved the inconvenience of transitional, preparatory measures and the necessity and benefit of quick and decisive measures, the impossibility of redemption either by the government or by the peasants themselves, and repeated his proposal to cede small plots to them. In the brochure "On the power and effect of the rescripts of November 20, 1857." Turgenev advised facilitating the conclusion of voluntary transactions. In "The Bell" (1858), he argued the injustice of the redemption of both the peasant's personality and land, and the danger of issuing too many bonds to satisfy the landowners, since their value could quickly fall. In the book “The Question of Liberation and the Question of Peasant Management,” published the following year, the author proposed establishing a one-year period for voluntary transactions between landowners and peasants, and then declaring mandatory liberation under the following conditions: peasants would be given 1/3 of all land during the year, with the exception of of all forests, but it should not exceed 3 dessiatinas per tax or 1 1/5 dessiatinas per capita, with the inclusion of estate land in this number, and 1/3 of the debts lying on the allotted lands should be accepted into the treasury account, and the owners of unmortgaged estates, the corresponding amount is paid in money. In this book, Turgenev for the first time proposes to preserve communal land ownership during the liberation of the peasants and give it greater development, since, despite some of its harmful aspects, it played an important role in the history of our peasants and, moreover, greatly facilitates and accelerates their liberation. After two years, serfdom must be abolished. In an article published in Kolokol in 1859, Turgenev argues that it is not the peasants who should buy their freedom, but the landowners who need to atone for the injustice of serfdom. It must be abolished by the autocratic government, but the participation of the landowners themselves in the reform process is not desirable, as the experience of the Baltic provinces has shown. Here the author changed his previous view on the issue of remuneration for landowners, “since it was demanded from all sides,” although he continued to consider it unfair. Taking into account the valuation of estates when mortgaging them in credit institutions, Turgenev proposes to establish a universal remuneration rate of 26 rubles per tithe. In 1860, Turgenev published, in French, “The Last Word on the Liberation of Serfs in Russia,” where, comparing his opinions with the draft of the editorial commissions, he finds his system of small but free allotments more convenient than allotment per capita (as was proposed editorial commissions) 2 - 5 dessiatines, but with their redemption by the peasants themselves. He admits that, if his proposal is implemented, many peasants will turn into farm laborers, but, in his opinion, the proletariat must still arise in Russia, since communal land ownership will certainly disappear after the abolition of serfdom. The inconvenience of large redeemable plots also lies in the fact that if the redemption payments are guaranteed by mutual guarantee, then the peasant will remain, in essence, attached to the land, since the community will not release its member until he pays his part of the ransom. The system of small plots is also convenient because the liberation of the peasants could be carried out extremely quickly. Proving that peasants have the right to receive a small plot of land for free, Turgenev refers to the example of Prussia, as well as to the fact that our landowners have certain obligations regarding the peasants - feeding them during crop failures and responsibility for paying taxes; so that, as the periodical press has proven, the peasants are in essence co-owners of the land. Turgenev had the opportunity to apply his views. He inherited a small estate (in Kashira district, Tula province), in which the peasants (181 male souls) were partly on corvée, partly on quitrent. Corvee workers wished to switch to quitrent, which was established (1859) at the rate of 20 rubles per tax. Turgenev proposed, and they agreed to pay the same amount, but on different grounds: 1/3 of the land, including estates, is allocated to peasants, and the remaining 2/3, with the exception of the landowner's estate and forest, is leased to them at 4 rubles per tithe. Turgenev admits that the rent is somewhat high, since in the surrounding areas land was given for no more than 3 rubles per tithe, but, taking into account the donation allotment equal to 1/3 of the land, he considered this payment fair. It should be noted that the peasants received a gift of less than 3 dessiatines per family, i.e., less than the maximum allotment that Turgenev himself proposed in his writings. However, the agreement with the peasants stated that if the conditions of liberation established by the government , will be more profitable for them, then they can accept them instead of those appointed in the contract; in addition, Turgenev established a school, a hospital and an almshouse on this estate, and also ensured the comfortable existence of the church clergy. In the brochure “On the new structure of the peasants” (1861), issued after the promulgation of the Regulations on February 19, Turgenev still continues to defend his system of small plots, but already allows (although previously he considered this undesirable) that the peasant, in addition to the plot received as property, has the right to permanent use, for certain duties, or even to redemption of an additional allotment up to the size established by the new Regulations.Turgenev is amazed that the drafters of this Regulations allowed the continuation of corporal punishment; He constantly advocated against them, among other things, in the brochure “On Jury Trials and Police Courts in Russia” published shortly before that (1860). Having lived to see his most cherished dream come true, Turgenev did not stop working, continuing to point out the need for further transformations. Thus, in his book “A Look at the Affairs of Russia” (1862) it is worth noting the proposal to introduce local self-government. In his opinion, the “district council” should have consisted of at least 25 people from the “landowning classes”, i.e. nobles, peasants, etc.; meetings of this council should be temporary, periodic, twice a year, and for permanent work it elects several members, for example, three. The author also allows a small number of representatives from merchants and townsfolk into a similar provincial council. This local elected institution should be responsible for the distribution of zemstvo duties, management of communications, the establishment of schools, and generally taking care of local needs related to the well-being of the masses. Pointing out the need for other reforms, Turgenev proposes to entrust their preparation to commissions formed following the example of the editorial commissions that developed the draft peasant reform, i.e., from persons not in the public service. In the book: “What to Wish for Russia,” Turgenev honestly admits that life in many respects has outpaced his projects. Thus, regarding the peasant reform, he says that if we were limited to small land plots, this would not correspond to the desires of the peasants. “Finding that a sufficient amount of land not only provides the peasant with his daily life, but gives him some feeling - maybe only a ghost - of independence, close to independence, we are convinced that the method of liberation with large plots of land was the best for the peasants, and for the state, despite the burdens that he placed on ... the agricultural class, despite the length of time in which the peasants will bear a heavy burden. From everything that we see, we can conclude that the peasants first and most of all wanted and want to have land, to retain for themselves in general those plots of land that they used; it is also obvious that for this they are ready to pay a redemption tax, even if it was difficult for them. “This is enough to prefer the method of liberation with land adopted by the Regulations of February 19 to the one we proposed.” But at the same time, the author laments that “the accomplishment of the holy work of liberation did not happen without blood, without sacrifices. To establish freedom, they sometimes resorted to the same means that were used to introduce military settlements; against perplexed, noisy men, such measures were sometimes taken that can only be excused against declared enemies and rebels." Regarding the law on zemstvo, Turgenev makes some comments, but still he finds that our zemstvo self-government is distinguished by the real, true nature of this type of institution. As for the judicial system and legal proceedings, the basic principles of publicity, jury trials, the complete transformation of the investigative procedure in criminal cases, have found, in Turgenev’s opinion, “excellent application and development in the new structure of courts and legal proceedings,” but he is already noticing some sad phenomena in the judicial world, and also mourns the possibility in Russia of “the jurisdiction of private individuals, not living in a state of siege, by a military court, condemning them to death.” To complete the work of reform, in Turgenev’s opinion, it was possible only in one way: by convening a Zemsky Sobor with granting it all the rights usually belonging to legislative assemblies, and, by the way, the right of initiative. The author believes that for a long, very long time the Zemsky Sobor will be only an advisory meeting, but it is very important that its convening be ensured by complete publicity. “From all corners of Russia” will gather “400 or 500 people, chosen by all the people, all classes, in proportion to their significance, not only intellectual or moral,” but also numerical. Thus, regarding the spread of voting rights, Turgenev’s newest plan is broader and more democratic than his proposals in the book “La Russie et les Russes”. But on the other hand, while continuing to hold the opinion of the need for one chamber, Turgenev considers it possible for the government to grant itself the appointment, at its discretion, of a certain number of members of the council, for example 1/4 or 1/5 of all representatives; in this way, he explains, the conservative element that other states are looking for in the highest legislative assemblies will be included in the composition of the Zemsky Sobor itself. The establishment of a Zemstvo Sobor, in which deputies from Poland should also find a place, will contribute to a final and fair solution to the Polish question. On October 29, 1871, Turgenev died, 82 years old, quietly, almost suddenly, without previous illness, in his villa Verbois, in the vicinity of Paris. There is no biography of Turgenev. His best obituary was written by I.S. Turgenev, see " Full Assembly Works" (2nd ed., vol. X, 1884, pp. 445 - 451); see also the article about him by D.N. Sverbeev in the "Russian Archive" (1871, pp. 1962 - 1984), reprinted in "Notes of D.N. Sverbeev" (M., 1899, vol. I, pp. 474 - 495). On Turgenev's views on the Polish question, see "La Russie et les Russes" (P., 1847, III, 30 - 41); "La Russie en presence de la crise europeenne" (P., 1848); "On the diversity of the population in the Russian state" (1866); "What to wish for Russia?" (1868, pp. 125 - 173); in a brochure (without the author's name) "On the moral attitude of Russia towards Europe" (1869, pp. 38 - 45), as well as in the article by A.N. Pypin "The Polish Question" ("Bulletin of Europe", 1880, ¦ 10, pp. 701 - 711). Read more for Turgenev's opinions on the peasant question before the accession to the throne of Alexander II, see the book by V. Semevsky "The Peasant Question in the 18th and First Half of the 19th Centuries" (vols. I and II). For a portrait of Turgenev, see the "Russian Archive" (1895 , ¦ 12).V. Semevsky.

Brief biographical encyclopedia. 2012

See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what NIKOLAI IVANOVICH TURGENEV is in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:

• TURGENEV NIKOLAY IVANOVICH
  (1789-187..1) Decembrist. Brother of A.I. Turgenev. From 1816, Assistant Secretary of State of the State Council. Economist. Founder of financial science in Russia ("Experience of the theory...
• TURGENEV NIKOLAY IVANOVICH in big Soviet encyclopedia, TSB:
  Nikolai Ivanovich, Russian statesman, Decembrist, economist. Born into a noble family. Listener of the Moscow...
• TURGENEV NIKOLAY IVANOVICH in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  Decembrist, son of Mason I.P.T., b. in 1789 in Simbirsk, received his education at the Moscow University. noble boarding house and...
• TURGENEV NIKOLAY IVANOVICH in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia:
  ? Decembrist, son of Mason I.P.T., b. in 1789 in Simbirsk, received his education at the Moscow University. noble boarding house...
• TURGENEV in the Encyclopedia of Russian surnames, secrets of origin and meanings:
  
• TURGENEV in the Encyclopedia of Surnames:
  From the genealogy of the Turgenev nobles, you can find out that the founder of the family is Murza Lev Turgenev, who left the Golden Horde. And this surname...
• NICHOLAY in the Bible Encyclopedia of Nikephoros:
  (victory of the people; Acts 6:5) - originally from Antioch, probably converted from paganism to the Christian faith, one of the deacons of the Apostolic Church, ...
• TURGENEV in Sayings of Great Men:
  ...life is nothing more than a constantly conquered contradiction. I.S. Turgenev - It is impossible to believe that such a language was not given...
• TURGENEV
  Nikolai Ivanovich (1789 - 1871) - son of a famous freemason, member of the Union of Welfare. During the uprising on December 14, he was abroad...
• NICHOLAY in 1000 biographies of famous people:
  Nikolaevich, Grand Duke (1856-?). - Graduated military academy in 1876. Participated as an officer in the Russian-Turkish war. In the period from 1895...
• NICHOLAY in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
  Nicholas - Archbishop of Murlikia, a saint, highly revered in the East and West, sometimes even by Muslims and pagans. His name is surrounded by a mass of folk...
• TURGENEV in the Literary Encyclopedia:
  Ivan Sergeevich is the largest Russian realist writer. Genus. in the village Spassky-Lutovinovo (formerly Oryol province). The writer’s mother, V.P. Lutovinova, is autocratic...
• IVANOVICH in the Pedagogical Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  Korneliy Agafonovich (1901-82), teacher, doctor of science. APN USSR (1968), Doctor of Education Sciences and Professor (1944), specialist in agricultural education. Was a teacher...
• NICHOLAY in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  (4th century) Archbishop of Myra (city of Myra in Lycia, M. Asia), Christian saint-miracle worker, widely revered in the Eastern and Western Churches. IN …