"godfather" of all soldiers. What was one of the reasons for the start of the Pugachev rebellion

King Kemchin of Korea gathered with Mun, Prince of Korea, and they made a peace treaty.

And that Korean land lies on a spit, and on three sides it is streamlined by the sea, and on the fourth, from the Midnight country, a boundary is laid with the Chinese kingdom.

And that land is divided into two states, on the Noon side the princes rule, both with the boyars and with the best people, and in the Midnight side of the Kemchine kingdom, from otchich and dedich.

And between those two countries there was enmity and setuga and non-peace the great seventy years: from the summer of 7456, as Kemirsey-king sat in the kingdom of Korea, and until this summer, until 7526.

And in the summer of 7458, King Kemirsey came from his own from the Midnight country to the Midday country, and the war was strong on the Korean people from the Korean people. And in the Midday side, princes and boyars and all sorts of people taught to ask for help from the American Germans, and the tsar sent Kimersey to the Chinese tsar, and even to the Muscovite state. And there was that war for three years, and many kingdoms fought at that time: the Americans and the British stood for the Midnight Koreans, and Chinese eager people stood for the Midnight Koreans, and all sorts of Russian service people from the Moscow state.

And in the summer of 7461, having sentenced those great powers among themselves, the war was stopped, and a straight line was laid between the two Korean states along the Sun. Tsar Kemirsei and the Korean boyars gave the wool that they, without referring to the big powers, would not go to war with their neighbor. And from those places there was no war in the Korean land, but there was no peace either, because in those states on both sides there was no faith in the other side, and they looked for any dashing deed from each other and were going to fight every day. And there was fear and non-peace in the land of Korea from the king Kemirsey and under his son Kemchinyr, even to the unuk of Kemirseev, to Kemchiney.

The same Kemchinei king, as he sat down on the kingdom of Korea after his father, and began to strengthen his power and did a lot of great fiery garb. And with that big outfit he threatened to shoot as far as the American land, for their previous non-corrections to him. And there was fear throughout the land of God. But the Lord our God, do not want the final death of your creation, and forgiving us all our sins, soften the heart of Kemchine. And there was a meeting between both sovereigns at the Korean border, and Kemchinei from the midnight country came himself, and vouched for Prince Mun at the border and he was in good health and crossed the border, and the kings of Korea did not go beyond that border for sixty and six years from the summer of 7461, from the Great Korean War. And Tsar Kimersey gave his word to live in the world and to gather about all sorts of business with ambassadors. And all Christians and all pagans who were reputed under Heaven had joy about that peaceful decree.

When ingenuous people are faced with the question of what art is, they do not try to figure out where it came from, what place it occupies in the universe, but accept it as a fact and only want to find some application for it in life. Thus arise the theories of useful art, the most primitive stage in the relationship of human thought to art. It seems so natural to people that art, if it exists, should be suitable for their immediate little needs and needs. They forget that there are many things in the world that are completely useless for people, such as beauty, and that in their lives they themselves constantly do things that are completely useless - love, dream.

Of course, we laugh now when Tasso asserts that poetic inventions are like "sweets" with which they smear the edges of a vessel with bitter medicine; we read Derzhavin's poems with a smile to Great Catherine where he compares poetry to "sweet lemonade". But did Pushkin himself, who partly under the influence of the echoes of Schelling's philosophy, partly having independently reached such views, vilified the "oven pot" and reproached the mob for seeking "benefit", in the "Monument" did not mention such verses:

And for a long time I will be kind to the people,
That I aroused good feelings with lyre,

And Zhukovsky, adapting Pushkin's poem for publication, didn't he put it further directly:

That by the charm of living poetry I was useful ...
Which gave Pisarev a reason to celebrate.

In the general public, in the public that knows art in the form of novels in magazines, opera performances, symphony concerts and art exhibitions, the conviction still reigns supreme that the whole purpose of art is to give noble entertainment. Dancing at balls, riding, playing screw - also entertainment, but less noble; and people belonging to the intelligentsia should, among other things, read Korolenko and even Maeterlinck, listen to Chaliapin, and visit the Peredvizhnaya and decadent exhibitions. The novel helps to spend time in the carriage or before going to bed in bed, you meet acquaintances at the opera, you dissipate at the art exhibition. And these people achieve their goals, really relax, disperse, laugh, fall asleep.

The defender of "useful art" in his books is none other than the "apostle of beauty" Ruskin. He advised his students to copy olive leaves and rose petals in order to acquire for themselves and give others more information than we had hitherto about the olives of Greece and the wild roses of England; advised to reproduce rocks, mountains and individual stones in order to get a more complete understanding of the properties of the mountain structure; advised to depict the ancient disappearing ruins as soon as possible in order to preserve their images at least on the canvas for the curiosity of future centuries. "Art, says Ruskin, gives the form of knowledge, makes forever visible to us those objects that without it our science could not describe, our memory could not keep." And again: "The whole essence of art depends on whether it is true and useful. Great masters could allow themselves to ineptness, to ugliness, but never to uselessness."

Just as Ruskin treats the plastic arts, so does a very widespread and almost dominant school of literary historians treat poetry. They see in poetry only an exact reproduction of life, according to which one can study the life and customs of that time and the country where the poetic work was created. They carefully study the descriptions of the poet, the psychology of the faces he created, his own psychology, then moving on to the psychology of his contemporaries and to the characteristics of his time. They are absolutely convinced that the whole point of literature is to be an aid to the study of the life of such and such a century, and that readers and poets themselves, not realizing this, like non-scientists, are simply deluded.

Thus, the theory of "useful art" still has quite prominent supporters today. Meanwhile, it is obvious that there is no way to stretch this theory to all the phenomena of art, that it is ridiculously small for him, like a dwarf's caftan for the Spirit of the Earth. It is impossible to please the good bourgeois, who want to receive "noble entertainment" from art, to limit all art to Sudermann and Bourget. Much in art will in no way fit under the concept of "enjoyment", if only we understand this word in its natural sense, and do not substitute for it the wordless, self-explanatory term "aesthetic pleasure". Art terrifies, art shocks, makes you cry. In art there is Aeschylus, there is Edgar Allan Poe, there is Dostoyevsky. More recently, L. Tolstoy, with his usual accuracy of expression, equated those who seek only pleasure in art with people who would argue that the only goal of eating is the pleasure of taste.

In the same way, it is impossible for the sake of knowledge and science to see in art only reflections of life. Although the divine Leonardo himself wrote arguments about come lo specchio e maestro de "pittori [Like a mirror is an artist's teacher (it.)], and although recently in literature and in the plastic arts "realism" seemed to be the final word (this is how it is reported in school textbooks to this day) - but art never reproduced, but always transformed reality: even in the paintings of da Vinci, even in the most ardent realist writers, like Balzac, our Gogol, Zola. There is no art that would repeat reality. In the external "There is nothing in the world that corresponds to architecture and music. Neither Cologne Cathedral nor Beethoven's symphonies reproduce the environment around us. In sculpture, only form without color is given, in painting only colors without form, while in life, both are inseparable. Sculpture and painting give immovable moments, while in the world everything flows in time Sculpture and painting repeat only the appearance of objects: neither marble nor br onza is unable to convey the structure of the skin; statues have no heart, lungs, entrails; there are no hidden minerals in the drawn mountain range. Poetry is devoid of spatial embodiment; from innumerable feelings, from the uninterrupted flow of events, she snatches out only individual moments and scenes. Drama combines with the means of poetry the means of sculpture and painting, but behind the scenery of the room there are no other parts of the apartment, the street, the city; the actor, going backstage, ceases to be Prince Hamlet; what actually lasted twenty years can be seen on the stage at two o'clock.

Art never, except in rare anecdotal cases, deceives the people, like Zeuxis' fruit of stupid birds. No one takes a picture for a view through an open window, no one bows to a bust of an acquaintance, and no author has been sentenced to prison for a fictional crime in the story. Moreover, it is precisely those works that reproduce reality with special similarity that we refuse to call artistic. We do not recognize panoramas or wax statues as art. And what would be achieved if art succeeded in mimicking nature to perfection? What could be the use of doubling reality? "The advantage of a painted tree over a real one, says Aug. Schlegel, is only that it cannot have caterpillars." Botanists will never study a plant from drawings. The most skillful marina will never replace a traveler's view of the ocean, for the mere fact that a salty smell will not waft into his face and waves will not be heard hitting coastal stones. Let us leave the reproduction of reality to photography, to the phonograph, to the ingenuity of technicians. "Art is to reality like wine is to grapes," said Grillparzer.

Advocates of "useful art" have, it is true, one refuge. Art does not serve personal individual enjoyment. Art does not serve the purposes of science. But it can serve society, the social order. The usefulness of art may lie in the fact that it unites individuals among themselves, transfusing the feelings of one into another, that it welds the classes of society into one whole and helps their historical struggle among themselves. From this point of view, art is only a means of communication between people among themselves in a number of other means, which are, firstly, the word, then writing, printing, telegraph, telephone. An ordinary word, prosaic speech conveys thoughts, while art conveys feelings ... Guyot defended such a circle of thoughts with force and wit. We have the same ideas, having modified them somewhat, L. Tolstoy recently preached.

But does this theory explain why artists create, and why listeners, readers, viewers seek artistic impressions? When sculptors crush clay, when painters cover canvases with colors, when poets look for the right words to express what they need, none of them sets out to convey their feelings to another. We know artists who despised humanity, who created only for themselves, without purpose, without the intention of making their creations public. Is there no self-gratification in creativity? Didn't Pushkin say to the artist: "Your work is your reward"? And why don't readers break this telegraph thread between themselves and the artist's soul? What do they need in these feelings of a person they do not know, who often lived many years ago, in another country? To unravel what the artist's dark cravings and the response cravings of his listener and spectator are based on - that is the task of the science of art. And this clue is not in the scholastic answer: "art is useful because it gives communication of feelings; and communication by feelings is desirable for us, because we have a special instinct for sociability."

The stubbornness of the champions of "useful art", despite all the blows dealt to them by European thought of the last century, does not diminish to our days and probably will not dry up until the last days, as long as there are disputes about art. There will always remain the possibility of pointing out the benefit of art in one way or another. But you never know how you can use this and that object, that and that force! Archaeologists study the ancient way of life on the remains of buildings. But we do not build our houses so that their ruins serve as an aid to archaeologists of the XLth century. Graphologists say that a person's character can be known from handwriting. But the Phoenicians (according to the myth) did not invent writing for this purpose at all. The peasant in Krylov's fable doomed the ax to hew splinters. The ax rightly remarked that it was not his fault. In Mark Twain's story about the prince and the beggar, poor Tom, once in the palace, uses the state seal to crack nuts with it. Maybe Tom cracked nuts very successfully, but still the purpose of the state seal is different.

People of a different mindset, leaving aside the question of what art is for, what is the use of it, they set themselves a different, metaphysical one: what is art. Separating art from life, they considered its creations as something self-sufficient, closed in itself. This is how the theories of "pure art" arose - the second stage in the relationship of human thought to art. Carried away by the struggle with the defenders of applied, useful art, these people went to the other extreme, asserting that there should be no benefit from art, no and never, that art is directly opposed to any self-interest, any goal: art is aimless. Our Turgenev expressed these thoughts with merciless frankness. "Art has no purpose other than art itself," he said. And in a letter to Fet and even sharper: "Not useless art is rubbish, uselessness is precisely the diamond of his crown." When the supporters of these views were asked: what unites into one class the creations that they recognize as artistic, why the paintings of Raphael, and the poems of Byron, and the melodies of Mozart - all this art, what is common between them? they answered - Beauty!

This word, first uttered in this sense in antiquity, picked up and repeated a thousand times by German aestheticians, has become a kind of spell. They reveled in it, they intoxicated themselves with it, even not wanting to delve into its meaning.

Only youth and beauty
Genius must be a fan

Pushkin said. Maikov repeated his testament almost word for word, saying that art -

isn't it a revelation
From above the stars,
From the realm of eternal youth
And eternal beauty.

It would seem that Baudelaire, alien to them, created a stunning image of Beauty, destroying and attracting to itself:

Je suis belle, o mortels! comme un reve de pierre,
Et mon sein, ou chacun s "est meurtri tour a tour,
est fait pour inspirer au poete un amour
Eternel et muet ainsi que la matiere
Et jamais je ne pleure et jamais je ne ris.

[Oh, mortal! Like a dream made of stone, I'm beautiful!
And my chest, which will destroy everyone in succession,
The hearts of artists are oppressively tormented by love,
Like substance, eternal and mute.
I never laugh, I never cry.

(Translated by V. Bryusov.)]

When the theory of "pure art" was just being created, one could understand by beauty exactly what this word means in the language. Almost every creation of ancient art and art from the time of pseudo-classicism could be applied to the word "beautiful". The naked bodies of the statues, the images of gods and heroes were beautiful, the myths of tragedies were majestically beautiful. However, in Greek sculpture and in Greek poetry there were Thersites, hanged slaves, incest - which did not really fit into the concept of beauty. Already Aristotle and later his imitator, Boileau, had to be advised to portray the ugly so that it still seemed attractive. But the romantics and their successors, the realists, rejected this embellishment of reality. All the ugliness of the world invaded artistic creativity. The pictures showed ugly faces, rags, the miserable atmosphere of reality; novels and poems from the royal palaces transferred their action to damp cellars and smoky attics, poetry took over the vanity Everyday life, her vices, her horrors, her insignificance - petty, vulgar people of our time. There was no way left to refer even to spiritual beauty when it came to Plyushkin. Beauty, like once the maiden Astrea, ultima coelestum [Last of the celestial goddesses (lat.)], apparently completely left art, and only with complete blindness to the environment was it possible after Gogol, after Dickens, after Balzac to sing revelations

From the starry heights From the realm of eternal youth And eternal beauty.

In addition, the very concept of beauty is not immutable. There is no special universal measure of beauty. Beauty is nothing more than a distraction, as a general concept, similar to the concept of truth, goodness, and many other broad generalizations of human thought. Beauty changes over the centuries. Beauty is different for different countries. What was beauty to the Assyrian seems ugly to us; fashionable costumes, which captivated by the beauty of Pushkin, excite laughter in us; what even now the Chinese consider beautiful is alien to us. Meanwhile, the works of art of all ages and all peoples are equally defeating us. History has recently witnessed how Japanese art enslaved Europe, although the concept of beauty in these two worlds is completely different. In art there is immutability and immortality, which are not in beauty. And the marbles of the Pergamon altar are eternal, not because they are beautiful, but because art has breathed into them its own life, independent of beauty.

In order to somehow harmonize the theory of "pure art" with the facts, its defenders had to force the concept of beauty in every possible way. For a long time, when speaking about art, they began to give the concept of "beauty" different, often quite unexpected meanings. Beauty was identified with perfection, with unity in diversity, they were looking for it in waving lines, in softness, in moderation in size. “The unfortunate concept of beauty,” says one German critic, “was stretched in all directions, as if it were made of rubber ... They say that, in relation to art, the word “beauty” should be understood in a broader sense, but rather it was To say that Ugolino is beautiful in a broader sense is the same as to say that evil is good in a broader sense, and a slave is a master in a broader sense.

Particularly successful was the substitution of the word "beauty" for the word "typical". It was assured that the creations of art are beautiful because they are types. But if you put these two concepts one on top of the other, they are far from coinciding. Beauty is not always typical, and not everything typical is beautiful. Le beau c "est rare [Beautiful is rare (fr.)], said a whole school in art. Emerald green eyes seem beautiful to too many, although they are rare. Winged human figures in oriental images are striking in beauty, but they are the fruit of fantasy and On the other hand, aren’t there animals that, by their most distinctive features, are ugly, which cannot be depicted typically except as ugly: such are cuttlefish, rays, spiders, caterpillars ... And the types of all internal ugliness, all vices, everything flat in a man, stupid, vulgar - how can they become beauty? And does not the new art, more and more boldly moving into the world of personal, individual feelings, sensations of the moment, and this very moment, does not break forever and decisively with the specter of typicality?

In one place Pushkin speaks of the "science of love," of "love for the sake of love," and remarks:

this important fun
Worthy of old monkeys
Vaunted grandfather's times.

The same words can be repeated about "art for art's sake". It separates art from life, that is, from the only soil on which anything can grow in humanity. Art in the name of aimless Beauty (with a capital letter) is a dead art. No matter how flawless the forms of the sonnet, no matter how beautiful the face of the marble bust, but if there is nothing behind these sounds, behind this marble, what will attract me to them? The human spirit cannot reconcile itself to peace. "Je hais le mouvement qui deplace les lignes" - "I hate any movement of lines," says Beauty in Baudelaire. But art is always a search, always an impulse, and Baudelaire himself poured into his polished sonnets not mortal immobility, but whirlpools of anguish, despair and curses. The same seal of state that Tom used to crack nuts in the palace probably sparkled very beautifully in the sun. But a beautiful brilliance was not her destination. She was made for more.

Men of science approached art from completely different paths. Science has no pretensions to penetrate into the essence of things. Science knows only the correlations of phenomena, it can only compare and contrast them. Science cannot consider any thing without its relation to others.

The conclusions of science are observations on the correlations of things and phenomena.

Science, approaching the creations of art with its special methods, first of all refused to consider them in themselves. She realized that the creation of art without relation to the person - to the artist-creator and to the one who perceives someone else's creativity - is nothing more than a painted canvas, a turned stone, words and sounds connected in periods. It is impossible to find anything in common between the Egyptian pyramids and the poems of Keats, if we forget about the intentions of the builder and the poet and about the impressions of viewers and readers. One and the other can be identified only in the human spirit. Art exists only in man, and nowhere else. The honor of realizing this truth belongs to the philosophers of the English school. “Beauty,” Brown wrote, “is not something that exists in objects, independently of the spirit observing it, and therefore something stable, like the objects themselves. Beauty is the disturbances of our spirit and, like other disturbances, changes under different circumstances.”

Relying on this truth, science naturally opened up two ways to study art: the study of emotional unrest that seizes the viewer, reader, listener when he gives himself up to artistic impressions, and the study of emotional unrest that prompts the artist to create. Science followed these two paths, but almost from the first steps it got lost.

The attempt to connect the study of aesthetic disturbances, those impressions that the creations of art give us, with physiology must be recognized as hopelessly unsuccessful. The connection of psychological facts with physiological facts is a riddle for science even in the most simple phenomena. She still does not know how to explain the transition of a pin prick into a feeling of pain. The desire to reduce immensely complex artistic disturbances to something like a pleasant or unpleasant movement of the eyeball cannot give anything but ridiculous. All physiological explanations of aesthetic phenomena do not go beyond dubious analogies. With equal success it was possible to look in physiology (in its present development) for the solution of questions of higher mathematics.

Psychology could do more here. But this science, of which Maeterlinck said that it "usurped the beautiful name of Psyche," is also far from being mature. So far, she has explored only the simplest phenomena of our spiritual life, although with the frivolity characteristic of children, she hastens to assert that she already knows everything, that there is nothing else in the human spirit, and if there is, then everything is done according to the same stencils. . Finding itself in front of one of the most mysterious phenomena of human spiritual existence, in front of the sphinx riddle of art, psychology began to solve this complex mathematical problem, requiring the most sophisticated methods of higher analysis, with four rules of arithmetic. Of course, the problem remained unsolved, the answer turned out to be the most arbitrary. But psychology said the job was done. And if the facts themselves did not fit her template, so much the worse for the facts!

Psychological aesthetics has collected a number of phenomena that it has recognized as "direct producers of an aesthetic feeling", such as, for example, in the field of vision: combinations of light and shade, harmony of colors and their combination with brilliance, beauty of complex movements and forms, proportionality of parts, firm and light support of gravity, - or in the field of sounds: special combinations of tones called melody and harmony, tempo, emphasis, cadence. To these "producers" she added various pleasant sensations, delivered by the ability of associations. And by this "addition and subtraction," even without "multiplication and division," psychological aesthetics still intends to decide the question of art. She seriously thinks that every artistic creation can, in its crude sense, be decomposed into these crude elements: into brilliance, into curvature, into melody, and that after this decomposition there will be no residue.

Not to mention that the simplicity of many of these quasi-elements is highly doubtful - the whole point is that only in art do these impressions cause "aesthetic excitement". We all know the brilliance of the sun, it is often beautiful, pleasant, you can enjoy it: but it does not have that single trembling that the creations of art infuse in everyone who truly knows how to cling to them. And in the poem, where the same sun is depicted, although it “does not illuminate” from verses (Lotze’s remark), it shines for us with a completely special brilliance, the brilliance of creations of art. And so everywhere. Let's break Klinger's Beethoven into pieces - into multi-colored marbles, into dull and shiny metals, we even add here "associative" feelings about the creator of the IXth Symphony, but there will be no delight that seizes us before the creation of a new Phidias!

And the miraculous beauty of nature, the sweetest graceful and solemn landscapes, enchanting, captivating us, will never give us exactly what is called "aesthetic excitement." This feeling is destined only for the special messengers of God, who are given the significant name of the Creator - Ποιητήξ [Creator, poet (Greek)].

Another path led science to the study of spiritual disturbances that induce a person to sculpt statues, paint pictures, and compose poems. Science began to find out what kind of desires attract the artist, make him work - sometimes to the point of exhaustion - and find self-satisfaction in his work. And the spirit that blew over the science of the just past century, which at one time tore from their places things and phenomena that seemed immovable to the 18th philosophical century and turned them into an unstoppable stream of an ever-changing, ever-only becoming world, the spirit of evolutionism - directed attention of researchers to the origin of art. As in many other cases, science replaced the word "be" with the word "become" and began to investigate not "what is art", but "where did art come from", thinking that it was solving the same question. And then detailed investigations appeared about the beginning of art among primitive people and among savages, about the crude, powerless rudiments of ornament, sculpture, music, poetry ... Science thought to unravel the secret of art by sorting out its genealogical tree. In its own way, the theory of heredity was also applied here, with the certainty that the soul of a child depends entirely on the combination of the mental properties of his ancestors.

The search for these ancestors of art led to a theory that was first expressed with complete decisiveness by Schiller. This theory was picked up and developed in passing, but with overwhelming scientific thoroughness by Spencer. The forefather of art was recognized as a game. The lower animals do not play at all. Those who, thanks to better nutrition, there remains an excess of nervous activity, they feel the need to use it up - and spend it in the game. Humanity spends it in art. A rat that gnaws on objects that are unfit for food, a cat that rolls a ball, especially children playing, are already indulging in artistic activity. It seemed to Schiller that by this theory he in no way belittled the significance of art. "A man," he says, "plays only where he is a man in the full sense of the word, and he is only a man when he plays." This theory, of course, adjoins the theories of useless art, which Spencer admits: “To look for a goal that would serve life, that is, goodness and benefit,” he writes, “means inevitably losing sight of the aesthetic principle.”

Like another scientific solution to the riddle of art, and this theory is too broad to define art precisely, just as the theories of "useful" and "pure" art were too narrow. In search of the simplest elements into which aesthetic disturbances are resolved, science has presented elements that are often not art and which do not at all explain the unique, unique influence of art. In search of reasons that lead to creativity, she also named those that often do not lead to art at all. If all art is a game, then why isn't all play an art? How to put a limit between them? Are children playing ball more like adults playing vint than Michelangelo playing David? And why was the same Michelangelo an artist when he sculpted his statues, and was not an artist when he played money? And why do we know the aesthetic excitement of listening to the flight of the Valkyries, but only amuse ourselves by looking at the fussing kittens? How, finally, to explain the worship that artists of all times arouse in humanity: it sees in them prophets, leaders of life, teachers. Are Ibsen and Leo Tolstoy in our day only the organizers of the big world games?

Modern science has so far proved powerless to cope with the riddle of art. The theories put forward by it cannot stand, because they are fraught with contradictions. But even if we assume that the science of the future will happily bypass all the pitfalls and carefully, checking its every step, feeling every inch of the earth with the stick of its methods, will draw all the conclusions that are available to it - will it give an answer to the question, what is art? But such a question cannot even exist for science, since it still asks about essence. Science will only answer what position aesthetic unrest occupies in a number of other spiritual unrest of a person, and what exactly reasons led a person, in the past millennia of his existence, to artistic creativity. Will our thought be satisfied with this? Will we rest on these sober answers of exact knowledge?

Of course not. Returning to an example that has already served us twice, we can say that science will only decompose in the crucible that state seal that poor Tom has taken possession of. Science will only tell him how much gold and ligature it contains, only how its brilliance affects human eyes and how difficult it is to wear. But poor Tom will still know nothing about the purpose of this thing. Who will guess what art is, this state seal in a great state, the universe?

The most striking thing is that all the theories put forward have irrefutable facts behind them. Art gives pleasure - who will argue! Art teaches - we know this from thousands of examples. But at the same time, in art there are often no immediate goals, no benefit - only fanatics can deny this. Finally, art brings people together, reveals the soul, makes everyone involved in the artist's work. What is art? How is it both useful and useless together? serves Beauty and often ugly? and means of communication and privacy of the artist?

The only method that can hope to solve these questions is intuition, inspired guessing, the method that philosophers and thinkers used throughout the ages, looking for clues to the mysteries of being. And I will point to one solution to the riddle of art, which belongs precisely to the philosopher, which - it seems to me - provides an explanation for all these contradictions. This is Schopenhauer's answer. With the philosopher himself, his aesthetics is too closely connected with his metaphysics. But, tearing his guessing out of the narrow shackles of his thought, freeing his teaching about art from the teachings about “ideas”, mediators between the world of noumenons and phenomena, that quite accidentally entangled him, we will get a simple and clear truth: art is the comprehension of the world by other, non-rational ways. Art is what in other areas we call revelation. Creations of art are ajar doors to Eternity.

The phenomena of the world, as they are revealed to us in the universe - stretched in space, flowing in time, subject to the law of causality - are subject to study by the methods of science, reason. But this study, based on the indications of our external senses, gives us only an approximate knowledge. The eye deceives us by ascribing the properties of a sunbeam to the flower we are looking at. The ear deceives us, considering the fluctuations in the air as a property of a ringing bell. All our consciousness deceives us by transferring its properties, the conditions of its activity, to external objects. We live among eternal, primordial lies. Thought, and therefore science, are powerless to expose this lie. The most they could do was point it out, figure out its inevitability. Science only brings order into the chaos of false ideas and places them in ranks, making them possible, facilitating their recognition, but not knowledge.

But we are not hopelessly locked in this "blue prison" - using the image of Fet. From it there are exits to freedom, there are gaps. These gaps are those moments of ecstasy, supersensible intuition, which give other comprehension of world phenomena, penetrating deeper beyond their outer crust, into their core. The original task of art is to capture these moments of insight, inspiration. Art begins at the moment when the artist tries to clarify to himself his dark, secret feelings. Where there is no such clarification, there is no artistic creativity. Where there is no mystery in feeling, there is no art. For whom everything in the world is simple, understandable, comprehensible, he cannot be an artist. Art is only where daring is beyond the bounds, where there is a break beyond the limits of the cognizable in the thirst to scoop up at least a drop.

The elements are alien, transcendent.

"The gates of Beauty lead to knowledge," said the same Schiller. In all the centuries of their existence, unconsciously, but invariably, artists fulfilled their mission: by clarifying the secrets they revealed to themselves, they thereby sought other, more perfect ways of understanding the universe. When a savage drew spirals and zigzags on his shield and claimed that it was a "snake", he was already performing an act of knowledge. In the same way, antique marbles, images of Goethe's Faust, Tyutchev's poems - all these are precisely the impressions in a visible, tactile form of those insights that the artists knew. The true knowledge of things is revealed in them with the degree of completeness that the imperfect materials of art allowed: marble, colors, sounds, words ...

But for many centuries art did not give itself a clear and definite account of its purpose. Various aesthetic theories brought down artists. And they erected idols for themselves, instead of praying to the True God. The history of the new art is above all the history of its emancipation. Romanticism, realism and symbolism are the three stages in the struggle of artists for freedom. They finally overthrew the chains of slavery to various random purposes. Now art is finally free.

Now it consciously surrenders to its highest and only purpose: to be the knowledge of the world, outside of rational forms, outside of thinking by causality. Do not interfere with the new art in its, as it may sometimes seem, useless and alien to modern needs, task. You measure usefulness and modernity by too small measures. The benefit of humanity is at the same time our personal benefit. We all live in eternity. Those questions of being, which art can solve, never cease to be topical. Art is perhaps the greatest power that mankind possesses. While all the scraps of science, all the axes public life not able to break down the doors and walls that enclose us - art conceals in itself a terrible dynamite that will crush these walls, moreover - it is the sesame from which these doors will dissolve themselves. Let contemporary artists consciously forge their creations in the form of keys of secrets, in the form of mystical keys that open the doors for humanity from its "blue prison" to eternal freedom.

Bryusov Valery Yakovlevich (1873 - 1924) - Russian poet, prose writer, playwright, translator, literary critic, literary critic and historian. One of the founders of Russian symbolism.

In 1618 the Deulino truce was concluded with Poland (according to which Prince Vladislav renounced claims to the Russian throne, but Smolensk, Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversky lands retreated to Poland)

3. Consequences:

Russia managed to defend its independence

Russia emerged from the Time of Troubles extremely exhausted, with large territorial and human losses.

To overcome the consequences of the Time of Troubles, economic devastation, measures were taken to strengthen serfdom and autocracy

C3 No. 2096 Read an extract from a historical source and briefly answer questions C1-C3. Answers assume the use of information from the source, as well as the application historical knowledge at the rate of history of the corresponding period.

From the writings of a historian.

“Since the second decade ... of the century, a number of new facts have consistently appeared in our history, which noticeably distinguish the subsequent time from the previous one. Firstly, a new dynasty sits on the throne of Moscow ... The state territory ... gradually absorbs the entire Russian Plain, spreading both to its geographical borders, and almost everywhere to the limits of the Russian population. The composition of the Russian state gradually includes Russia Little, White and, finally, Novorossia, a new Russian region, formed by colonization in the southern Russian steppes. Spreading from the shores of the White and Baltic seas to the Black and Caspian, to the Ural and Caucasian ridges, the territory of the state passes far beyond the Caucasian ridge in the south, beyond the Urals and the Caspian in the east.

At the same time, an important change is taking place in the internal structure of the state: a new governmental class is emerging and marching hand in hand with the new dynasty. The old boyars are gradually disintegrating, losing weight, genealogically and economically... A new class, the nobility, is taking its place at the head of society...

In the midst of ... the continuous tension of the people's forces, the freedom of peasant labor also finally perishes: the possessing peasants fall into serfdom ... But, constrained politically, people's labor expands economically: its industrial development is now joining the former agricultural exploitation of the country; next to agriculture, which remains the main productive force of the state, is manufacturing, factory and factory industry, increasing the hitherto untouched natural wealth of the country, with increasing importance in the national economy.

Using the text of the document and knowledge of history, indicate what significance the changes named by the historian had for the subsequent development of Russia. What was the name of the code of laws adopted in this century, which reflected the changes noted in the text?

Explanation.

It may be stated that:

The changes named by the historian in all spheres of life in Russia paved the way for the reforms of Peter I

The "Cathedral Code" (1649) of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was adopted

C3 #2099 Read the extract from the historical source and briefly answer questions C1-C3. The answers assume the use of information from the source, as well as the application of historical knowledge in the course of the history of the corresponding period.

From the works of modern historians.

“... The domestic policy of Alexei Mikhailovich reflected the dual nature of his time. The quietest tsar wanted to observe the customs of old Muscovite Russia, but he, seeing the successes of the Western countries, sought to adopt their achievements and root them in Muscovy. Russia balanced between paternal antiquity and European innovations. Alexei Mikhailovich did not carry out reforms that would break "Moscow piety" in the name of Europeanization, as his wayward and determined son Peter the Great did later. Descendants and historians assessed the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich in different ways: some were indignant at the "weak Alexei", ​​others saw in him the true wisdom of the ruler.

“... With the departure of the second Romanov, a huge era ended. Muscovite Russia ended - Russia of the New Age began. And although between the Petrovsky reforms and the death of Alexei Mikhailovich there was still room for several years of the reign of Fedor and the regency of Princess Sophia, exactly this sequence lined up in the mass consciousness: Tsar Alexei - Emperor Peter I. Such a sequence is not chronologically accurate, but it is true in essence.

What, according to historians, was the main difference between the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and the reign of his son, Peter the Great? List at least three positions.

Explanation.

It may be stated that:

The policy of Peter I was consistent, decisive, while the policy of Alexei Mikhailovich was contradictory and ambivalent.

Peter I carried out Europeanization, broke "Moscow piety", and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich sought to preserve it

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich - the face of the era of Moscow Russia, Emperor Peter the Great - the face of Russia in modern times

C3 No. 2105. From an 18th century document.

“The same year of April, on the 27th day, the sovereign tsar and the Grand Duke<…>. At the same time, his brother, the sovereign’s lesser tsarevich and Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich, was elected to the Muscovite state as tsar ... past his greater brother, Tsarevich John Alekseevich ... And the cross to him, sovereign, was kissed by the boyars and okolniki, and duma, and stolniks, and solicitors ...

On the 15th day of the same year in May, there was confusion in the Muscovite state. Archers of all orders, and an elected regiment, and soldiers came to the city of the Kremlin at 11 o'clock with banners and drums, with muskets, with spears, with reeds, and on the run to the city they shouted, as if Ivan and Afanasy Kirillovich Naryshkin Tsarevich Ivan Alekseevich was strangled. And there were no initial people with them. And having run to the Kremlin, archers and soldiers ran to the Red and Bed porches in the royal mansions and forcibly from the top, from the sovereign's choir, from the sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich, boyars and okolnichi, and duma, and stewards were thrown from the porch to the ground , and on the ground they chopped with reeds and stabbed with spears ... "

Using the text of the document and knowledge of history, answer who was the victim of the rebellion? What major changes have occurred in the structures of the Supreme Power under the influence of the events that have taken place? Who really began to rule the country after the settlement of issues of power?

Explanation.

It may be indicated that

The victims of the rebellion were some of the Naryshkin family, representatives of the authorities associated with him and archery chiefs;

Half-brothers (by father) Peter and Ivan Alekseevich were proclaimed kings;

Princess Sofya Alekseevna began to rule the country as a regent

C3 No. 2108. From an 18th century document.

"…one. All immovable things, that is, ancestral, served and purchased estates and estates, as well as yards and shops, should not be sold or mortgaged, but they should be addressed to the genus in this way.

2. Whoever has sons and still wants to give him immovable property through a spiritual one, that will be in the inheritance. Other children of both sexes will be rewarded with movable estates, which their father or mother must share with them, both sons and daughters, how many of them will be, according to their will, except for one who will be in immovable heirs ... The same is clear and about daughters.

Which of the Russian monarchs canceled this decree? Using knowledge of history, indicate what laws adopted in the first quarter of the 18th century determined the duties of the nobility in the interests of the state?

Explanation.

1. It may be indicated that this decree was canceled by Empress Anna Ioannovna;

2. The following laws may be named:

A ban on the production of officers of nobles who did not serve in the guards regiments as privates;

The ban on marrying noble “undergrowths” who have not mastered the basics of mathematics;

The ban on the purchase of estates to those nobles who do not serve anywhere

C3 No. 2111. From a historical source.

“Because by the will of the Almighty God and the general desire of the Russian people, we, upon the death of the most illustrious sovereign Great Sovereign Peter the Second, Emperor and Autocrat of the All-Russian, our most beloved sovereign nephew, took the imperial All-Russian throne ... for this reason, through this most powerful promise, that the most important my care and diligence will not only be about the content, but also the extreme and all kinds of distribution, the Orthodox found the faith of the Greek confession, so, after accepting the Russian crown, do not enter into marriage and an heir throughout my life, neither with myself, nor about myself determine anyone . We also promise that since the integrity and well-being of any state consists of good advice, for this reason we will always maintain the already established Supreme Privy Council in eight persons even without this Supreme Privy Council of consent:

1) Do not initiate war with anyone.

2) Do not make peace.

3) Do not burden our faithful subjects with any new taxes.

4) In the noble ranks ... above the colonel's rank do not favor, below the noble deeds no one should be appointed, and the guards and other regiments should be under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Privy Council.

5) Do not take away the belly and property and honor from the nobility without a trial.

6) Do not favor estates and villages.

7) In the court ranks, both Russians and foreigners, without the advice of the Supreme Privy Council, do not produce.

And if I don’t fulfill this promise and don’t keep it, then I will be deprived of the Russian crown.

Using your knowledge of history, explain why the promises were not kept. Name at least three reasons.

Explanation.

The following reasons can be given:

The idea of ​​limiting autocracy was not supported by many nobles.

The nobility drew up their projects political structure, which contained demands for the preservation of the autocratic form of government and the liquidation of the Supreme Privy Council

Anna Ioannovna broke the "conditions" and declared herself an autocratic ruler

C3 No. 2114. From the work of the historian V.N. Balyazin

“This century has gone down in world history under the name of the “Century of Russia”. Two brilliant reigns symbolized this century: it began with the reign of Peter the Great, and ended with the activity of Catherine II, also called the Great. According to A.S. Pushkin, in this century Russia "entered Europe like a ship launched from the stocks - with the sound of an ax and the thunder of cannons."

At the beginning of the century, St. Petersburg was founded, and in the middle of it, Moscow University was founded. In this century, Russia has become a European power, firmly taking its place in the alliance of other states and loudly declaring itself as a great and powerful country. The century ended with the victorious Italian and Swiss campaigns of A.V. Suvorov, when "the Russian bayonet broke through the Alps." This century passed the baton of glory and deeds to the centuries to come.

Drawing on knowledge from the course of history and the text of the document, explain what was the continuity of the reigns of Peter I and Catherine II?

Explanation.

The following provisions may be mentioned:

Peter I achieved Russia's access to the Baltic Sea, Catherine II - to the Black Sea

Peter I created the Senate, Catherine II strengthened its position;

Under Peter I, Russia became a great European power; under Catherine II, its international prestige grew even more;

Peter I liquidated the patriarchate, Catherine II carried out the secularization of church lands;

All cardinal transformations carried out in the 18th century are associated with the name of Peter I and Catherine II

C3 No. 2119. From the "Manifesto" written by S. P. Trubetskoy.

“The Senate Manifesto declares:

Destruction of the former Board. The establishment of a temporary (board) until the establishment of a permanent one (chosen by representatives of the estates) ... Equality of all estates before the Law ...

The declaration of the right of every citizen to do what he wants, and therefore a nobleman, merchant, tradesman, peasant - all the same have the right to enter the military and civil service and the clergy, to trade wholesale and retail ... To acquire all kinds of property, like - then land, houses in villages and cities ... Addition (cancellation) of poll taxes and arrears on them ... Destruction of recruitment and military settlements.

The reduction of the term of military service for the lower ranks and the definition of it will follow the equation of military service between all estates.

Name the event in connection with which the Manifesto was written, indicating the date (day, month, year) and place of this event. Who, together with S.P. Trubetskoy, took part in this event? (Indicate at least 2 names of associates of S. P. Trubetskoy).

How did the event in connection with which S. P. Trubetskoy wrote the "Manifesto" end?

Explanation.

The following statements may be made:

The speech of the Decembrists was crushed

Five Decembrists were executed

Others were sent to Siberia or deprived of their officer ranks sent to active army serve as privates

C3 No. 2126. From an official document of the 19th century:

"one. The defense of the throne and the fatherland is the sacred duty of every Russian subject. The male population, without distinction of condition, is subject to military service.

2. Monetary redemption from military service and replacement by a hunter are not allowed ...

10. Admission to the service by conscription is decided by lot, which is taken out once for a lifetime. Persons who, according to the number of the lot drawn by them, are not subject to admission to the permanent troops, are enrolled in the militia.

17. The total term of service in the ground forces for those entering by lot is determined at 15 years, of which 6 years of active service and 9 years in the reserve ...

20. The periods of service indicated in ... the articles are established for peacetime itself; during the war, those who are in the ground forces and in the navy are obliged to remain in the service as long as the state needs require it.

Applying knowledge from the course of history, indicate the name of the war, the defeat of Russia in which contributed to the realization of the need for this reform. Name the dates of this war.

Explanation.

The war, the defeat of Russia in which contributed to the realization by Alexander II of the need for this reform, is the Crimean War

War dates - 1853-1856

C3 No. 2129. From the work of a historian.

“In a difficult and mournful time, the emperor ... entered the ancestral throne ...

The whole state awaited with trepidation how the sovereign would determine the general direction of his reign. And in response to this, on April 29, a firm word was heard from the height of the throne .... The highest manifesto spoke (about the role) of autocratic power, which (necessary) "to be approved and protected for the good of the people from any encroachments on it."

... Knowledgeable persons from among the Zemstvo (invited) to a meeting on lowering peasant redemption payments. The consequence of the work of this conference was the supreme command, extremely important for the peasants, to reduce the redemption payments everywhere.

The Sovereign ... passionately loved everything that was dear to him: Russian speech, song, clothes ...

The firm management of the emperor ... increased the well-being of the Russian people. ... The poll tax, which gave the state 60 million annually, was destroyed ...

Although Russia did not wage wars for this reign, her position among the European states was high, and everyone reckoned with her.

The sovereign clearly understood the importance of railways for strengthening the connection between native Russia and the distant outskirts ... By his order, the Trans-Caspian railway was built, connecting our Central Asian possessions, including Merv, with the coast of the Caspian Sea. Another extremely important railway route, conceived by the emperor and launched under him, the great Siberian railway, connected European Russia with the Far East ... "

What is the relation to internal and foreign policy the named emperor was expressed by the author? Give one position. Give at least three explanations by the author of this attitude.

Explanation.

An explanation of this relationship is given:

Carrying out activities aimed at solving the peasant problem (to improve the welfare of the people)

The emperor's love for the phenomena of Russian, folk culture

Railway construction

The desire of the emperor to abandon the military resolution of international contradictions

C3 No. 2132. From official decrees.

“In Bose, our late Parent Alexander II, freeing the former landlord peasants from serfdom and establishing mandatory, in the sense of a transitional measure, their land relations with the landowners, had in mind that these relations should eventually end through the peasants buying their allotments into property.

On the largest part of the landowners' estates, the peasants have already passed into the category of peasant proprietors, and there are now relatively few peasants who are temporarily liable. ... The nobility of some provinces in recent times itself petitioned for the transfer of all temporarily liable peasants for redemption in the form of a general government measure.

Considering, according to the testament and example of our unforgettable parent, that it is our sacred duty to take care of the well-being of our loyal subjects ... we command: ... the former landlord peasants who still remain in obligatory relations with the landowners ... transfer to ransom and classify them as peasant proprietors with January 1, 1883."

“Paying attention to the situation of the former landlord peasants ... and wanting to show them a sign of our royal concern for them, we command:

Reduce the redemption payments of the former landlord peasants.

Based on the content of the text, give the reasons that led to the decision of the emperor you named to approve these decrees. List at least three reasons given in the text.

Explanation.

The following reasons mentioned in the text that determined the decision of Alexander III to approve the above decrees can be indicated:

The provisions of the Peasant Reform of 1861 provided for the termination of the temporarily obligated state of the peasants and the transfer of the peasants to the mandatory redemption of land

Petitions of the nobles of some provinces for the transfer of temporarily obligated peasants for ransom

Concern for the welfare of the peasant class

C3 No. 2258. Read an extract from a historical source and briefly answer questions C1-C3. The answers assume the use of information from the source, as well as the application of historical knowledge in the course of the history of the corresponding period.

Read an excerpt from the petition.

... And even if they find out who their fugitive peasants live with, then even then they cannot get them extradited in the assigned years by the court, because they cannot get the court; and if someone starts to sue, then by the time it comes to

decisions, a lot of time passes, because the boyars and okolnichie rarely sit and do business in orders ... And (then) the school years pass, then they are refused in the case of extradition of those peasants even without any trial.

Yes, they (nobles and boyar children) are instructed to patriarchal and episcopal administrators and monasteries in offense to file lawsuits for three terms: on Trinity and on Semyonov’s day, and on the Nativity of Christ, and to them on

It is impossible to come to Moscow during those dates, because they are in the service at that time. But in the localities, in the cities, they are not allowed to file lawsuits against patriarchs and episcopal servants, but they take the peasants out of them and take their land by force and do all sorts of offenses to the peasants, but they leave the court, because claims must be filed only within the specified time. .

Explanation.

The answer must include:

C3 No. 2284. From memoirs.

“The governor, seeing my determination to go, said to me: “Think about what conditions you will have to sign.” “I will sign them without reading them.” - "I must order to search all your things, you are forbidden to have the slightest value." With these words, he left and sent me a whole gang of officials […] then they presented me with the notorious signature to sign, and they told me to keep a copy of it in order to remember it well. When they left, my man, who had read it, said to me with tears in his eyes: "Princess, what have you done, read what they require of you!" “I don’t care, let’s pack up and go.”

Here is this signature: “A wife, following her husband and continuing her marital relationship with him, naturally becomes involved in his fate and will lose her former title, that is, she will already be recognized only as the wife of a convict, and at the same time accepts to endure everything that such a state can be painful, because even the authorities will not be able to protect her from hourly possible insults from people of the most ... contemptuous class, who will seem to find in it some right to consider the wife of a state criminal, who bears an equal fate with him, like themselves; insults these can even be violent.

Inveterate villains are not afraid of punishment […] Children who take root in Siberia will go to state factory peasants […] It is not allowed to take money or valuable things with you; this is forbidden by the existing rules and is necessary for their own safety, because these places are inhabited by people who are ready for all kinds of crimes. Departure to the Nerchinsk Territory destroys the right to serfs who arrived with them.

What social and psychological factors supported the resolve of women like the memoir writer in their actions? List at least two factors.

Explanation.

The following factors may be indicated:

1) the idea of ​​the inviolability of marriage;

2) moral support of the enlightened nobility;

3) awareness of the threat to the lives of husbands, created by the difficult conditions of exile and the administrative arbitrariness of the authorities.

Other factors may be indicated

C3 No. 2287. Read the passage from the petition.

“In the past, in 1641, the nobles and boyar children from different cities throughout the land turned to the sovereign tsar and the Grand Duke of All Russia with a request.

Their old peasants run away from them to different cities, to large estates and to patrimonial estates, to patriarchal, and metropolitan, and archiepiscopal, and to various monasteries, and to the sovereign’s palace villages, and to black volosts, and settle with the boyars, and with the roundabouts. , and other metropolitan ranks of people on preferential terms. And those landlords and estates and monasteries are building (new) settlements for those runaway peasants in empty places, and their estates and estates are empty from that. And those fugitive peasants, having lived for those people for the fixed years and hoping for these "strong" people, coming to them (to their former places), and the remaining peasants, they persuade them to leave and even set fire to their houses and ruin them; yes (the new owners) from those fugitive peasants they take records of loans and borrowings in order to secure them more reliably.

... And even if they find out who their fugitive peasants live with, then even then they cannot get them extradited in the assigned years by the court, because they cannot get the court; and if someone begins to sue, then a lot of time passes before the matter comes to a decision, because the boyars and okolnichy rarely sit and do business in orders ... any court.

Yes, they (nobles and boyar children) are pointed out to patriarchal and episcopal administrators and monasteries in offense to file lawsuits for three terms: on Trinity and on Semyonov's day, and on the Nativity of Christ, and it is impossible for them to come to Moscow at that time because they are in service at the time. But in the localities, in the cities, they are not allowed to file lawsuits against patriarchs and episcopal servants, but they take the peasants out of them and take their land by force and do all sorts of offenses to the peasants, but they leave the court, because claims must be filed only within the specified time. .

Using the text, indicate where and why the fugitive peasants left. What was the consequence of the nobility's demands?

Explanation.

The answer must include:

1) the peasants left the estates of the provincial nobles in the possession of "strong people" (the Moscow nobility and church landowners);

2) large landowners provided fugitives with various benefits;

3) consequence: in 1649, an indefinite search for fugitive peasants was introduced (according to the "Cathedral Code").

Elements of the answer can be given in other formulations that are close in meaning.

C3 No. 2339. Based on the text and knowledge of history, indicate the outcome of the war for Russia. What were the reasons for this outcome of the war? Give at least three reasons.

Show text

Explanation.

1) result, for example:

Russia was defeated;

2) reasons. for example:

Military-technical backwardness of Russia;

During the war, there was a shortage of ammunition due to the remoteness of the theater of operations from developed industrial areas;

Poor supply of the army due to bad roads.

The totals can be formulated differently. Other reasons may be given.

C3 No. 2376. How is the prince described in the document? What is the result of his reign? Name 2 any reasons for this outcome of the board.

Show text

Explanation.

The correct answer must contain the following elements:

1. The assessment of the prince in the document is contradictory:

He was pious, built many churches, helped the poor, a valiant warrior;

He made ruinous campaigns in Russia (to Kyiv, Novgorod).

2. Reasons. for example:

A conspiracy against the prince, in which family members also participated ;;

The unpreparedness of society for the service-subordinate relations introduced by it;

The arbitrariness of princely power;

Indiscriminate attitude towards their servants;

Unwillingness to follow the customs of princely rule.

The results can be formulated differently. Other reasons may be given.

C3 No. 2416. Read the passage from the historical source and briefly answer questions C1-C3. The answers assume the use of information from the source, as well as the application of historical knowledge in the course of the history of the corresponding period.

From the memoirs of a contemporary

“Telling about the construction projects of those years, I want to testify that it is not for nothing that they say and write: during the years of the first five-year plan, our entire country turned into a huge construction site. ... Each collective, each party, Komsomol, trade union organization in its area of ​​work did everything possible to fulfill orders for shock construction projects on time. ...

The country was engulfed in the pathos of construction. The heroism of the builders during the years of the first five-year plan is striking. Thousands and thousands of people gave all their strength and life to the revolution, socialism...

It is now difficult to imagine the conditions under which these gigantic works began. After all, there was almost no mechanization. There were only jib cranes, concrete mixers and some others. simple devices. Earthworks on the layout of sites, digging pits for the foundations of the workshops were carried out by gangs of grabars. ... And all their "equipment" consisted of carts-grabarok, into which horses were harnessed, and an ordinary shovel. ...

its source was conciliar election; but she performed under coverthe political fiction of hereditary succession by kinship. In this waySo, the power of the new king was made up of two parallel ambiguities:by origin, it was hereditary-selective, by composition - limited autocratic.

C1. How, according to Klyuchevsky, has the composition of zemstvo sobors changed? Name at least two positions.

SZ. What is the reason for the changes in the role of Zemsky Sobors? Give at least three reasons.

No. 5. From a historical source.

“In the summer of 7156, July 20, on the 16th day, the sovereign tsar and the Grand Duke ...,autocrat of all Russia, ... consulted with his father and a pilgrim, holythe most blessed Joseph, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and with the metropolitans, ... and with the whole consecrated Council, and spoke with his sovereignsyars, and with deceitful, and thoughtful people, but are those articles worthyto state and zemstvo affairs. And those articles would be written out, and so thatformer great sovereigns, tsars and grand dukes of Russia, and his fatherSovereign, of blessed memory of the great sovereign, tsar and well-known prince Mikhail Fedorovich of all Russia, to collect decrees and boyar sentences for all state and zemstvo affairs, and to correct those sovereign decrees and boyar sentences with old judicial files ... So that Moskovof the state of all ranks of people, from the highest to the lowest rank,court and reprisal was equal in all matters to everyone ... And the sovereign pointed out thatwrite everything in the Code on a list and fix that list ... and all sorts of de la to do according to that Code.

With Polish, Lithuanian, German and other neighboring stateswith the powers of the sovereign, the tsar and the grand duke ... of all Russia, eternal peace ... And ...the war will begin, or at what time the sovereign will deign to whom his stateto the gift of the enemy to take revenge on unfriendliness, and will indicate to send their sovereigns to themvyh boyars and governor, and with them all sorts of ranks of military people, and for that serviceorders the sovereign to his sovereign military people of the entire Moscow citystates to give their sovereign salary, and for that the sovereign salarymilitary people to collect money from all over the Moscow state, and requisition put depending on the service.

Yes, and the boyars and governors without the sovereign’s decree of military people from the sovereign’s service should not be dismissed, and they won’t have promises and commemorations ... And there will be someone against the boyars and the governor ... he will start to beat the sovereign with his forehead falsely, having started in vain, but it is being found out about it directly , and those for the boyars and for the voivodship dishonor and for their false petition to inflict the same cruel punishment that the sovereign indicates ... "

C1. Specify the name and year of adoption of the document. What autocrat is he talking about?

C2. Using your knowledge of history, list at least three results that were reinforced by the publication of this document.

SZ. Using the text of the document and knowledge of history, name at least three goals that were set when compiling this document. Whose interests did he represent?

№ 6. From the book "Description of the Journey to Muscovy" by the secretary

Holstein embassy of Adam Olearius.

“From an early age they [Russians] inspire their children to talk about his royal majesty as God and revere him just as highly; therefore they often say: “God and the Grand Duke know about it” ... To show their deep humility and their sense of duty, they say that everything they own belongs not so much to them as to God and the Grand Duke ...

The king takes care of his size and monitors the rights of majesty, as other monarchs and sovereigns do. Namely: he is not subject to laws and can, according to his thoughts and at will, issue and establish laws and orders ...

The Grand Duke not only appoints and removes the authorities, but even drives them out and executes them whenever he wants ...

In all provinces and cities, he appoints his governors, governors and administrators, who, together with clerks, clerks or scribes, must carry out judgment and reprisal ...

Only the Grand Duke has the right to declare war on foreign nations and wage it at his own discretion...

The Grand Duke also distributes titles and ranks, making those who have merit before him and before the country, or who are generally considered worthy of his grace, into princes ...

The king produces his own coinage in the country ... "

C1. What century does this description of the nature of government belong to?

in Russia? Determine the nature of the political system of Russia on based on the evidence provided.

C2. Using the text of the document, name at least three powers king.

SZ. On what moral foundations, in the opinion of the author,

parenting? Give at least three statements.

No. 7. From the course of lectures.

“... The Russian church schism is the separation of a significant part of the Russian Orthodox community from the dominant Orthodox Church. This division began in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich as a result of the church innovations of Patriarch Nikon and continues to this day. The schismatics consider themselves the same Orthodox Christians as we consider ourselves... If the Old Believers do not disagree with us in dogmas, in the foundations of the dogma, then, one wonders, why did the church division occur, why did a significant part of the Russian church society find itself outside the fence of the Russian ruling churches..."

C1. When did the church split occur? Who initiated the reforms?

C2. Who was the main opponent of reforming the church? How did the king treat church reforms?

SZ. What did not suit the opponents in reforming the church? List at least three positions.

No. 8. From a historical document.

“The same year, April, on the 27th day, the sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Fyodor Alekseevich of all Great and Small and White Russia, autocrat, reposed. At the same time, they elected his brother Tsar Menshov Tsarevich and Grand Duke Pyotr Alekseevich as Tsar of the Moscow State ... past his greater brother Tsarevich John Alekseevich ... solicitors...

On the 15th day of the same year in May, there was confusion in the Muscovite state. The archers of all orders, and the elected regiment, and the soldiers came to the city of the Kremlin at 11 o'clock with banners and drums, with muskets, with spears, with a reed, and on the run to the city they shouted that Ivan and Afanasy Kirillovich Naryshkin had strangled the prince John Alekseevich. And there were no initial people with them. And running to the Kremlin, archers and soldiers

they ran to the Red and Bed porch in the royal mansions and forcibly from above, from the sovereign's choir, from the sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich himself, boyars and roundabouts, and duma, and stolniks were thrown from the porch to the ground, and on the ground they chopped with reeds and stabbed spears..."

C1. In what year did the events described in the text take place? Which

the city was the setting?

C2. Who was in the performance? What was the main reason unrest? Who was the victim of the performance? List at least three positions.

SZ. Representatives of what boyar family organized this performance? Who began to officially reign as a result of the opi sleigh events? Who became the actual ruler? List at least three positions.

No. 9.C7. In Russian science, there is a judgment that the reason for the election of Mikhail Romanov to the Russian throne was that the boyars, who played the main role at the Zemsky Sobor in 1613, believed that “Mikhail is young, he has not yet reached his mind and will be convenient for us.”

What other judgment about the reasons for the election of Mikhail Romanov to the Russian throne do you know? Which one do you think is more convincing? List at least three facts. Propositions of judgments. Which can serve as arguments for your chosen point of view.

On the reasons for choosing Mikhail Romanov to the Russian throne:

Arguments:

- for the nobility–

- for the Cossacks

- for the peasantry, townspeople

No. 10.С6.Name the main phenomena and processes of the socio-economic development of Russia in the 17th century.

New phenomena in the economy:

Social development:

No. 11.С5.Compare two forms of land ownership - patrimony and estate. Indicate what was common (at least two common features), and what was different (at least three differences)

General:

Differences:

No. 12.С6.In the middle of the 17th century, under the leadership of Patriarch Nikon, reforms were carried out in the Russian Orthodox Church.

What proposals for reforms, different from the position of Patriarch Nikon, were made at that time? Name two sentences. What were the consequences of Nikon's church reforms? List at least three consequences.

Offers other than Nikon's positions:

Effects:

No. 13.С5.Compare the positions of Patriarch Nikon and Archpriest Avvakum on the issue of the goals and content of church reforms, Ser. 17th century. What was common in them, and what was different.

General characteristics:

Differences:

No. 14.С4.Name at least three reforms of the Russian Orthodox Church in the middle of the 17th century and at least three consequences of the transformations carried out by Patriarch Nikon.

Three goals of the ROC reforms:

Two consequences of the transformations:

No. 15.С4. Name at least four features of the state and political development of Russia in the second half of the XVII century, indicating the transition to an absolute monarchy. Give at least three provisions of the "Council Code" of 1649.

No. 16.С4.Name at least three changes in the position of the peasantry and townspeople after the adoption of the Council Code. Give at least three provisions that characterize the significance of this document.

Changes in the position of the peasantry and townspeople after the adoption of the Council Code:

Provisions characterizing the significance of the Cathedral Code:

Topic number 6. Russia in18th century

Workshop No. 1. Russia under Peter

No. 1 .. From the notes.

“He was brilliant, active and striving for perfection, but he was completely uneducated, and his violent passions prevailed over his mind. He was quick-tempered, rude, tyrannical, and treated everyone like slaves who were obliged to endure everything... If he had not put foreigners so high above the Russians, he would not have destroyed the priceless, original character of our ancestors... He undermined the foundations of the Code of his father and replaced them with despotic laws; some of them he himself canceled. He almost completely destroyed the freedom and privileges of nobles and serfs; from the latter, he took away the right to complain to the court about the harassment of the landowners. He introduced military administration, the most despotic of all, and, wanting to earn the glory of the creator, hastened the construction of St. Petersburg by very despotic means ... ".

C1. What ruler are you talking about? What years was he in power? sti?

C2. What personality traits of the ruler are noted in the text of the document? List at least two positive and at least two negative qualities.

SZ. What was characteristic of his policy towards the nobility? What did the author mean when he spoke about the destruction of the priceless, original character of the ancestors? Give at least three statements.

No. 2. From work.

“The Russian land was suddenly subjected to terrible external and internal rape. With the hand of the executioner, the image of the Russian was removed from the Russian person and the semblance of a common European was pulled on ... Everything that only bore the stamp of the nationality was betrayed to ridicule, desecration, persecution; clothes, custom, mores, language itself - everything was distorted, mutilated, mutilated ... "

From the work of SM. Solovyov.

“In the second half of the 17th century, the Russian people clearly set off on a new path; after a centuries-old movement to the East, he began to turn to the West ... The rapprochement itself was a matter of people, and [he] was the leader in this matter ... He expressed his genius in the fact that he clearly realized his position and his duty: to bring out through civilization weak, poor, almost unknown to the world Russia from the alienation and ignorance in which it has been until now ... "

Number 3. From historical work.

“A man who combined the incompatible: the desire for enlightenment and despotism, who built and executed with his own hands, sowed horror and adoration among his compatriots, the one who, in the name of the “common good”, loving and serving the Fatherland, “raised Russia on its hind legs” .. .".

C1. Which ruler is mentioned in the sources? What is the essence of the position

C2. Based on the text of the document, expand the relationship SM. SoLovyov to the reforms and personal qualities of the ruler, about whom is talking. List at least two positions. SZ. Explain why the personality and reforming activities of this ruler were assessed differently by contemporariesand historians. Give at least three statements.

No. 4. From a historical source.

"".one. All immovable things, that is, ancestral, served and purchased estates and estates, as well as yards and shops, should not be sold or mortgaged, but they should be addressed to the genus in this way.

2. Whoever has sons and still wants to give him immovable property, through the spiritual one, to him it will be an inheritance. The other children of both ages will be rewarded with movable estates, which their father or mother must share with them, both sons and daughters, as many as they will, according to their will, except for one, who will be the heir to the immovable ... Then and of course the daughters.

C1. What is the name of the document from which the extract is given? When

and by whom was it adopted? /

C2. Give at least three statements that reveal the essence of the document cop.

SZ. Which of the Russian monarchs repealed this law? What laws,taken at the same time, closely adjoined to the indicated document? Name at least two laws.

No. 5.С5.Below are two points of view on the transformations of the era of Peter I :

1. Transformations of the era of Peter I were prepared by all the previous development of Russia in 17th century

2. All Russian innovations in XVIII in. associated only with the name of Peter I. In XVII in. there were no preconditions necessary for carrying out such large-scale reforms.

Please indicate which of these points of view you prefer. Give at least three facts, statements, which can serve as arguments confirming the chosen you point of view.

No. 6.С5.Compare the system of government in Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and after the reforms carried out by Peter 1. What was common in them and what was different.

As general characteristics, the management systems in Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and after the reforms carried out by Peter 1 can be called:

Differences:

No. 7.С4.Expand the main results of the transformational activities of Peter 1.

The results of the foreign policy activities of Peter 1.:

Results domestic policy in economics:

In the political system:

In social relationships:

In the field of culture and life:

Conclusion:

WORKSHOP №2. Epoch palace coups. The Enlightened Absolutism of Catherine II.

No. 1. Sat. Review the historical situation and answer the questions.

After Peter's death I the chancellor, the Senate and senior dignitaries discussed who to transfer the throne to: the grandson of Peter I or his wife Catherine.

Why was there a situation of choosing an heir? Give at least two reasons. In whose favor and how was this issue resolved? Give at least two statements.

№ 2. From a historical source,

“... By the will of the almighty God and by the general desire of the Russian people, we ... promise that the integrity and well-being of any state from good advice consists, for this reason, we have already established the Supreme Privy Council in eight persons, always maintain and without it Supreme Privy Council of Consent:

1) Do not initiate war with anyone.

2) Do not make peace.

3) Do not burden our faithful subjects with any new taxes.

4) In the noble ranks ... above the colonel's rank do not favor, below the noble deeds no one should be appointed, and the guards and other regiments should be under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Privy Council.

5) Do not take away the belly and property and honor from the gentry without a trial.

6) Do not favor estates and villages.

7) In the court ranks, both Russians and foreigners, without the advice of the Supreme Privy Council, do not produce.

8) State revenues in the expense is not to use and to keep all his faithful subjects in his irrevocable mercy.

And if I don’t fulfill this promise and don’t keep it, then I will be deprived of the Russian crown.

C1. What century does this document belong to? Who was he originally initially signed? Specify its name.

C2. Using the text of the document and knowledge of history, explain howwhose initiative it was prepared and for what purposes. Uka Live at least two goals.

SZ. Using knowledge from the history course, explain why the data are bothpromises were not implemented. Name at least three reasons.

No. 3. From the work of a historian.

“... It remains for us to answer the question that worried both contemporaries and descendants: why did the intention of the “supreme leaders” to limit the autocracy fail, why did the torn conditions culminate in the victory of the autocracy? There are several reasons, but the main one lies in the lack of consolidation among the ruling class - it came a few decades later.

By chance, the Supreme Privy Council was staffed mainly by people from the aristocracy, and representatives of two families: Dolgoruky and Golitsyn. The conditions drawn up by them reflected the interests primarily of these two families. Read through the conditions and their preamble, which consisted of 12 points, and you will find only two, in the implementation of which wide circles of the nobility were interested: the obligation of the empress to take care of strengthening and expanding Orthodoxy and depriving the empress of the opportunity to dispose of the lives and estates of the nobles without trial. The remaining ten points were aimed at satisfying the interests of two aristocratic families and did not mean

change in the political system in the country, and the limitation of power specifically th monarch in favor of specific surnames.

C1. With what period Russian history Are the facts described in the document related? Who drew up the conditions and who was asked to sign them?

SZ. Using the text of the document and knowledge of the course of history, answer what was the main goal of the conditions and why it could not be realized. List at least three reasons.

No. 4. From the report of the first Spanish ambassador to Russia, de Lirne.

“... The officers of the guard and others, who were in large numbers, and in the presence of the queen, began to shout that they did not want anyone to prescribe laws to their sovereign, who should be the samesovereign, like its predecessors. The noise has reached the point where the queenwas forced to threaten them; but they all fell at her feet and said: “We are loyal subjects of your majesty, we faithfully served your predecessors and will sacrifice our lives in the service of your majesty, but we cannot tolerate tyranny over you. Command us, your majesty,and we will cast the heads of tyrants at your feet.” Then the queen of the ordershe ordered them to obey Lieutenant-General and Lieutenant-Colonel of the Guards Saltykov, who at their head proclaimed the tsarina an autocratic empress. The called nobility did the same. So universal voiceproclaimed the queen as autocratic as her predecessors were. This was a terrible blow for the Supreme Council, which wanted to govern according to its own fantasy, which is why it tried not to let anyone near the queen, neither to speak to her, nor to make any kind of suggestion.

C1. What year did the events described take place? About what queen

and what historical event is it being talked about?

C2. What was the essence of the conflict? What was the main outcome of the described event?

SZ. Why did the guards and the service nobility not support the drafted document and opposed its signing by the empress? Name at least three reasons.

No. 5. From the work of a historian.

“This century has gone down in world history under the name of the “Century of Russia”. Two brilliant reigns symbolize this age: it began with the reign of Peter I , Great, and ended with the activities of Catherine II also called the Great. According to the words, in this century "Russia enteredto Europe, like a ship launched from the stocks - with the sound of an ax and thunder guns."

At the beginning of the century, St. Petersburg was founded, and in the middle of it, Moscow University was founded. In this century, Russia has become a Europeanzhavay, firmly taking a place in the alliance of other states and loudly declaring to himself as a great and powerful country.

The century ended with a victorious Italian and Swiss campaignmi, when "the Russian bayonet broke through the Alps." This century passed the baton of glory and deeds to the centuries to come.

C1. What century is the document talking about? What did the historian mean when he said that in this century Russia became a European power?

C2. What can you say about the results of Russia's development in this century based on the text of the document and knowledge of the course of history? Name at least three outcomes of development.

SZ. Drawing on knowledge from the history course and the text of the document, explain what the succession of the reigns of Peter 1 and s CatherineII. Name at least three examples of succession of kings.

No. 6. From the work of a historian.

“What is the place of Catherine II in Russian history? Primarily,it was a time of internal political stability that replacedsuccession of governments, and with them the political course, a string of endlesstroll temporary workers and the lack of a clear program in power. It was a time of active lawmaking and serious reforms that had long-term significance. Moreover, it was Catherine who was, perhaps, the mostsuccessful of all Russian reformers, because she, without any seserious social, political and economic upheavals, it was possible to almost completely implement the planned program of significantformations. True, she did not manage to do much, and she had to give up a lot for various objective and subjective reasons ...

Catherine's reforms were creative, a not destructive. Whatever the consequences of certain specific measures of Catherine in the field of economy, none of them was a ruinnym for the population. Throughout her reign, the Russian state became richer, and the life of its subjects became more prosperous.

C1. What chronological period is referred to in the document? What were the circumstances of Catherine's accession ( I?

C2. What is the historian's assessment of the reform activities of Catherine the Great? Name at least two arguments confirms his assessment.

SZ. Using the text of the document and knowledge of history, indicate whatwere the main merits of Catherine II . Name at least three events of Catherine II in line with the policy of "enlightened ab solutism>.

No. 7. From the writings of a modern historian.

“The fate of Catherine proved that the human will, desire canbecome no less real and powerful factor in history than dozens of multi-gun ships and thousands of soldiers. Empress Catherine created-take glory for itself, which has become a powerful weapon for her, like that warship, which was called "Glory to Catherine" ...

The French diplomat Corberon wrote in his report that glory,created for herself by the empress, her decisive character, her waygood fortune and good fortune take the place of skilful statesmen and experienced generals.

The Empress entered the history of Russia as an outstanding statesman, and the era of her reign became a time of grandiose reforms and the publication of the most important legislative acts...

Before her were the real goals of strengthening the autocracy, carrying out the necessary military, administrative and estate reforms. She is an osuperformed them in a single vein, with one general idea - to the maximumcontribute to the development and improvement of that "regular" statea gift, the foundations of which were laid by Peter the Great.

Legislative acts of Catherine survived her for a long time and, together withThe basic laws of Peter the Great became the basis of Russian statehood for many decades. Actually, about this conclusion of the historianand dreamed, probably, the ambitious queen-legislator.

C1. What chronological period in the history of Russia are we talking about? in a document? Specify its scope. Under what name did you enter history of this period?

C2. Using the text of the document and knowledge of history, note how what reforms were carried out by Catherine II . Name at least four reforms.

SZ. How does the author evaluate the era of Catherine II ? What qualities of her personalityhelped, according to contemporaries and historians, thesew such a grandiose transformation and create glory for yourself? Give at least four statements.

No. 8. From Pugachev's manifesto of 01.01.01.

“We welcome with this nominal decree ... everyone who was previously in the cregentry, in the allegiance of the landlords, to be loyal subjects of our own crown as slaves, and we reward with liberty and freedom and always as Cossacks, without requiring recruitment kits, soul taxes and other monetary taxes ..., we command this ... by decree: who were previously nobles in their pomeestates and fiefdoms - these opponents of our power and rebels of the empirerii and destroyers of the peasants, trying in every possible way to catch, execute and hang and act in the same way as they, not having the slightest Christianity in themselves, repaired with you, the peasants. After the extermination of which opponents, the villains of the nobles, anyone can feel the silence and calm life..."

C1. In what chronological period did the performance take place under led by E. Pugachev? Who was the ruler in this Rhode?

C2. Whose interests and what aspirations did Pugachev's manifesto embody? How

the document proposed to decide the fate of the nobility?

SZ. What public and state structure offered to install in Pugachev? List at least three positions.

No. 9. From the law on the order of succession to the throne(April 5, 1797).

“We, Pavel, are the heir, the Tsarevich and the Grand Duke, and we, his wife, Maria, the Grand Duchess ... in mature reasoning and with a calm spiritdecreed this Act of ours, which, out of love for the fatherland, is electedI am heir, by natural right, after the death of my son Paul

our larger one, Alexander, and according to him, his entire male generation. Bysuppression of this male generation, the inheritance passes into the generation of the second my son...

“The same year, April, on the 27th day, the sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Fedor Alekseevich of all Great and Small and White Russia, the autocrat, reposed. At the same time, his brother Tsarevich Menshov and Grand Duke Pyotr Alekseevich were elected tsar to the Muscovite state ... past his greater brother, Tsarevich Ioann Alekseevich. And the sovereign's cross was kissed by the boyars and the courtiers, and the duma, and the stewards, and the solicitors, etc.

On the 15th day of the same year in May, there was confusion in the Muscovite state. Archers of all orders, and an elected regiment, and soldiers came to the city of the Kremlin at 11 o'clock with banners and drums, with muskets, with spears, with reeds, and on the run to the city shouted that Ivan and Afonasy Kirillovich Naryshkin had strangled the prince John Alekseevich. And there were no initial people with them. And having run to the Kremlin, the archers and soldiers ran to the Red and Bed porches in the royal mansions and forcibly from the top, from the sovereign's mansions, from the sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich, the boyars and okolnichi, and duma, and stolniks were thrown from the porch to the ground , and on the ground they chopped with reeds and stabbed with spears ... "

C1. In what year did the events described in the text take place? What city was the setting?

C2. Who was in the performance? What was the reason for the unrest? Who was the victim of the performance?

SZ. Representatives of what boyar family organized this performance? Who began to officially reign as a result of the events described? Who became the actual ruler?

C4. What are the tasks set before the authorities government controlled Catherine II, implementing a policy of enlightened absolutism? List at least two tasks. Give at least three examples of the actions of the empress aimed at solving these problems.

C5. Below are two points of view on the significance of the reforms of Peter I.

1. Peter's reforms meant Russia's entry into a new period in its history. Modernization has affected almost all aspects of the life of Russian society, expanded the country's ties with Europe, and reduced its lagging behind the advanced countries.

2. Reforms had more negative consequences than positive ones. They gave little to the bulk of the country's population.

Indicate which of the above points of view seems to be more preferable to you. Give at least three facts, provisions that can serve as arguments confirming your chosen point of view.

Sat. Review the historical situation and answer the questions.

During the reign of Catherine II, the largest popular uprising in the history of Russia broke out under the leadership of E. I. Pugachev. It was long and covered a vast territory. List at least two reasons for the uprising. The struggle of the rebels against the government troops was extremely fierce. Name at least three facts related to the uprising.

C7. Compare the position of the Russian Orthodox Church at the end of the 17th century. and at the end of the XVIII century.