Justice. The problem of justice and equality. What is justice? Text about the French Revolution. Ivan Ilyin. (Unified State Examination in Russian). Examples from fiction in a review of the Unified State Examination in the Russian language Literary works about justice

The Renaissance in most European countries spans the 15th and 16th centuries. This was the time when the people began to oppose the feudal lords, seeking freedom, the time of the growth of large cities and the emergence of the bourgeoisie, the time of revival of trade and long travel, which required courage from people. New views on the meaning of existence have emerged: the conviction has emerged that the greatest value on Earth is man. Humanists - writers and artists - studied man and sought to portray her truthfully. They found confirmation of their ideas in ancient art, which depicted a strong and beautiful person. Thus, humanists revived ancient traditions. Hence the name of the era - Renaissance.

Don Quixote embodies justice, humanity, true chivalry - but lives in an era when all these humanistic values ​​are ridiculed. Life turns out to be not at all what it seems to Don Quixote, which is why many of the hero’s noble aspirations to help lead to exactly the opposite results. But how attractive is his desire to correct the world! Don Quixote does not fight for his own interests - he is captured by the idea of ​​​​correcting the mutilated reality. And in this service to Good he is always active, courageous and selfless.

Sancho Panza, just like in appearance, is the complete opposite of his master: he really looks at life, quite mercantilely. A well-fed, free life is his ideal (in contrast to the “knight of the sad image”, who, according to S. Brodsky, “could not breathe the air of well-fed boredom”). But, reading the novel, we see how Sancho Panza is gradually imbued with the aspirations, enthusiasm and nobility of his master. The main thing that attracts his figure is his sensitivity, humanity, and desire to serve good.

The figure of the English Renaissance, W. Shakespeare, also portrayed a human personality who sets out to fight the feudal world. His "Romeo and Juliet" is the most outstanding hymn of love. A young man and a girl from the warring wealthy Italian families of Montague and Capulet fell in love with each other. Their love is not only a passionate feeling that does not recognize any obstacles, but also, like any high love, a feeling that endlessly enriches the soul.
Renaissance humanists argued that reality is the person himself, and not some artificially pasted label (in accordance with his origin or place in society). It is in the person himself that his positive qualities and flaws are present; everything else, including family transfers and family responsibilities, is secondary. “What is a Montague?” - thinks thirteen-year-old Juliet, who, thanks to her feelings, has risen to an understanding of important, enduring truths.

The love of Romeo and Juliet - unbridled, pure and heroic - lasts only a few days. Power and strength are not on the side of lovers, but on the side of old forms of life, where a person’s fate is determined not by feelings, but by money, fortune, and false concepts of family honor. But, despite the fact that the heroes die, light and truth, goodness and love triumph in the tragedy.

In the heroes of the works of M. Cervantes and W. Shakespeare we see features inherent in the Renaissance. The heroes act in full accordance with their own ideas about the truth, being responsible for each of their actions, reacting appropriately to the opposition of a world hostile to them.

In the struggle to establish the ideal of life, they are forced to overcome many obstacles. These are active and active people who have humane thinking, and these are already features of a new, in comparison with the previous era, man - a true hero of the Renaissance.

The citizen of the Saikaku era, in his desire for personal freedom, naturally became an opponent of those feudal laws that limited him. At the same time, in his family life he wanted to maintain unlimited power over the younger members of the family, unlimited...

An equally important role was played by the ancient literature of China in the 3rd-4th and 7th centuries. She has influenced Korean and Japanese culture. Therefore, after Indian ancient literature and fairy tales there is a section on Chinese fairy tales. Then they consider...

The history of literature knows many cases when the works of a writer were very popular during his lifetime, but time passed and they were forgotten almost forever. There are other examples: the writer was not recognized by his contemporaries, but the real value of his works...

American literature has given the world many wonderful writers, whose books are read by both adults and children. Why did it take its rightful place among other literatures only at the beginning of the 19th century? The answer to this question is provided by US history itself. To end...

Law and literature... There is a very close connection between them, since the law and the practice of its application, the activities of investigative and judicial bodies, the reasons for the unlawful behavior of some members of society often served as the basis for deep artistic generalizations in literary work, and lawmaking and law enforcement activities, in turn, were influenced literature through public opinion, which was largely formed in the 18th-19th centuries. literature.

Many Russian writers had professional training in the field of law. Some of them, before becoming famous in the literary field, received a legal education, practiced law, and successfully served in the public service. These are such outstanding literary figures as A. N. Radishchev, A. S. Griboyedov, L. N. Andreev, A. N. Maikov, Ya. P. Polonsky, A. N. Apukhtin. They planned to become jurists, but for various reasons did not complete their legal education: L. N. Tolstoy, A. N. Ostrovsky, A. A. Blok, K. D. Balmont, A. A. Akhmatova, M. A. Voloshin and others.

In turn, some lawyers also left a noticeable mark on the literary heritage of Russia: N. P. Korabchevsky, K. K. Arsenyev, V. D. Spasovich, S. A. Andreevsky, A. I. Urusov, A. F. Koni . The latter, in addition to his many other titles, was also awarded the title of honorary academician of fine literature.

The topics that interested Russian writers and poets and related to law and justice were varied: the problem of interaction between government and society (government and people), the theme of the “little” man, the problem of social justice, the vices and shortcomings of justice, designed to uphold the law and protect justice, the theme of the relationship between law and morality in relation to the destinies of characters in literary works. And this is not a complete list of problems raised by classical Russian literature.

The theme of the implementation of justice stands apart in Russian literature: writers explored the social causes of crimes, the psychology of criminals, described the conditions of detention of convicts in places of deprivation of liberty, expressed their own opinions about the methods of investigation, about the procedural subtleties of the trial stage, about the institution of punishment and about solving the problem of re-education convicted. Paradoxically, even at the dawn of the formation of classical Russian literature, when even in the most advanced act of bourgeois criminal law - the French Criminal Code of 1791 - the purpose of punishing a criminal was seen, first of all, in isolating him and in intimidating society (“so that others would be discouraged "), and in bourgeois England they were sentenced to death even for petty theft or cutting down trees on private property, through the mouth of A.N. Radishchev a completely different approach to the institution of punishment was formulated, which was realized only in Russian and foreign legislation of the 20th century: “The purpose of punishment is not revenge, but correction.” To come to such a deep and at the same time simple thought, the author had to see a lot in his lifetime.

Radishchev A. N. (1749-1802) was, perhaps, one of the first cultural figures and lawyers who loudly declared the discrepancy between the law and law enforcement practice, began an open discussion of shortcomings in the administration of justice and pointed out the injustice of the serfdom system, legalized by Russian legislation. A bold accusatory work - “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” forever inscribed his name among the number of outstanding Russian writers, but the author himself brought persecution from the regime of “enlightened absolutism” of Catherine II. “A rebel is worse than Pugachev,” - this is how the empress defined the essence of this work and the socio-political views of its author, having familiarized herself with the work.

And how well it all started! A. N. Radishchev was born into a poor noble family and was brought up in the Corps of Pages. Then, among 12 young men, he was sent abroad by Catherine II (to Leipzig) to prepare “for political and civil service.” In Leipzig, the young man studied the philosophy of the Enlightenment, and upon returning to Russia in the late 70s. XVIII century, served as a customs official. In 1735 he began work on his main work, “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow.” It was printed in its own printing house in 1790 in an amount of about 650 copies. The book, which exposed the autocratic serfdom regime with extraordinary revolutionary courage for that time, attracted the attention of both high society and Catherine II. By order of the latter, on July 30 of the same year, the writer was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, and on August 8 he was sentenced to death, which, by decree of October 4, was replaced by a ten-year exile to Ilimsk (Siberia). The writer was returned from exile in 1797 by Paul I, but his rights were restored only under Alexander I, who invited A. N. Radishchev to participate in the commission to systematize legislation. In this commission, as before, A. N. Radishchev defended views that did not coincide with the official ideology, which entailed an unpleasant explanation with the chairman of the commission, who reminded the writer about Siberia. Sick and exhausted, Radishchev responded to this threat with suicide (September 12, 1802), saying before his death: “Posterity will avenge me.” However, the fact of suicide has not been definitely established.

Two main legal problems lay at the heart of “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” - the problem of absolutism and the problem of serfdom, which at that time was almost indistinguishable from slavery. A. N. Radishchev understood that the “Saltychikha” case, the only case brought to court on charges of the owner of serf souls in the mass murder of subordinates, was not an accidental episode, but an ordinary phenomenon of serfdom and demanded the destruction of the latter. In this regard, the writer went further not only than his contemporaries in Russia - Chelintsev, Novikov, Fonvizin - but also Western European enlighteners. At a time when Voltaire, in his response to the questionnaire of the Free Economic Society, believed that the liberation of the peasants was a matter of goodwill of the landowners, when de Labbé, who proposed to liberate the peasants, did so with the proviso that first it was necessary to prepare the peasants for this event through education, when .-AND. Rousseau proposed to first “free the souls” of the peasants, and only then their bodies; A. N. Radishchev raised the question of freeing the peasants without any reservations.

Already from the very beginning of the “Travel” - from Lyuban (Chapter IV) - records begin of impressions about the miserable life of the peasants, about how serf owners not only exploit the peasants on their farms, but rent them out as property. As a result of the unbearable corvée labor, the financial situation of the peasants is terrible: baked bread, usually eaten by peasants, consists of three-quarters chaff and one-quarter wholemeal flour (chapter “Pawns”). Peasant poverty evokes in the writer words of indignation towards the landowners: “Greedy animals, insatiable drunkards, what do we leave for the peasant? What we cannot take away is air.” In the chapter “Copper” A. N. Radishchev describes the sale of serfs at auction and the tragedy of a divided family as a result of the sale in parts. The chapter "Black Mud" describes a forced marriage. The horrors of recruitment (chapter “Gorodnya”) evoke the author’s remarks, who views recruits as “prisoners in their own fatherland.” In the chapter “Zaitsevo” he tells how the serfs, driven to despair by their tyrant landowner, killed the latter. The author does not consider this murder as a guilty illegal act deserving severe punishment, using the analogy of the law, equating it with a necessary defense: “the innocence of the murderer, for me, at least, was mathematical clarity. If I am walking, a villain attacks me, and, raising a dagger over my head, wants to pierce me with it, will I be considered a murderer if I warn him of his crime, and throw the lifeless man at my feet?

Considering serfdom as a crime, proving that serf labor is unproductive, the writer in the chapter “Khotilov” outlines a “project for the future,” a project for the gradual but complete elimination of serfdom. First of all, according to the project, “domestic slavery” is abolished, it is prohibited to hire peasants for household services, and peasants are allowed to marry without the consent of the landowner. The land cultivated by the peasants, by virtue of “natural law,” should, according to the project, become the property of the peasants. Anticipating a delay in liberation, A. N. Radishchev threatens the landowners with “death and burning,” reminding them of the history of peasant uprisings. It is characteristic that nowhere in “The Journey” does the writer talk about the ransom of peasants: a ransom would be contrary to the “natural” and inalienable human rights, of which A. N. Radishchev was an adherent.

In “The Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow, everything was imbued with the spirit of revolution, which gripped the USA and France. The author, familiar with the concepts of European freethinkers and enlighteners, very talentedly applied them to Russian reality at the end of the 18th century. The mere appeal to the theme of the oppression of a people oppressed by the dominance of officials and bureaucracy, the vileness of serfdom, which corrupted the souls of both serf-owning nobles and their serfs, was an unprecedented phenomenon in Russian literature. But Radishchev’s work was not just a criticism of the existing legal order, it had a deeper meaning, because it carried out the ideas of the Enlightenment, which carried new principles of social, state system and law. In this regard, the ode “Liberty”, which was written by Radishchev around 1781 - 1783, is indicative. long before the writing of “The Journey...”. Most likely, the ode was a response to the events of the War of Independence of the North American colonies, since it spoke about the struggle of the North American colonies for independence and for the republic as a fact that was still ongoing or, in any case, contemporary. While working on “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow,” the author included the entire ode “Liberty” in the book (in the chapter “Tver”). In the final printed version of “The Journey” the ode is given in a greatly abbreviated form; only 14 stanzas are given in full, several more stanzas are presented in excerpts, others are replaced by a brief prose summary of their content. However, one cannot think that in shortening the ode, Radishchev was guided by censorship considerations: he nevertheless included most of the stanzas, which he himself recognized as particularly criminal, in the printed text (stanzas 3, 4, 6, 7. 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 and others).

In essence, the ode “Liberty” is a poetic translation of the political and legal concept of “natural” human rights and the theory of “social contract”. Thus, speaking about human and civil rights, the author writes:

ABOUT! blessed gift from heaven,

The source of all great things,

Oh, liberty, liberty, priceless gift,

Let the slave sing your praises.

Fill my heart with your warmth...

I came into the light and you are with me;

There are no rivets on my muscles;

With my free hand I can

Take the bread given for food.

I place my feet where it pleases me;

I listen to what is clear;

I broadcast what I think;

I can love and be loved;

I do good, I can be honored;

My law is my will.

But what harms my freedom?

I see the limit to desires everywhere;

A common power arose among the people,

The Council of all authorities is the destiny.

Society obeys her in everything,

Everywhere there is unanimous agreement with her;

There are no obstacles to the common benefit;

I see my share in the power of everyone,

I create my own, doing everyone’s will;

Suddenly the whirlwinds made noise,

Interrupting the calm of the quiet waters,

The voices of freedom roared so loudly,

At the meeting all the people are flowing,

The cast iron throne is destroyed,

Samson shakes as of old

A palace filled with treachery;

The firmament of nature is built by law;

Great, great are you the spirit of freedom,

He is creative, just as God himself is.

Similar views on the source of power can be found in the poetry of A.S. Pushkin, who in the ode of the same name - “Liberty”, written in 1817, wrote:

Lords! you have a crown and a throne,

The Law gives, not nature;

You stand above the people,

But the eternal Law is above you.

A child of the Enlightenment, A. S. Pushkin is a phenomenon not only of Russian, but also of world artistic culture. He dedicated his multifaceted talent to Russia, which he loved immensely and throughout his creative life he tried to penetrate the depths of its history and comprehend the essence of Russian statehood. Therefore, along with poetic lyrics, revealing the spiritual world of his contemporaries, the poet searched for the best form of government for Russia, tried to explain the reasons for Russian absolutism, turning to turning points in the history of the state and society. He was especially fascinated by the topic of power and people. He developed it in many works and genres: poem, prose, drama. The most interesting in this regard is the drama in verse “Boris Godunov”.

In "Boris Godunov" two tragedies are intertwined: the tragedy of the authorities and the tragedy of the people. Having before his eyes eleven volumes of “History of the Russian State” by N.M. Karamzin, A.S. Pushkin could have chosen a different plot if his goal had not been to condemn the despotism of the tsarist government. The poet's contemporaries were shocked by the unprecedented courage with which the historian and statesman N.M. Karamzin depicted the despotism of Ivan the Terrible. K. F. Ryleev believed that it was here that Pushkin should look for the theme of a new work, but Pushkin chose the image of Boris Godunov, a ruler who sought to win the love of the people and was not alien to state wisdom. It was precisely this image of the king that made it possible to identify the pattern of the tragedy of power that is alien to the people, even if it strives to do something useful for society.

A. S. Pushkin’s Boris Godunov cherishes progressive plans and wants good for the people, but to realize these intentions he needs royal power. And power is given only at the price of crime - the steps of the throne are always covered in blood. Boris hopes that power used for good will atone for this step, but the unmistakable ethical sense of the people forces society to turn away from “Tsar Herod.” Abandoned by the people, Boris, despite his good intentions, inevitably becomes a tyrant. The crowning achievement of his political experience is a cynical lesson:

The people do not feel mercy:

Do good - he won’t say thank you;

Rob and execute - you won't get any worse.

The degradation of power, abandoned by the people and alien to them, is not an accident, but a pattern (“... the sovereign, at idle times, interrogates informers himself”). Godunov senses danger. Therefore, he hurries to prepare his son Theodore to rule the state. Godunov emphasizes the importance of science and knowledge for the one who rules the state. Tsar Boris believes that he atoned for his guilt (the death of Dmitry) by skillfully managing the state and this is his tragic mistake. Good intentions - crime - loss of public trust - tyranny - death. This is the natural tragic path of a government alienated from the people.

In the monologue “I have reached the highest power,” Boris confesses to the crime. He is completely sincere in this scene, since no one can hear him:

And everything feels nauseous and my head is spinning,

And the boys have bloody eyes...

And I’m glad to run, but there’s nowhere... terrible!

Yes, pitiful is the one whose conscience is unclean.

But the fate of the people during the Time of Troubles is tragic. In his depiction of the people, Pushkin is alien to both educational optimism and romantic complaints about the mob. He looks with "Shakespeare's eyes." The people are present on stage throughout the tragedy. Moreover, it is he who plays a decisive role in historical conflicts. However, the position of the people is contradictory. On the one hand, Pushkin’s people have an unmistakable moral sense - its exponents in the tragedy are the holy fool and Pimen the Chronicler. Thus, communicating with Pimen in the monastery, Grigory Otrepiev concludes:

Boris! Boris! Everything trembles before you,

No one dares to remind you

About the lot of the unfortunate baby -

Meanwhile, the hermit in a dark cell

Here a terrible denunciation of you writes:

And you will not escape the judgment of the world,

How can you not escape God's judgment?

On the other hand, the people in the tragedy are politically naive and helpless, they easily entrust the initiative to the boyars: “... the boyars know / They are no match for us...”. Welcoming the election of Boris with a mixture of trust and indifference, the people turn away, recognizing him as “Tsar Herod.” But he can only oppose the authorities with the ideal of a persecuted orphan. It is the impostor’s weakness that turns into his strength, as it attracts the sympathy of the people to him. Indignation against the criminal government degenerates into a rebellion in the name of the impostor - Grigory Otrepyev. But Pushkin does not end the plot of the tragedy with a scene of the victory of a popular uprising over the child-killer monarch elected by the Zemsky Sobor. An impostor has entered the Kremlin, but in order to ascend the throne, he must commit murder himself. The roles have changed: the son of Boris Godunov, Fyodor, is now himself a “persecuted baby,” whose blood, with almost ritual fatality, must be shed by the impostor ascending the steps of the throne.

In the last scene of the tragedy, Mosalsky comes out onto the porch of Boris’s house with the words: “People! Maria Godunova and her son Theodore poisoned themselves. We saw their dead bodies. (The people are silent in horror.) Why are you silent? Shout: long live Tsar Dimitri Ivanovich!”

The sacrifice is made, and the people notice with horror that he has elevated to the throne not an offended orphan, but the murderer of the orphan, the new king, Herod. The final remark: “The people are silent” says a lot. This phrase symbolizes the moral judgment of the new king, and the future doom of another representative of the criminal government, and the powerlessness of the people to break out of this circle.

Another problem that was raised in the poet’s work is the topic of justice.

Mercy or justice? This question of the legal, moral and ethical foundations of the monarch’s power over his subjects occupied Pushkin throughout his entire work. But with particular urgency this question arose before him after Nicholas I approved the death sentence of five Decembrists - friends and comrades of A.S. Pushkin.

The fact is that in the 18th century. Elizaveta Petrovna suspended the use of the death penalty, although this type of punishment remained in the legislation, and it depended only on the will of the monarch: whether to apply the death penalty in each specific case or replace it with another type of punishment. The uncertainty was eliminated only with the introduction of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire in 1832, where the death penalty was provided for crimes against the state, “when they, due to their special importance, are referred to the consideration and decision of the supreme criminal court,” as well as for violations of quarantine rules and military crimes.

At the beginning of his reign, Nicholas I had to decide not only legally, but also an ethically difficult question: whether or not to apply the death penalty to the rebel Decembrists. In general, he could, having deprived the rebels of the nobility, sentence them as ordinary commoners to flogging with spitzrutens, as was done with two Jews who overcame quarantine barriers in 1827 and were captured after secretly crossing the Prut River. In this case, on the report of Count Palen, who demanded the death penalty for violators, Nicholas I wrote: “The perpetrators will be driven through a thousand people 12 times. Thank God, we never had the death penalty and it’s not for me to introduce it.” Having resolved the dilemma in favor of applying the death penalty to the Decembrists, it was important for the emperor to convey to the consciousness of his subjects that he was an unlimited monarch who could execute or pardon at his own discretion. And it was important for Pushkin to convey to the readers that the ruler must rule on the basis of the law.

This idea runs like a red thread through the entire story in the verses “Angelo” (1833), where the troubles that befell the state of the “good ruler” Duca are described in detail. The monarch ruled by forgiving his fellow citizens and thus breaking the laws:

He himself saw clearly

That grandchildren were worse than grandfathers from day to day,

That the child had already bitten the nurse's breast,

That justice sat with folded hands,

And the lazy one didn’t click his nose.

When the monarch transferred power in the city to the governor Angelo, who restored all the laws that were recorded “in the bulk of the code,” it turned out that not all ancient laws were acceptable to his subjects, and even the ruler in the person of the governor may be faced with a choice: to follow the letter of the inhumane injustice law or break it, circumvent it, following the dictates of conscience, and then inevitably take the path of lawlessness. Dooku had to go through a long and difficult path to gain legislative wisdom and begin to rule based on laws.

And "The Captain's Daughter"? A novel in which the main character P. Grinev is helped, saving him from the noose and from captivity, by two persons invested with power - the impostor Pugachev, whom the rebel peasants and Cossacks put in power over themselves, and Empress Catherine II, whose ascension to the throne was, to put it mildly , not particularly legitimate?

This very subtle work from a legal point of view, which raised in Russian literature the problem of the legitimacy of Russian monarchs and monarchs who occupied the throne during the era of palace coups, was a continuation of the theme of imposture on the throne touched upon in “Boris Godunov.” In fact, this scientific problem was first posed precisely in fiction, because it was not developed in either the historical or legal sciences at that time, and could not be developed due to the great dependence of scientific activity in the Russian Empire on the state authorities.

True, A. S. Pushkin resolves this problem in the spirit of his time, without questioning the rights of Catherine II to the Russian throne, therefore the text of Pushkin’s novel shows that Pugachev is only posing as the legitimate monarch Peter III, and Catherine is the legitimate Russian empress This is shown very subtly in the plot lines of the novel. For example, how different are the reactions of E. Pugachev and Catherine II to the request for mercy and release from criminal prosecution of the main character of the novel, Grinev.

Savelich to Pugachev: “Dear father!.. What do you care about the death of the master’s child? Let him go; They will give you a ransom for it; and for the sake of example and fear, order them to hang me, even an old man!” “Pugachev gave a sign, and they immediately untied me and left me.” Marya Ivanovna - Catherine II, who was not identified by her during a personal meeting: “I came to ask for mercy, not justice... I am the daughter of Captain Mironov.” “Marya Ivanovna took a folded paper out of her pocket and handed it to her unfamiliar patron, who began to read it to herself.

Are you asking for Grinev? - said the lady with a cold look. - The Empress cannot forgive him. He stuck to the impostor not out of ignorance and gullibility, but as an immoral and harmful scoundrel.” That is, unlike Pugachev, the empress does not show mercy to Grinev, does not show him the mercy that Marya Ivanovna asks her for. And if the creed of Pugachev the ruler is: “Execute like this, execute, favor like that, favor: this is my custom,” then a true ruler, according to Pushkin, should not allow arbitrariness, but is obliged to administer justice. That is why asking Catherine II, even a sympathizer of the petitioner, for “mercy, not justice” is a hopeless matter. She made a decision not before carefully listening to Marya Ivanovna and delving into Grinev’s complex, intricate story: “I’m glad that I could keep my word to you and fulfill your request. Your business is over. I am convinced of your fiancé’s innocence.” So, reliance on the law itself distinguishes a true ruler from an impostor, convinced that the law was not written for him.

Subtly noted the importance of A. F. Koni’s Pushkin literary heritage for the development of jurisprudence in Russia. An outstanding lawyer and writer, in a speech dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the poet, said: “Pushkin was filled with feeling and the search for truth. But in life, truth manifests itself primarily in sincerity in relationships with people, in fairness when acting with them. Where there is a question of the relationship of an entire society to its fellow members, of the limitation of their personal freedom in the name of the common good and of the protection of the rights of individuals, this justice must find expression in legislation, which is the higher, the deeper it peers into the truth of life human needs and capabilities - and in justice administered by the court, which is higher the more it has a living, rather than formal, attitude towards a person’s personality. That's why - justitia fundamentum regnorum ! (justice is the basis of the state). But law and morality are not alien or opposing concepts to one another.

In essence, they have a common source, and their real difference should consist mainly in the compulsory obligatory nature of law in comparison with the free realizability of morality. Hence the connection between legal views and moral ideals: the closer it is, the more secure the rational development of society. Law, however, has its own written code, which states what is possible and what is not. Morality cannot have such a code - and, looking for what needs to be done in this or that case, a person has to question his conscience.”

The development of legislation and related issues of a historical and moral nature were extremely interesting to A. S. Pushkin. His notes and letters contain undoubted evidence of the depth of this interest. They contain many critical comments and indications of the peculiarities of life and the national character of the people, so important for the legislator, they contain proposals for updating legislation. Reading the letters and literary works of A. S. Pushkin, one can see the poet’s main wish for the legislator - the law must be reconciled with everyday truth and the necessary personal freedom. Drawing an ideal state and society, “where powerful laws are firmly combined with holy liberty,” A. S. Pushkin saw precisely in this combination the necessary conditions and guarantee of peace and further development of society. A “powerful law” should be the patron of the weak, a reasonable rein for those who “only want freedom for themselves,” and an exponent of the legislator’s understanding of the innate rights of the human soul. And any law must be based on justice and truth and be the fruit of mature thought, and not a hasty product. How relevant this thought, addressed to Russian legislators, still sounds today. Applying the idea of ​​the quality of legislative activity to the era of Peter I, Pushkin, as a true expert on law, noted: “It is worthy of surprise,” he writes, “the difference between the state institutions of Peter the Great and his temporary decrees. The first are the fruits of a vast mind, full of goodwill and wisdom; the latter are often cruel, capricious and, it seems, written with a whip. The first were for eternity, or at least for the future; - the latter were wrested from the impatient, autocratic landowner.” A separate topic in his thoughts about the past, present and future of Russia was the question of punishment. In a note on public education submitted to Emperor Nicholas I, the poet substantiated the need to abolish corporal punishment - to instill in students of educational institutions the rules of honor and philanthropy, so that too cruel upbringing would not later turn them into executioners, not bosses. Speaking about punishments for criminal offenses, A.S. Pushkin believed that a punitive law is necessary, but it is very important that its blows do not hit a person in vain, do not constrain his personal life, as long as he does not manifest himself by violating the rights of others. To the bright mind of the poet this truth, sometimes vague even for some legislators, seemed clear. “The law,” he says, “comprehends only crimes, and not the personal life of a person, leaving vices and weaknesses to the conscience of everyone,” and thereby sets a precise definition of the boundaries of the punitive law. Depicting the consequences of a crime, the author thought about the reasons that pushed a person to commit an offense. "The Robber Brothers" beautifully depicts the origins of the crime. First, orphanhood and loneliness, the absence of childhood joys, then need, contempt of others, then “cruel torment of envy,” finally, oblivion of timidity and “... conscience was driven away!” But it can be driven away, but cannot be destroyed. She, the “bother”, will wake up on a hard day. The image of the victim, revived by her, will become persistently before the eyes, and the “decrepit cry” of the latter can become terrible... Pushkin has the deepest psychological observations regarding the crime. He notes, for example, those incomprehensible internal contradictions of a soul captured by destructive thoughts, which sometimes so amaze legal practitioners. This is the blacksmith Arkhip from the novel “Dubrovsky”, locking people in a house that is being set on fire, answering pleas for their salvation with an angry “how could it be wrong!” and at the same time, at the risk of his life, rescuing a kitten from the roof of a burning barn in order to “prevent God’s creature from perishing.” B. M. Kustodiev. Illustration for the novel by A. S. Pushkin “Dubrovsky” The contemporary Russian court did not satisfy Pushkin. Even in the poems of his youth, he expressed disgust for the “hooked clerk people, a stronghold only in bribes and sneaks,” and found that in civil court “common sense is a guide rarely true and, almost always, insufficient.” In view of the fact that our then temple of justice was constantly desecrated by all too well-known abuses, Dubrovsky’s nonsense is significant. When he is asked to sign “his complete and complete pleasure” under the decision by which he is robbed in favor of a rich and powerful neighbor, he remains silent... and suddenly, flying into a rage, in a sudden fit of madness, he shouts wildly: “What! Don't honor God's church! - We've heard of it - the hounds are bringing dogs into God's church! Dogs are running around the church! True court, according to Pushkin, is only where it, first of all, equally applies to everyone a law that is equal for all, where a “solid shield” of laws is “stretched out to everyone,” where, clenched by faithful hands, the citizens’ sword slides over their equal heads without choice. , - where crime from above bursts with righteous scope,” - where, finally, the judges are not only honest, but also independent, so that their hand is incorruptible “neither for gold by greed nor fear.” The words of A. S. Pushkin spoken to Sobolevsky sound like a prophecy: “After the liberation of the peasants, we will have public trials, juries, greater freedom of the press, reforms in public education and in public schools,” he told Sobolevsky. A. S. Griboyedov

Another genius of Russian literature, A.S. Griboyedov, who was closely acquainted with Pushkin and the Decembrists and, as fate would have it, also passed away early, in his creative activity addressed legal and state problems. Griboyedov Alexander Sergeevich (1795 (according to other sources, 1794) - 1829), a famous writer, playwright and diplomat, had a varied education. At Moscow University he graduated from the philological and legal departments of the Faculty of Philosophy, as well as the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics, spoke French, German, English and Italian, and wrote music. In mid-1818, Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov was appointed secretary of the Russian diplomatic mission in Persia. This appointment was essentially an exile, the reason for which was Griboyedov’s participation as a second in the duel between officer V.A. Sheremetev and gr. A.P. Zavadovsky because of the artist Istomina. In February 1819 A.S. Griboyedov arrived in Tabriz. Probably, an excerpt from his poem “Traveler” (or “Wanderer”) - “Kalyanchi” about a captive Georgian boy who is sold at the Tabriz market - dates back to this time. Since 1822, A. S. Griboyedov has been on the staff of the chief administrator of Georgia, General A. P. Ermolov, “on the diplomatic side” in Tiflis. The first two acts of the comedy “Woe from Wit,” conceived, according to S. N. Begichev, back in 1816, were written here. In 1823-25, A. S. Griboyedov was on a long vacation. In the summer of 1823, on the Tula estate of his friend Begichev, he wrote the third and fourth acts of the comedy “Woe from Wit.” In the autumn of the same year, together with P. A. Vyazemsky, he wrote the vaudeville “Who is Brother, Who is Sister, or Deception after Deception,” the music for which was composed by A. N. Verstovsky. In the summer of 1824, Griboyedov completed the final revision of the comedy Woe from Wit.

At the end of 1825 A.S. Griboyedov returned to the Caucasus. Alexander Sergeevich had ideas for new works, which, unfortunately, have reached us only in fragments. The plan of the drama “1812” (1824-1825) indicates that Griboyedov intended to portray the heroes of the Patriotic War, among whom was a serf peasant who experienced a sense of high patriotism in battles; returned at the end of the war “under the stick of his master”, he commits suicide. The tragedy “Georgian Night” (1826-27), which has come down to us in a fragment and in a retelling by F.V. Bulgarin, based on a Georgian legend, is imbued with anti-serfdom thought. The outline of the tragedy from the history of Ancient Armenia and Georgia “Rodamist and Zenobia” shows that A. S. Griboedov paid tribute, on the one hand, to his penchant for historical research, and on the other, to the political problems of the present, transferred to a distant era; he reflected on the essence of royal power, the doom of top conspiracies to overthrow the monarch that did not rely on the people, and the role of the people as a subject of state and international law in determining their destiny.

Unfortunately, A. S. Griboedov himself had to face the Russian justice of the Nikolaev era. From January 22 to June 2, 1826, A. S. Griboyedov was under investigation in the Decembrist case. However, no charges were brought against him. Moreover, it turned out that long before the Decembrist putsch, A. S. Griboedov left the Masonic lodge, refusing any cooperation with them. After returning to the Caucasus in September 1826, A.S. Griboyedov is already acting as a statesman and an outstanding diplomat. In 1827, Griboyedov was ordered to be responsible for diplomatic relations with Persia and Turkey. Alexander Griboyedov takes part in the organization of governorship in Transcaucasia, draws up the “Regulations on the governance of Azerbaijan”; with his participation, the Tiflis Gazette was founded in 1828, and a “workhouse” was opened for women serving sentences. A. S. Griboedov, together with P. D. Zaveleisky, draws up a project on the “Establishment of the Russian Transcaucasian Company” in order to boost the industry of the region. In 1828, Griboedov took part in the conclusion of the Turkmanchay Peace Treaty with Persia. The poet and writer, whose gift was multifaceted, died tragically in Tehran during an attack on the Russian embassy by a fanatical crowd, becoming a victim of a political conspiracy headed by Fet-Ali Shah and his dignitaries, bribed by England, which feared the strengthening of Russian influence in Persia after the Russian Persian War of 1826 - 1828. His body was transported to Tiflis and buried on Mount St. David. So Russia lost a great literary figure. There were still the deaths of Pushkin and Lermontov ahead.

V. O. Klyuchevchky called Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” “the most serious political work of Russian literature of the 19th century.” The author gave a true picture of Russian life after the Patriotic War of 1812. Russian society was experiencing a sharp division; the national unity and patriotic upsurge of the war was replaced by bitter disappointment associated with the disappointed expectations of liberalization of the political regime. The strengthening of the barracks Arakcheevism was making itself felt everywhere, the preservation of serfdom seemed especially offensive after Russia became the liberator of Europe. In the comedy by A. S. Griboedov, the topical issues of his time were posed: about public service, serfdom, education, education, about the slavish imitation of the nobles of everything foreign and contempt for everything national and popular. Rice. A. S. Griboedova The comedy “Woe from Wit” in artistic form conveyed to the viewer the social and state-political reasons for the emergence of Decembrism; in addition, the social issues posed in “Woe from Wit” are resolved by the author in the same way as the Decembrists solved them. Chatsky, the hero of the comedy “Woe from Wit,” can be put on a par with them. The witty, eloquent Chatsky evilly ridicules the vices of the society in which he moves. His tireless mind, rich and figurative language find abundant material for this, and the direction of his speeches is in many ways similar to the ideas of the works of the Decembrist poets. Let us remember Chatsky’s famous monologue “Who are the judges?” In this monologue, Chatsky, and with him the author, ridicules the nobles who live according to the canons of the 18th century, drawing knowledge from “forgotten newspapers from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea.” Chatsky also denounces serf owners who sell and exchange people for dogs. Very indicative here is the image of a nobleman who exchanged devoted servants for two greyhounds, who in difficult times “saved his life and honor.” In another monologue (“A Frenchman from Bordeaux...”) Chatsky attacks the Gallomaniacs who worship everything foreign and foreign. In his speeches, Chatsky constantly uses the pronoun “we”. And this is no coincidence, since Chatsky is not alone in his desire for change. On the pages of the comedy, a number of off-stage characters are mentioned who can be classified as allies of the protagonist. This is Skalozub’s cousin, who left the service, “he began to read books in the village,” this is a professor at the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute, this is Princess Tugoukhovskaya’s nephew, Prince Fyodor, a chemist and botanist. All of them, like Chatsky, have much in common with real historical figures: Nikita Muravyov, Nikolai Turgenev, Ryleev, Chaadaev. Chatsky and his like-minded people strive for “creative, lofty and beautiful arts”, dream of “focusing a mind hungry for knowledge into science”, thirst for “sublime love, before which the whole world ... is dust and vanity.” They would like to see all people free and equal. Chatsky’s desire is to serve the Fatherland, “the cause, not the people.” And what does he see around? A lot of people who are looking only for ranks, crosses, “money to live”, not love, but a profitable marriage. Their ideal is “moderation and accuracy,” their dream is “to take all the books and burn them.” The author put the life credo of a typical official of the Nicholas era into the mouth of Molchalin, who, explaining his two-faced behavior towards Sophia, says: My father bequeathed to me: First, please all people without exception - The owner, where he will live, The boss with whom I will serve, To his servant who cleans dresses, Doorman, janitor, to avoid evil, To the janitor's dog, so that it is affectionate. These are the images of Moscow nobles and officials depicted in the comedy. These members of society form public opinion, so the center of the comedy is the conflict between “one sane person” (according to the author) and the conservative majority. A. S. Griboyedov, faithful to the truth of life, showed the difficult fate of a young progressive man in this society. Those around him take revenge on Chatsky for the truth, which stings his eyes, for his attempt to disrupt the usual way of life. The girl he loves, turning away from him, hurts the hero the most by spreading gossip about his madness. Here is a paradox: the only sane person is declared insane! "So! I have completely sobered up!” Chatsky exclaims at the end of the play. What is this - defeat or insight? Yes, the end of this comedy is far from cheerful, but Goncharov is right when he said about the ending this way: “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, having dealt it, in turn, a fatal blow with the quality of fresh power.” Goncharov believes that the role of all Chatskys is “suffering”, but at the same time always victorious. But they do not know about their victory, they only sow and others reap.

The theme of law and justice, crime and punishment occupied a prominent place in the works of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol (1809-1852). And this is no coincidence. The writer's interest in legal activities was almost professional. He graduated from the Nizhyn Gymnasium of Higher Sciences, which trained personnel for the civil service, and decided to devote himself to jurisprudence.

N.V.Gogol

For this purpose, N.V. Gogol leaves for St. Petersburg and enters the service as a minor official in the department of appanages (administration of royal lands). However, routine work and mind-numbing correspondence of papers did not satisfy N.V. Gogol, who dreamed of vigorous activity. He was burdened by such service and was thinking about resigning. However, the years spent here were not wasted. They enriched Gogol with significant material for future works, in which the corrupt world of bureaucracy was clearly and convincingly depicted.

Nikolai Vasilyevich’s main book, the main work of his life, was the prose poem “Dead Souls.” Seventeen years were devoted to this work. It was in it that the writer was able to acutely satirically portray all the absurdity and inhumanity of the tsarist legislation and its no less absurd application.

Chichikov's chaise rolls from estate to estate and before the reader, pictures of the real life of provincial Russia unfold, a string of images of feudal landowners, ugly in their moral insignificance, swindlers and acquirers, devoid of any moral principles, passes by.

However, the central figure of the poem is Chichikov himself, who embodies, in essence, all the vices of his opponents. It is a product of those conditions of social life where the omnipotence of money manifests itself in the most cynical form.

Chichikov is obsessed with a passion for getting rich and for this he shows extraordinary abilities, becoming a participant in various scams and speculations. For example, his activities in the commission for the construction of a government building, which never appeared, brought him considerable income. Later, already a customs official, he organizes a massive smuggling of jewelry. This was Chichikov's first meeting with the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments, which ended in court proceedings].

But the apotheosis of Chichikov’s fraudulent activities was his scam with “dead souls.” It would seem that the speculation is fantastic, impracticable, but quite possible under the legal conditions of that time. Peter I replaced the household census of peasants with a capitation census. Even the dead and fugitives were not exempted from the poll tax until the submission of a new “revision tale” (and such revisions were carried out once every 12-15 years). Thus, the “dead souls” became a burden for the landowners at this time, which Chichikov took advantage of, buying up these souls and receiving significant funds from the Guardian Council for them. By the way, Gogol’s character had many prototypes in real life. But this scam by Chichikov also failed in the end.

Provincial officials are also a match for Chichikov. These are complete grabbers for whom embezzlement and bribery are commonplace. In the second volume of Dead Souls we again meet Chichikov, now accused of the most serious crime of that time - forgery of a will. And what? The corruption of Nikolaev justice has done its job here too. A bribe of 30 thousand rubles saved the fraudster from prison.

According to Herzen, “Dead Souls” shocked the country. This is the story of a disease that affected the entire autocratic system.

Having barely begun work on “Dead Souls,” Gogol in the same 1835 wrote the comedy “The Inspector General,” which widely glorified his name. In this work, as the author himself admitted, he “decided to collect in one pile everything bad in Russia... all the injustices that are being done locally, and at once laugh at everything.”

Drawing by N. V. Gogol for the comedy “The Inspector General”

The driving principle in the activities of the “city fathers” described in “The Inspector General” is extortion, embezzlement, deception and all kinds of fraud. They are so common, so ingrained that local officials, led by the mayor, take them for granted. Even the arrival of an auditor does not cool their ardor.

The comedy features a number of memorable images that reveal the life of a provincial town. Here is a non-commissioned officer's widow: the mayor ordered her to be flogged, and then assured that she had flogged herself. Here is a local lawyer, Judge Lyapkin-Tyapkin, who is convinced of his honesty, since he takes bribes with greyhound puppies. Finally, the mayor himself, about whom the merchants said that when he came to the shop, he took everything that caught his eye. This is a bunch of swindlers, all of whose cases cry out for justice, but it turns out there is no justice in the city.

About this city in the comedy, it is said that even if you gallop from it for three years, you will not reach any state. Meanwhile, the play was perceived as the embodiment of the characteristic features of Russian reality - such was the power of ideological and artistic generalization. It became obvious that the evil of bureaucratic management was generated by the entire state and social system of the autocratic police state.

Gogol subjected his contemporary trial to merciless satire in “The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich.”

The district court is not in a hurry. The secretary, slowly, reads the decision in the case in such a sad voice that the defendant himself will soon fall asleep. At this time, the judge conducts conversations on unrelated topics. But this does not prevent him from “swinging” the decision, and the justice machine moves on - the hearing of a new case begins.

One of these cases is about a trivial quarrel between two bosom friends, and Gogol describes it. Twelve years have passed since this litigation began. Finally, the judge offers a “Solomon” solution - to make peace between the opponents. But this decision is not destined to take legal form, because each of the former friends, exhausted by many years of strife, insists on the outcome of the case in their favor. On the pages of the story, this life collision never receives its legal conclusion.

Illustration for “The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich” by N. V. Gogol

But it’s not just red tape that tsarist justice suffers from. Another great evil is a bribe, which, in essence, is legalized: they take everything for everything. An expert in the judicial procedures of autocratic Russia, A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylin, noted in this regard that “it is taken to the point of exhaustion, naked... it is carried out under the canopy and shadow of the dense forest of laws, with the help and means of traps, wolf pits and fishing rods of justice... and in these pits fall without distinction of gender, age and rank, intelligence and foolishness, old and young, rich and orphan...”

With the formidable weapon of laughter, Gogol aptly attacked many of the vices of his contemporary society. For lawyers, of lasting value are those pages of his works where he castigated the tsarist justice and the entire bureaucratic world with its covetousness, official callousness and blatant professional illiteracy. The problem of the “little man” in Gogol’s prose is very closely related to the theme of justice.

He created the immortal image of Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin, the hero of the story “The Overcoat”. At the heart of N.V. Gogol’s plan is the conflict between the “little man” and society, a conflict leading to rebellion, the uprising of the humble. The story “The Overcoat” describes not only an incident from the hero’s life. The whole life of a person appears before us: we are present at his birth, the naming of his name, we learn how he served, why he needed an overcoat and, finally, how he died. Akaki Akakievich spends his entire life “copying” papers in the service, and the hero is quite happy with this. Moreover, when he is offered a job that requires “changing the title title, and changing verbs here and there from the first person to the third,” the poor official gets scared and asks to be relieved of this work. Akaki Akakievich lives in his own little world, he “not once in his life paid attention to what was happening and happening every day on the street,” and only in “copying” did he see his own diverse and pleasant world.” Nothing happens in the world of this official, and if the incredible story with the overcoat had not happened, there would be nothing to tell about him.

Bashmachkin does not strive for unprecedented luxury. He’s just cold, and according to his rank, he has to show up to the department in an overcoat. The dream of sewing an overcoat on cotton wool becomes for him the semblance of a great and almost impossible task. In his system of values, it has the same meaning as the desire of some “great man” to achieve world domination. The thought of an overcoat fills the existence of Akaki Akakievich with meaning. Even his appearance changes: “He somehow became more lively, even stronger in character, like a man who had already defined and set a goal for himself. Doubt and indecision naturally disappeared from his face and actions... Fire sometimes appears in his eyes...”

And now, having finally reached the limit of his aspirations, the hero of the story once again faces injustice: his overcoat is stolen. But even this does not become the main reason for the death of the unfortunate Bashmachkin: a “significant person”, to whom the official is advised to turn for help, “scolds” Akaki Akakievich for disrespect for his superiors and drives him out of his house. And then “a creature that is not protected by anyone, is not dear to anyone, is not interesting to anyone, and has not even attracted attention...” disappears from the face of the earth.

The ending of the story is fantastic, but it is precisely this ending that allows the writer to introduce the theme of justice into the work. The ghost of an official tears off the greatcoats of the noble and rich. After his death, Bashmachkin rose to a height previously inaccessible to him; he overcame his poor ideas about rank. The rebellion of the “little man” becomes the main theme of the story.

Classics of Russian literature about law and justice in post-reform Russia.

One of the most prominent representatives of humanist writers was Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881), who devoted his work to protecting the rights of the “humiliated and insulted.” As an active participant in the Petrashevites circle, he was arrested in 1849 and sentenced to death, which was replaced by hard labor and subsequent military service. Upon his return to St. Petersburg, Dostoevsky was engaged in literary activities, and together with his brother he published the soil journals “Time” and “Epoch”. His works realistically reflected the sharp social contrasts of Russian reality, the clash of bright, original characters, the passionate search for social and human harmony, the finest psychologism and humanism.

V. G. Perov “Portrait of F. M. Dostoevsky”

Already in the writer’s first novel, “Poor People,” the problem of the “little” man began to speak loudly as a social problem. The fate of the heroes of the novel, Makar Devushkin and Varenka Dobroselova, is an angry protest against a society in which a person’s dignity is humiliated and his personality is deformed.

In 1862, Dostoevsky published “Notes from the House of the Dead” - one of his most outstanding works, which reflected the author’s impressions of his four-year stay in the Omsk prison.

From the very beginning, the reader is immersed in the ominous atmosphere of hard labor, where prisoners are no longer seen as people. The depersonalization of a person begins from the moment he enters the prison. Half of his head is shaved, he is dressed in a two-color jacket with a yellow ace on the back, and shackled. Thus, from his first steps in prison, the prisoner, purely outwardly, loses the right to his human individuality. Some especially dangerous criminals have a brand burned into their faces. It is no coincidence that Dostoevsky calls the prison the House of the Dead, where all the spiritual and mental forces of the people are buried.

Dostoevsky saw that living conditions in prison do not contribute to the re-education of people, but on the contrary, they aggravate base qualities of character, which are encouraged and reinforced by frequent searches, cruel punishments, and hard work. Continuous quarrels, fights and forced cohabitation also corrupt the inhabitants of the prison. The prison system itself, designed to punish rather than correct people, contributes to the corruption of the individual. The subtle psychologist Dostoevsky highlights the state of a person before punishment, which causes physical fear in him, suppressing the entire moral being of a person.

In “Notes,” Dostoevsky for the first time tries to comprehend the psychology of criminals. He notes that many of these people ended up behind bars by coincidence; they are responsive to kindness, smart, and full of self-esteem. But along with them there are also hardened criminals. However, they are all subject to the same punishment and are sent to the same penal servitude. According to the firm conviction of the writer, this should not happen, just as there should not be the same punishment. Dostoevsky does not share the theory of the Italian psychiatrist Cesare Lombroso, who explained crime by biological properties, an innate tendency to crime.

It is also to the credit of the author of the Notes that he was one of the first to talk about the role of prison authorities in the re-education of a criminal, and about the beneficial influence of the moral qualities of the boss on the resurrection of the fallen soul. In this regard, he recalls the commandant of the prison, “a noble and sensible man,” who moderated the wild antics of his subordinates. True, such representatives of the authorities are extremely rare on the pages of the Notes.

The four years spent in the Omsk prison became a harsh school for the writer. Hence his angry protest against the despotism and tyranny that reigned in the royal prisons, his excited voice in defense of the humiliated and disadvantaged._

Subsequently, Dostoevsky will continue his study of the psychology of the criminal in the novels “Crime and Punishment”, “The Idiot”, “Demons”, “The Brothers Karamazov”.

“Crime and Punishment” is the first philosophical novel based on crime. At the same time, this is a psychological novel.

From the first pages, the reader gets acquainted with the main character, Rodion Raskolnikov, enslaved by a philosophical idea that allows for “blood according to conscience.” A hungry, beggarly existence leads him to this idea. Reflecting on historical events, Raskolnikov comes to the conclusion that the development of society is necessarily carried out on someone’s suffering and blood. Therefore, all people can be divided into two categories - “ordinary”, who meekly accept any order of things, and “extraordinary”, “the powerful of this world”. These latter have the right, if necessary, to violate the moral principles of society and step over blood.

Similar thoughts were inspired by Raskolnikov’s idea of ​​a “strong personality,” which was literally in the air in the 60s of the 19th century, and later took shape in F. Nietzsche’s theory of the “superman.” Imbued with this idea, Raskolnikov tries to solve the question: which of these two categories does he himself belong to? To answer this question, he decides to kill the old pawnbroker and thus join the ranks of the “chosen ones.”

However, having committed a crime, Raskolnikov begins to be tormented by remorse. The novel presents a complex psychological struggle of the hero with himself and at the same time with a representative of the authorities - the highly intelligent investigator Porfiry Petrovich. In Dostoevsky’s portrayal, he is an example of a professional who, step by step, from conversation to conversation, skillfully and prudently closes a thin psychological ring around Raskolnikov.

The writer pays special attention to the psychological state of the criminal’s soul, to his nervous disorder, expressed in illusions and hallucinations, which, according to Dostoevsky, must be taken into account by the investigator.

In the epilogue of the novel, we see how Raskolnikov’s individualism collapses. Among the labors and torments of the exiled convicts, he understands “the groundlessness of his claims to the title of hero and the role of ruler,” realizes his guilt and the highest meaning of goodness and justice.

In the novel “The Idiot” Dostoevsky again turns to the criminal theme. The writer focuses on the tragic fate of the noble dreamer Prince Myshkin and the extraordinary Russian woman Nastasya Filippovna. Having suffered deep humiliation in her youth from the rich man Totsky, she hates this world of businessmen, predators and cynics who outraged her youth and purity. In her soul there is a growing feeling of protest against the unjust structure of society, against the lawlessness and arbitrariness that reign in the harsh world of capital.

The image of Prince Myshkin embodies the writer’s idea of ​​a wonderful person. In the soul of the prince, as in the soul of Dostoevsky himself, there live feelings of compassion for all the “humiliated and disadvantaged”, the desire to help them, for which he is subjected to ridicule from the prosperous members of society, who called him a “fool” and an “idiot”.

Having met Nastasya Filippovna, the prince is imbued with love and sympathy for her and offers her his hand and heart. However, the tragic fate of these noble people is predetermined by the bestial customs of the world around them.

The merchant Rogozhin, unbridled in his passions and desires, is madly in love with Nastasya Filippovna. On the day of Nastasya Filippovna’s wedding to Prince Myshkin, the selfish Rogozhin takes her straight from the church and kills her. This is the plot of the novel. But Dostoevsky, as a psychologist and a real lawyer, convincingly reveals the reasons for the manifestation of such a character.

The image of Rogozhin in the novel is expressive and colorful. Illiterate, not subject to any education since childhood, psychologically he is, in the words of Dostoevsky, “the embodiment of an impulsive and consuming passion” that sweeps away everything in its path. Love and passion burn Rogozhin's soul. He hates Prince Myshkin and is jealous of Nastasya Filippovna. This is the reason for the bloody tragedy.

Despite the tragic collisions, the novel “The Idiot” is Dostoevsky’s most lyrical work, because its central images are deeply lyrical. The novel resembles a lyrical treatise, rich in wonderful aphorisms about beauty, which, according to the writer, is a great force capable of transforming the world. It is here that Dostoevsky expresses his innermost thought: “The world will be saved by beauty.” What is implied, undoubtedly, is the beauty of Christ and his divine-human personality.

The novel “Demons” was created during the period of intensified revolutionary movement in Russia. The actual basis of the work was the murder of student Ivanov by members of the secret terrorist organization “People's Retribution Committee,” headed by S. Nechaev, a friend and follower of the anarchist M. Bakunin. Dostoevsky perceived this event itself as a kind of “sign of the times,” as the beginning of future tragic upheavals, which, in the writer’s opinion, would inevitably lead humanity to the brink of disaster. He carefully studied the political document of this organization, “Catechism of a Revolutionary,” and subsequently used it in one of the chapters of the novel.

The writer portrays his heroes as a group of ambitious adventurers who have chosen the terrible, complete and merciless destruction of the social order as their life credo. Intimidation and lies have become their main means of achieving their goals.

The inspirer of the organization is the impostor Pyotr Verkhovensky, who calls himself a representative of a non-existent center and demands complete submission from his associates. To this end, he decides to seal their union with blood, for which purpose he kills one of the members of the organization, who intends to leave the secret society. Verkhovensky advocates rapprochement with robbers and public women in order to influence high-ranking officials through them.

Another type of “revolutionary” is represented by Nikolai Stavrogin, whom Dostoevsky wanted to show as the ideological bearer of nihilism. This is a man of high intelligence, unusually developed intellect, but his mind is cold and cruel. He instills negative ideas in others and pushes them to commit crimes. At the end of the novel, despairing and having lost faith in everything, Stavrogin commits suicide. The author himself considered Stavrogin a “tragic face.”

Through his main characters, Dostoevsky conveys the idea that revolutionary ideas, no matter in what form they appear, have no soil in Russia, that they have a detrimental effect on a person and only corrupt and disfigure his consciousness.

The result of the writer’s many years of creativity was his novel “The Brothers Karamazov.” The author focuses on the relationships in the Karamazov family: the father and his sons Dmitry, Ivan and Alexei. Father and eldest son Dmitry are at odds with each other over the provincial beauty Grushenka. This conflict ends with Dmitry's arrest on charges of parricide, the reason for which was traces of blood found on him. They were mistaken for the blood of the murdered father, although in reality it belonged to another person, the lackey Smerdyakov.

The murder of Karamazov the father reveals the tragedy of the fate of his second son, Ivan. It was he who seduced Smerdyakov into killing his father under the anarchic slogan “Everything is allowed.”

Dostoevsky examines in detail the process of investigation and legal proceedings. He shows that the investigation is persistently leading the case to a pre-drawn conclusion, since it is known both about the enmity between father and son, and about Dmitry’s threats to deal with his father. As a result, soulless and incompetent officials, on purely formal grounds, accuse Dmitry Karamazov of parricide.

The opponent of the unprofessional investigation in the novel is Dmitry's lawyer, Fetyukovich. Dostoevsky characterizes him as an “adulterer of thought.” He uses his oratory to prove the innocence of his client, who, they say, became a “victim” of the upbringing of his dissolute father. Undoubtedly, moral qualities and good feelings are formed in the process of education. But the conclusion that the lawyer comes to contradicts the very idea of ​​justice: after all, any murder is a crime against the person. However, the lawyer's speech makes a strong impression on the public and allows him to manipulate public opinion.

The picture of arbitrariness and lawlessness typical of Tsarist Russia appears no less vividly in the works of Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky (1823-1886). With all the power of artistic skill, he shows the ignorance and covetousness of officials, the callousness and bureaucracy of the entire state apparatus, the corruption and dependence of the court on the propertied classes. In his works, he branded the savage forms of violence of the rich over the poor, the barbarity and tyranny of those in power.

D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. A. N. Ostrovsky

Ostrovsky knew firsthand the state of affairs in Russian justice. Even in his youth, after leaving the university, he served in the Moscow Conscientious Court, and then in the Moscow Commercial Court. These seven years became a good school for him, from which he learned practical knowledge about judicial procedures and bureaucratic morals.

One of Ostrovsky's first comedies, “Our People - Let's Be Numbered,” was written by him when he worked in the Commercial Court. Its plot is taken from the very “thick of life”, from legal practice and merchant life that are well known to the author. With expressive force, he draws the business and moral physiognomy of the merchants, who, in their pursuit of wealth, did not recognize any laws or barriers.

This is the clerk of the rich merchant Podkhalyuzin. The merchant's daughter, Lipochka, is a match for him. Together they send their master and father to debt prison, guided by the bourgeois principle “I’ve seen it in my time, now it’s time for us.”

Among the characters in the play there are also representatives of bureaucrats who “administer justice” according to the morals of rogue merchants and rogue clerks. These “servants of Themis” are not far from their clients and petitioners in moral terms.

The comedy "Our People - Let's Be Numbered" was immediately noticed by the general public. A sharp satire on tyranny and its origins, rooted in the social conditions of that time, denunciation of autocratic-serf relations based on the actual and legal inequality of people, attracted the attention of the authorities. Tsar Nicholas I himself ordered the play to be banned from production. From that time on, the name of the aspiring writer was included in the list of unreliable elements, and secret police surveillance was established over him. As a result, Ostrovsky had to submit a petition for dismissal from service. Which, apparently, he did not without pleasure, focusing entirely on literary creativity.

Ostrovsky remained faithful to the fight against the vices of the autocratic system, exposing corruption, intrigue, careerism, and sycophancy in the bureaucratic and merchant environment in all subsequent years. These problems were clearly reflected in a number of his works - “Profitable Place”, “Forest”, “It’s not all Maslenitsa for cats”, “Warm Heart”, etc. In them, in particular, he showed with amazing depth the depravity of the entire state system service, in which an official, for successful career growth, was recommended not to reason, but to obey, to demonstrate his humility and submission in every possible way.

It should be noted that it was not just his civic position, and especially not idle curiosity, that prompted Ostrovsky to delve deeply into the essence of the processes taking place in society. As a true artist and legal practitioner, he observed clashes of characters, colorful figures, and many pictures of social reality. And his inquisitive thought as a researcher of morals, a person with rich life and professional experience, forced him to analyze the facts, correctly see the general behind the particular, and make broad social generalizations concerning good and evil, truth and untruth. Such generalizations, born of his insightful mind, served as the basis for building the main plot lines in his other famous plays - “The Last Victim”, “Guilty Without Guilt” and others, which took a strong place in the golden fund of Russian drama.

Speaking about the reflection of the history of Russian justice in Russian classical literature, one cannot ignore the works of Mikhail Evgrafovich Saltykov-Shchedrin (1826-1889). They are of interest not only to scientists, but also to those who are just mastering legal science.

N. Yaroshenko. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin

Following his great predecessors, who illuminated the problem of legality and its connection with the general structure of life, Shchedrin especially deeply revealed this connection and showed that robbery and oppression of the people are integral parts of the general mechanism of the autocratic state.

For almost eight years, from 1848 to 1856, he pulled the bureaucratic “shoulder” in Vyatka, where he was exiled for the “harmful” direction of his story “A Confused Affair.” Then he served in Ryazan, Tver, Penza, where he had the opportunity to become familiar with the structure of the state machine in every detail. In subsequent years, Shchedrin focused on journalistic and literary activities. In 1863-1864, he chronicled in the Sovremennik magazine, and later for almost 20 years (1868-1884) he was the editor of the Otechestvennye Zapiski magazine (until 1878, together with N. A. Nekrasov).

Shchedrin's Vyatka observations are vividly captured in “Provincial Sketches,” written in 1856-1857, when the revolutionary crisis was growing in the country. It is no coincidence that the “Essays” open with stories dedicated to the terrible pre-reform judicial order.

In the essay “Torn,” the writer, with his characteristic psychological skill, showed the type of official who, in his “zeal,” reached the point of frenzy, to the loss of human feelings. No wonder the locals nicknamed him “the dog.” And he was not indignant at this, but, on the contrary, he was proud. However, the fate of innocent people was so tragic that one day even his petrified heart trembled. But just for a moment, and he immediately stopped himself: “As an investigator, I have no right to reason, much less condole...”. This is the philosophy of a typical representative of Russian justice as depicted by Shchedrin.

Some chapters of the “Provincial Sketches” contain sketches of the prison and its inhabitants. Dramas are played out in them, as the author himself puts it, “one more intricate and intricate than the other.” He talks about several such dramas with deep insight into the spiritual world of their participants. One of them ended up in prison because he is “a fan of truth and a hater of lies.” Another warmed a sick old woman in his house, and she died on his stove. As a result, the compassionate man was condemned. Shchedrin is deeply outraged by the injustice of the court and connects this with the injustice of the entire state system.

“Provincial Sketches” in many ways summed up the achievements of Russian realistic literature with its harshly truthful portrayal of the savage nobility and all-powerful bureaucracy. In them, Shchedrin develops the thoughts of many Russian humanist writers, filled with deep compassion for the common man.

In his works “Pompadour and Pompadours”, “The History of a City”, “Poshekhon Antiquity” and many others, Shchedrin in a satirical form talks about the remnants of serfdom in social relations in post-reform Russia.

Speaking about post-reform “trends,” he convincingly shows that these “trends” are sheer verbiage. Here the pompadour governor “accidentally” finds out that the law, it turns out, has prohibitive and permissive powers. And he was still convinced that his governor’s decision was the law. However, he has doubts: who can limit his justice? Auditor? But they still know that the auditor is a pompadour himself, only in a square. And the governor resolves all his doubts with a simple conclusion - “either the law or me.”

Thus, in a caricature form, Shchedrin branded the terrible arbitrariness of the administration, which was a characteristic feature of the autocratic police system. The omnipotence of arbitrariness, he believed, had distorted the very concepts of justice and legality.

The Judicial Reform of 1864 gave a certain impetus to the development of legal science. Many of Shchedrin's statements indicate that he was thoroughly familiar with the latest views of bourgeois jurists and had his own opinion on this matter. When, for example, the developers of the reform began to theoretically justify the independence of the court under the new statutes, Shchedrin answered them that there cannot be an independent court where judges are made financially dependent on the authorities. “The independence of the judges,” he wrote ironically, “was happily balanced by the prospect of promotion and awards.”

Shchedrin's depiction of the judicial system was organically woven into the broad picture of the social reality of Tsarist Russia, where the connection between capitalist predation, administrative arbitrariness, careerism, bloody pacification of the people and unjust courts was clearly visible. Aesopian language, which the writer masterfully used, allowed him to call all the bearers of vices by their proper names: gudgeon, predators, dodgers, etc., which acquired a nominal meaning not only in literature, but also in everyday life.

Legal ideas and problems are widely reflected in the works of the great Russian writer Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy (1828-1910). In his youth, he was interested in jurisprudence and studied at the Faculty of Law of Kazan University. In 1861, the writer was appointed as a peace mediator in one of the districts of the Tula province. Lev Nikolaevich devoted a lot of energy and time to protecting the interests of the peasants, which caused discontent among the landowners. Arrested people, exiles and their relatives turned to him for help. And he conscientiously delved into their affairs, writing petitions to influential persons. It can be assumed that it was this activity, along with active participation in the organization of schools for peasant children, that was the reason that, from 1862 until the end of his life, Tolstoy was under secret police surveillance.

L.N. Tolstoy. Photo by S.V. Levitsky

Throughout his life, Tolstoy was invariably interested in issues of legality and justice, studied professional literature, including “Siberia and Exile” by D. Kennan, “The Russian Community in Prison and Exile” by N. M. Yadrintsev, “In the World of the Outcasts” by P. F. Yakubovich, knew well the latest legal theories of Garofalo, Ferri, Tarde, Lombroso. All this was reflected in his work.

Tolstoy also had an excellent knowledge of the judicial practice of his time. One of his close friends was the famous judicial figure A.F. Koni, who suggested the writer the plot for the novel “Resurrection.” Tolstoy constantly turned to his other friend, Chairman of the Moscow District Court N.V. Davydov, for advice on legal issues, was interested in the details of legal proceedings, the process of executing sentences, and various details of prison life. At Tolstoy’s request, Davydov wrote the text of the indictment in the case of Katerina Maslova for the novel “Resurrection” and formulated the court’s questions for the jurors. With the assistance of Koni and Davydov, Tolstoy visited prisons many times, talked with prisoners, and attended court hearings. In 1863, having come to the conclusion that the tsarist court was complete lawlessness, Tolstoy refused to take part in “justice”.

In the drama “The Power of Darkness”, or “The Claw Got Stuck, the Whole Bird Is Lost,” Tolstoy reveals the psychology of the criminal and exposes the social roots of the crime. The plot for the play was the real criminal case of a peasant in the Tula province, whom the writer visited in prison. Taking this matter as a basis, Tolstoy clothed it in a highly artistic form and filled it with deeply human, moral content. The humanist Tolstoy convincingly shows in his drama how retribution inevitably comes for the evil committed. The worker Nikita deceived an innocent orphan girl, entered into an illegal relationship with the owner’s wife, who treated him kindly, and became the involuntary cause of the death of her husband. Then - a relationship with his stepdaughter, the murder of a child, and Nikita completely lost himself. He cannot bear his grave sin before God and people, he repents publicly and, in the end, commits suicide.

Theater censorship did not allow the play to pass. Meanwhile, “The Power of Darkness” was a huge success on many stages in Western Europe: in France, Germany, Italy, Holland, Switzerland. And only in 1895, i.e. 7 years later, it was first staged on the Russian stage.

A deep social and psychological conflict underlies many of the writer’s subsequent works - “Anna Karenina”, “The Kreutzer Sonata”, “Resurrection”, “The Living Corpse”, “Hadji Murat”, “After the Ball”, etc. In them, Tolstoy mercilessly exposed the autocratic order, the bourgeois institution of marriage, sanctified by the church, the immorality of representatives of the upper strata of society, corrupted and morally devastated, as a result of which they are not able to see in the people close to them individuals who have the right to their own thoughts, feelings and experiences, to their own dignity and private life.

I. Pchelko. Illustration for L. N. Tolstoy’s story “After the Ball”

One of Tolstoy’s outstanding works in terms of its artistic, psychological and ideological content is the novel “Resurrection.” Without exaggeration, it can be called a genuine legal study of the class nature of the court and its purpose in a socially antagonistic society, the cognitive significance of which is enhanced by the clarity of the images and the accuracy of the psychological characteristics so inherent in Tolstoy’s writing talent.

After the chapters revealing the tragic story of the fall of Katerina Maslova and introducing Dmitry Nekhlyudov, the most important chapters of the novel follow, which describe the trial of the accused. The environment in which the trial takes place is described in detail. Against this background, Tolstoy draws the figures of judges, jurors, and defendants.

The author's comments allow you to see the whole farce of what is happening, which is far from true justice. It seemed that no one cared about the defendant: neither the judges, nor the prosecutor, nor the lawyer, nor the jury wanted to delve into the fate of the unfortunate woman. Everyone had their own “business”, which overshadowed everything that was happening, and turned the process into an empty formality. The case is being considered, the defendant is facing hard labor, and the judges are languishing with melancholy and are only pretending to participate in the hearing.

Even bourgeois law entrusts the presiding officer with the active conduct of the process, and his thoughts are occupied with the upcoming meeting. The prosecutor, in turn, deliberately condemned Maslova and, for the sake of form, makes a pretentious speech with references to Roman lawyers, without even making an attempt to delve into the circumstances of the case.

The novel shows that the jury also does not bother with its duties. Each of them is preoccupied with their own affairs and problems. In addition, these are people of different worldviews and social status, so it is difficult for them to come to a common opinion. However, they unanimously convict the defendant.

Well familiar with the tsarist system of punishment, Tolstoy was one of the first to raise his voice in defense of the rights of convicts. Having walked with his heroes through all circles of courts and institutions of the so-called correctional system, the writer concludes that most of the people whom this system doomed to torment as criminals were not criminals at all: they were victims. Legal science and the judicial process do not at all serve to find the truth. Moreover, with false scientific explanations, such as references to natural crime, they justify the evil of the entire system of justice and punishment of the autocratic state.

L. O. Pasternak. "Morning of Katyusha Maslova"

Tolstoy condemned the dominance of capital, state administration in a police, class society, its church, its court, its science. He saw a way out of this situation in changing the very system of life, which legitimized the oppression of ordinary people. This conclusion contradicted Tolstoy’s teaching about non-resistance to evil, about moral improvement as a means of salvation from all troubles. These reactionary views of Tolstoy were reflected in the novel “Resurrection”. But they faded and retreated before the great truth of Tolstoy’s genius.

One cannot help but say something about Tolstoy’s journalism. Almost all of his famous journalistic articles and appeals are full of thoughts about legality and justice.

In the article “Shameful,” he angrily protested against the beating of peasants, against this most absurd and insulting punishment to which one of its classes, “the most industrious, useful, moral and numerous,” is subjected in an autocratic state.

In 1908, indignant at the brutal reprisals against the revolutionary people, against executions and gallows, Tolstoy issued the appeal “They cannot remain silent.” In it, he brands the executioners, whose atrocities, in his opinion, will not calm or frighten the Russian people.

Of particular interest is Tolstoy’s article “Letter to a Student about Law.” Here he, again and again expressing his hard-won thoughts on issues of legality and justice, exposes the anti-people essence of bourgeois jurisprudence, designed to protect private property and the well-being of the powerful.

Tolstoy believed that legal laws must be in accordance with moral standards. These unshakable convictions became the basis of his civic position, from the height of which he condemned the system based on private property and branded its vices.

• Justice and execution of punishments in works of Russian literature of the late XIX-XX centuries.

The problems of Russian law and court at the end of the 19th century were widely reflected in the diverse works of another classic of Russian literature, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (1860-1904). The approach to this topic was due to the rich life experience of the writer.

Chekhov was interested in many areas of knowledge: medicine, law, legal proceedings. Having graduated from the medical faculty of Moscow University in 1884, he was appointed district doctor. In this capacity, he has to go to calls, see patients, participate in forensic autopsies, and act as an expert at court hearings. Impressions from this period of his life served as the basis for a number of his famous works: “Drama on the Hunt”, “Swedish Match”, “Intruder”, “Night before the Court”, “Investigator” and many others.

A.P. Chekhov and L.N. Tolstoy (photo).

In the story “The Intruder,” Chekhov talks about an investigator who has neither flexibility of mind, nor professionalism, and has no idea about psychology at all. Otherwise, he would have realized at first glance that in front of him was a dark, uneducated man, unaware of the consequences of his action - unscrewing the nuts on the railway. The investigator suspects the man of malicious intent, but does not even bother to explain to him what he is accused of. According to Chekhov, a guardian of the law should not be such a “blockhead,” both professionally and personally.

The language of the story is very laconic and conveys all the comedy of the situation. Chekhov describes the beginning of the interrogation as follows: “In front of the forensic investigator stands a small, extremely skinny little man in a motley shirt and patched ports. His hairy and rowan-eaten face and eyes, barely visible because of thick, overhanging eyebrows, have an expression of gloomy severity. On his head there is a whole cap of unkempt, tangled hair that has long been unkempt, which gives him even greater, spider-like severity. He's barefoot." In fact, the reader again encounters the theme of the “little man”, so characteristic of classical Russian literature, but the comedy of the situation lies in the fact that the further interrogation of the investigator is a conversation between two “little people”. The investigator believes that he has caught an important criminal, because the train crash could have entailed not only material consequences, but also the death of people. The second hero of the story, Denis Grigoriev, does not understand at all: what illegal thing did he do that the investigator is interrogating him? And in response to the question: why was the nut unscrewed, he answers without embarrassment at all: “We make sinkers from nuts... We, the people... Klimovsky men, that is.” The subsequent conversation is similar to a conversation between a deaf man and a mute, but when the investigator announces that Denis is going to be sent to prison, the man is sincerely perplexed: “To prison... If only there was a reason for it, I would have gone, otherwise... you live great ... For what? And he didn’t steal, it seems, and didn’t fight... And if you have doubts about the arrears, your honor, then don’t believe the headman... You ask Mr. the indispensable member... There’s no cross on him, the headman...” .

But the final phrase of the “malefactor” Grigoriev is especially impressive: “The deceased master-general, the kingdom of heaven, died, otherwise he would have shown you, the judges... We must judge skillfully, not in vain... Even if you flog, but for the cause, according to conscience..."

We see a completely different type of investigator in the story “The Swedish Match”. His hero, using only one piece of material evidence - a match, achieves the final goal of the investigation and finds the missing landowner. He is young, hot-tempered, builds various fantastic versions of what happened, but a thorough examination of the scene and the ability to think logically lead him to the true circumstances of the case.

In the story “Sleepy Stupidity,” undoubtedly written from life, the writer caricatured a district court hearing. The time is the beginning of the 20th century, but how surprisingly the trial resembles the district court that Gogol described in “The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich and Ivan Nikiforovich Quarreled.” The same sleepy secretary reads in a mournful voice the indictment without commas and periods. His reading is like the babbling of a stream. The same judge, prosecutor, jury were laughing out of boredom. They are not at all interested in the substance of the matter. But they will have to decide the fate of the defendant. About such “guardians of justice” Chekhov wrote: “With a formal, soulless attitude towards the individual, in order to deprive an innocent person of the rights of his fortune and sentence him to hard labor, the judge needs only one thing: time. Just time to comply with some formalities for which the judge is paid a salary, and then it’s all over.”

A. P. Chekhov (photography)

"Drama on the Hunt" is an unusual crime story about how

the forensic investigator commits a murder and then investigates it himself. As a result, the innocent person receives 15 years of exile, and the criminal walks free. In this story, Chekhov convincingly shows how socially dangerous is such a phenomenon as the immorality of the servant of Themis, who represents the law and is invested with a certain power. This results in violation of the law and violation of justice.

In 1890, Chekhov makes a long and dangerous trip to Sakhalin. He was prompted to this not by idle curiosity and the romance of travel, but by the desire to become more acquainted with the “world of the outcasts” and to arouse, as he himself said, public attention to the justice that reigned in the country and to its victims. The result of the trip was a voluminous book “Sakhalin Island”, containing a wealth of information on the history, statistics, ethnography of this outskirts of Russia, a description of gloomy prisons, hard labor, and a system of cruel punishments.

The humanist writer is deeply outraged by the fact that convicts are often the servants of their superiors and officers. “...The giving of convicts to the service of private individuals is in complete contradiction with the legislator’s views on punishment,” he writes, “this is not hard labor, but serfdom, since the convict serves not the state, but a person who does not care about correctional goals... " Such slavery, Chekhov believes, has a detrimental effect on the prisoner’s personality, corrupts it, suppresses the prisoner’s human dignity, and deprives him of all rights.

In his book, Chekhov develops Dostoevsky’s idea, which is still relevant today, about the important role of prison authorities in the re-education of criminals. He notes the stupidity and dishonesty of prison governors, when a suspect whose guilt has not yet been proven is kept in a dark cell of a convict prison, and often in a common cell with inveterate murderers, rapists, etc. Such an attitude of people who are obliged to educate prisoners has a corrupting effect on those being educated and only aggravates their base inclinations.

Chekhov is especially indignant at the humiliated and powerless position of women. There is almost no hard labor on the island for them. Sometimes they wash the floors in the office, work in the garden, but most often they are appointed as servants to officials or sent to the “harems” of clerks and overseers. The tragic consequence of this unearned, depraved life is the complete moral degradation of women who are capable of selling their children “for a glass of alcohol.”

Against the background of these terrible pictures, clean children’s faces sometimes flash on the pages of the book. They, together with their parents, endure poverty, deprivation, and humbly endure the atrocities of their parents tormented by life. However, Chekhov still believes that children provide moral support to the exiles, save mothers from idleness, and somehow tie the exiled parents to life, saving them from their final fall.

Chekhov's book caused a great public outcry. The reader saw closely and vividly the enormous tragedy of the humiliated and disadvantaged inhabitants of Russian prisons. The advanced part of society perceived the book as a warning about the tragic death of the country's human resources.

It can be said with good reason that with his book Chekhov achieved the goal that he set for himself when he took on the Sakhalin theme. Even the official authorities were forced to pay attention to the problems raised in it. In any case, after the book was published, by order of the Ministry of Justice, several officials of the Main Prison Directorate were sent to Sakhalin, who practically confirmed that Chekhov was right. The result of these trips were reforms in the field of hard labor and exile. In particular, over the next few years, heavy punishments were abolished, funds were allocated for the maintenance of orphanages, and court sentences to eternal exile and lifelong hard labor were abolished.

Such was the social impact of the book “Sakhalin Island”, brought to life by the civic feat of the Russian writer Anton Pavlovich Chekhov.

Control questions:

1. What characteristic features of the trial are captured in the works of Gogol and Chekhov?
2. How is their civic position manifested in the works of classics of Russian literature about the court?
3. What did Saltykov-Shchedrin see as the main defects of tsarist justice?
4. What, according to Dostoevsky and Chekhov, should an investigator be? And what should it not be?
5. For what reasons did Ostrovsky end up on the police list of unreliable elements?
6. How can you explain the title of Dostoevsky’s novel “Demons”?
7. What did Russian writers see as the main causes of crime? Do you agree with Lombroso's theory of an innate tendency to crime?
8. How are the victims of autocratic justice shown in the novels of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky?
9. What goals did Chekhov pursue when going to the island? Sakhalin? Has he achieved these goals?
10. Which Russian writer wrote the words “The world will be saved by beauty”? How do you understand this?

Golyakov I.T. Court and legality in fiction. M.: Legal literature, 1959. P. 92-94.

Golyakov I.T. Court and legality in fiction. M.: Legal literature, 1959. pp. 178-182.

Golyakov I.T. Court and legality in fiction. M.: Legal literature, 1959. P. 200-201.

Golyakov I.T. Court and legality in fiction. M.: Legal literature, 1959. pp. 233-235.

We tend to view justice and atonement as two distinct concepts: a legal action and an expression of human morality. But in life and literature they are often blurred and intertwined.

In compiling this list, we realized that it is not easy to find true justice in literature. Perhaps this is what explains the popularity of thrillers and detective stories in which justice triumphs.

1. Gilead, Marilynne Robinson

The Reverend John Ames is one of the most entertaining and charming characters in modern literature. Robinson reflects on the saving power of faith and family.

2. Absalom, Absalom, William Faulkner

Thomas Sutpen's story is reminiscent of the history of America itself. The work talks about the conquest of wild nature, the deception of indigenous people, and enrichment through slavery. Thomas denies his past and blood ties. His mixed-race identity conflicts with his beliefs and those of his heirs. The result of this is self-destruction and family destruction.

3. “Tess of the Urbervilles”, Thomas Hardy

The author uses such ancient techniques as equivocation and the “missing inheritance.” However, their use does not turn the work into a farce. This novel about rural poverty and landowners in 19th century England is extremely tragic, because the main character of the work struggles with a ruthless patriarchal system.

4. “Anna Karenina”, Leo Tolstoy

Undoubtedly, this is the greatest novel ever written. It is dominated by earthly justice and completely lacks redemption. Tolstoy behaves as befits a great writer, so he is not content with just writing a novel about a fallen woman. He immerses us in the political life and feudal system of Tsarist Russia.

5. “In Our Time,” Ernest Hemingway

With his first collection of short stories, and with the landmark novels that followed, Hemingway shocked traditionalists with his sharp, unsparing, and unvarnished prose. Perhaps "On Big River" is the best work written about a veteran. It tells the story of a man who lives with the awareness of an unjust world in which redemption is a tattered flag that is best left unfurled.

6. Divisadero, Michael Ondaatje

A family divided into three by love and cruelty. An amazing journey to redemption that was never completed.

7. "Harvest" by Jim Crace

An apocalyptic work about a remote English village, which is torn apart by the struggle for land and how these events affect the lives of its inhabitants. The heroes of the work are going through difficult times; they witness the arrival of strangers who bring with them strange new orders. There is some justice in the fact that Crace was able to create something so authentic. This is his atonement.

8. "Beowulf"

A hero who saves his people from a pair of monsters becomes a famous king who dies in an epic battle with a dragon. Posthumous fame is compared to the eternity of art.

Justice is the scale in the hands of Themis, tilting towards the one who is right. An essay on the topic: “Justice” is intended to be written by high school students, because it is a difficult concept to understand. We can say that it is synonymous with the word “truth”. But everyone has their own truth.

Law and morality

An essay-reasoning on the topic “Justice” is difficult to perform because it is not always clear to the student from what point of view to consider this concept. In general, justice is represented in two planes: in law and morality.

Everything is clear with the law: there are written rules that define the punishment, measure and limit of what is permitted. But with morality the situation is much more complicated. Each person has his own set of values ​​and principles according to which he acts in society. So the concept of justice is purely an individual concept. Therefore, an essay on the topic “Justice” should be written on the basis that this concept is a personal idea.

Example of work

Even a mini-essay on the topic “What is justice?” It is worth writing according to your own convictions. You can add arguments from literature to your work, but then the text will already exceed the “mini” format. In general terms, such an example could look like this:

I think fairness is a human character trait. Only the strong in spirit can follow the laws of morality, protecting the weak and punishing the guilty. Justice is when everyone gets what they deserve.

It is said to be based on the principle of equality. Only where there are people of different classes is there inequality and injustice. But this is rather a socio-economic point that has nothing to do with morality. In fact, injustice manifests itself in the fact that some people begin to put themselves above others, belittling their dignity.

Justice is expressed in relation to other people. Every self-sufficient person will follow the law of virtue. He knows exactly what is right and wrong; it is on such people that social harmony rests.

Theoretical basis

Before you begin your essay on the topic “Justice,” you need to familiarize yourself with some secrets of simple writing. More precisely, with the structure of a good and complete text. It should include:

1. First paragraph. Define the concept. Justice is associated with truth, conscience and respect for the individual. Of course, dictionaries have long and convoluted definitions, but they can be simplified to the three truths above.
2. Second paragraph. Give your comment on the concept. Verbal devices such as “I think”, “I believe”, etc. should be used.
3. Third and fourth paragraphs. If possible, you can give arguments from the literature. For example, remember Pushkin’s “The Captain’s Daughter” or the infamous “Taras Bulba”.
4. Fifth paragraph. Summarize everything you have written.

The truth in my life

As another example, you can imagine an essay on the topic “Justice in my life”:

It seems to me that justice is, first of all, an unspoken law that says that everyone should get what they deserve. This is the only definition of the concept that I can agree with.

It seems to me that true justice is the measure of our life experience. The more a person has experienced, the more problems and difficulties he has resolved, the more he understands life. His concept of justice will be broader.

If we talk about fairness in practical application, then it is worth remembering those who have had health problems since birth. These problems teach him to show a will to live, which most healthy people know nothing about. The reward is fortitude, which even athletes can envy. A person acquires these qualities justly when he refuses to give up even in the most difficult life conditions.

The efforts made will always find an equal reward. This is how justice manifests itself in my life. No matter how many times I tried to do something, relying on luck, the result turned out to be zero. Only after hard work can you get what you want. I think this is the best manifestation of justice that one encounters in life.

Finally, I would like to say the following: if a person measures everything by material goods, then his life will be unfair and boring. Only with experience comes the understanding that everything in life is in balance. It’s just like on the scales of Themis, the cup of which always tips in favor of the one who is right.