Famous Russian court orators. Great Russian orators and rhetoricians Russian orators of the 19th century

Among the first outstanding representatives of ancient rhetoric are Gorgias (c. 480 - 380 BC), Lysias (435 - 380 BC), Demosthenes (c. 384 - 322 BC).

The greatest contribution to the theory of eloquence was made by the Greek philosophers Plato (427 - 347 BC) and Aristotle (384 - 322 BC).

Plato expressed the thoughts of his teacher Socrates in the famous dialogues "Gorgias", "Sophist", "Phaedrus", the central character of which is Socrates.

Plato defines sophistry as imaginary wisdom and contrasts the rhetoric of the sophists with genuine eloquence based on knowledge of the truth. The purpose of speech is the knowledge of truth, i.e. definition of the essence of the subject, for which it is first necessary to clearly define the subject of speech.

The dialogue "Phaedrus" refers to the construction of speech. According to Plato, in the first place should be introduction, on the second - exposition, on the third - proof of, on the fourth - plausible conclusions. Possible more confirmation and additional confirmation, refutation and additional refutation, side explanation and indirect praise.

Aristotle. Plato's student Aristotle wrote "Rhetoric", a work of three books.

In the first The book deals with the subject of rhetoric, which is defined as "the ability to find possible ways of persuading about any given subject ...".

• Aristotle identifies three types of such methods:
  • "some of them depend on the character of the speaker";
  • "others - from this or that mood of the listener";
  • "third - from the speech itself."

In the second Aristotle's book "Rhetoric" speaks of "reasons that arouse confidence in the speaker." It is "reason, virtue and goodwill." Aristotle advises the speaker to remember the age, origin and social status of the listeners, teaches persuasion techniques and devotes a lot of space to logical proofs.

Third the book "Rhetorics" is devoted to speech itself. Much attention is paid to the style, which is made dependent on the subject of presentation.

Cicero. The pinnacle of oratory in ancient Rome is the activity of Mark Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 BC) - the largest orator, writer and politician.

• Of the rhetorical writings of Cicero, three books are of great importance first of all:
  • "On the Orator", in which the author shows the ideal, comprehensively educated orator-philosopher;
  • "Brutus, or About Famous Orators" - a book containing the history of eloquence;
  • "Orator" - an essay in which the question of the best style is developed and Cicero's own ideal is theoretically substantiated.

Cicero believes that true eloquence is far from being a simple art, which is based primarily on a deep knowledge of the subject. In antiquity, philosophers and rhetoricians debated whether or not rhetoric was a science. Philosophers have argued that rhetoric is not a science. Rhetors thought otherwise. Cicero offered his own solution: rhetoric is not a true (speculative) science, but is a practically useful systematization of oratory experience.

Cicero adheres to the classical scheme of articulation of the rhetorical process. The rhetorical process is the whole path from a thought to a sound public word.

• Its classical scheme consists of five parts:
  1. find something to say;
  2. put the found in order;
  3. give it a verbal form;
  4. affirm all this in memory;
  5. pronounce.

Quintilian. Another representative of ancient Roman eloquence is the famous orator Mark Fabius Quintilian (35 - 96 AD) - the author of an extensive work in twelve books "Rhetorical Instructions". This work takes into account the experience of classical rhetoric and the author's own experience as a teacher of rhetoric and judicial orator. Quintilian talks about the upbringing of the future speaker, classes at the rhetorical school, talks about the study of grammar, philosophy, art, law, analyzes exemplary speakers, writers, poets, talks about the system of exercises, gives recommendations for reading works of art and brilliant speeches.

Rhetoric and Orators in Medieval Europe. In the Middle Ages, such orators as John Chrysostom (d. 407 AD) and Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274) became famous.

John Chrysostom was considered the ideal Byzantine preacher. Thomas Aquinas laid the foundations for the theory of church eloquence.

A significant contribution to the development of rhetoric was made by European writers and thinkers of modern times: B. Pascal, M. Montaigne, J. La Bruyère, F. Bacon, G. Lichtenberg.

The French writer of the 17th century J. La Bruyère wrote that "eloquence is a gift that allows us to master the mind and heart of the interlocutor, the ability to instill or inspire him with whatever we want."

Rhetoric and orators in Russia. The founders of rhetoric in Russia were M.V. Lomonosov, I.S. Rizhsky, A.F. Merzlyakov, M.M. Speransky.

The rector of Kharkov University, professor of eloquence and the Russian language, Ivan Stepanovich Rizhsky, was the author of the "Experience in Rhetoric", published in 1795, 1805 and 1822. Rizhsky sees the orator's task in influencing the mind and feelings of listeners with the power of the word, which, in his opinion, lies in expressiveness and pictoriality. Rizhsky singled out the genres of long speeches, identified cases of violation of the purity of speech.

"Short Rhetoric, or Rules Relating to All Kinds of Prose Works" by the Russian poet and translator Alexei Fedorovich Merzlyakov was intended for pupils of the Moscow University boarding school and was very popular in the first third of the 19th century. Merzlyakov names the following goals of the speaker: learning, persuasion and the art of touching the listener. Merzlyakov believes that eloquence must necessarily have a noble goal - the spread of knowledge, the discovery of new truths.

A. S. Nikolsky's book "Brief Logic and Rhetoric for Students in Russian Theological Schools" (1790) is devoted to the issue of genre-situational forms of speech, the characteristics of prose, oratorical and poetic speech.

Alexander Ivanovich Galich, one of the teachers of A.S. Pushkin, taught Russian and Latin literature at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum. In 1830, his book The Theory of Eloquence for All Kinds of Prose Writings was published. According to Galich, "the theory of eloquence, rhetoric, teaches you to systematically process essays in writing and offer them orally so that they are both from the side of matter and from the side of form, i.e. both in content and in finishing, like the reader or listener, producing in his soul is convinced, touched and determined by a good choice and placement of thoughts, as well as a decent expression of thoughts with the help of words.

• Galich identifies four main points on which the science of eloquence is based:
  • "a happy invention of thoughts appropriate to the subject";
  • "a prudent disposition of thoughts and the ability to influence listeners so that they can easily perceive the idea as a whole and in parts";
  • "exposition or expression of thoughts in words";
  • "proclamation of oratorical speech".

Another teacher at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, Nikolai Fedorovich Koshansky, is the author of "Private Rhetoric" (1832) and "General Rhetoric" (1854). This spelling of the word rhetoric was used as a variant in the 19th century, it corresponds to the spelling of this word in Greek. General rhetoric contains the main, initial rules of all prose writings, private rhetoric, based on the general one, considers each prose work, its advantages and disadvantages.

A great contribution to the development of rhetoric in Russia was made posthumously published in 1844 by M. M. Speransky's book "The Rules of Higher Eloquence". Speransky was a famous statesman of the era of Alexander 1. In this work, the issues of the structure of public speaking, argumentation, composition, and expressiveness of speech are considered in detail.

Among the outstanding representatives of rhetoric as a practical art were such prominent court speakers as N.P. Karabchevsky, F.N. Plevako, P.A. Aleksandrov, S.A. .Powder workers. Porohovshchikov (pseudonym P. Sergeich) wrote an original work on the history of Russian judicial eloquence "The Art of Speech in Court", A.F. Koni - the book "Advice to Lecturers".

Prominent representatives of academic eloquence are famous Russian scientists: historians T.N. Granovsky and V.O. Klyuchevsky, chemist D.I. Mendeleev, biologist K.A. Timiryazev.

At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, new works appeared devoted to certain problems of rhetoric: "Essays on the history of eloquence by A.G. Timofeev (1899), "Principles of eloquence and preaching" by I.P. Triodin (1915).

The latest works on rhetoric, continuing the traditions of the 19th century, were associated with the activities of the Institute of the Living Word. In the "Notes of the Institute of the Living Word" (1919) were published "The program of lectures on the theory of eloquence (rhetoric)" by N.A. Engelgardt and the work of A.F. Koni "The living word and methods of handling it in various fields." In the 20s of the 20th century, rhetoric was excluded from school and university education.

In the 2nd half of the 20th century. there is a revival of interest in rhetoric. The works of S.S. Averintsev, Yu.M. Lotman, V.P. Vompersky, Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky appeared. "Neo-rhetoric" is developing in the USA and Europe. In the 90s of the 20th century in Russia there was a revival of rhetoric as a scientific direction and academic discipline, rhetoric became the subject of monographs and articles, the subject of study in universities and schools.

The eloquence of Ancient Russia, which adopted the high traditions of the oratory of antiquity, Byzantium and the South Slavic countries, was born in the 11th century.

In the historical aspect, the development of domestic rhetoric passed through certain stages:

1) oratory of Ancient Russia;

2) the doctrine of eloquence in the works of M. Lomonosov and his followers;

3) the rhetorical school of Russian academicians, and then the university school of eloquence, which developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries;

4) rhetorical works of 30-40 years. XIX century (works by A.I. Galich, A. Merzlyakov, K. Zelenetsky);

5) Russian judicial eloquence in the 60s of the XIX century. (works by A.F. Koni, P.S. Porokhoviky, V.D. Spasovich);

6) new forms of oratory in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, which developed in connection with the activities of the State Duma, legislative bodies, etc.

1) Russia became acquainted with the art of oratory already at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th centuries, following the best examples of Byzantine and South Slavic culture. After the adoption of Christianity in the history of ancient Russian culture, the period of mastering the spiritual wealth of Christian countries begins. An important role in this was played by the genres of oratorical prose. It is important to emphasize that in the history of ancient Russian oratory there is no period of apprenticeship and already the works of the first Russian rhetors - Illarion, Theodosius Pechersky, Kirill Turovsky (XI-XII centuries), as researchers emphasize, amaze with the perfection of form, depth and originality of ideas, novelty of poetic finds. It is characteristic that in Russia the practice of oral public speaking was not widespread. The eloquence of Kievan Rus is a fact of literature, belongs to literature.

2) The golden age of Russian literature and the heyday of ancient Russian eloquence was the 12th century. Its pinnacle is the "Words" of Kirill Turovsky.

3) At the monasteries, which are centers of culture and literacy, in the XIV - ХУвв. rhetoric begins. European rhetoric written in Latin is used as textbooks.

4) The earliest domestic rhetoric that has come down to us dates back to the beginning of the 17th century, its author is Metropolitan Macarius.

5) The first original textbook in Russian belongs to M.V. Lomonosov. It is called A Brief Guide to Eloquence (1748). Here is how Lomonosov defines rhetoric: "Rhetoric is the science of any complicated mother to speak and write eloquently." Lomonosov's rhetoric consists of three parts: "On the Image", "On the Decoration", "On the Location". The main theoretical provisions in the book by M.V. Lomonosov are accompanied by quotations from the works of famous writers of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, the Middle Ages. Renaissance and new time, given in the author's translation. For eloquence, according to M.V. Lomonosov needs, first of all, spiritual (sharp mind and memory) and bodily (loud voice, "long breath", pleasant appearance and posture) talents. However, natural qualities alone are not enough to become a speaker. One of the most important requirements is knowledge of the laws of constructing public speech, as well as the ability to argue. All later Russian rhetoricians relied on the works of M.V. Lomonosov.

6) Generalized for its time at the turn of the XVIII - XIX centuries. became the "Experience of Rhetoric" by I.S. Rizhsky, who taught rhetoric in 1786-1796. in the St. Petersburg Mining Corps. The issues of purity and correctness of Russian speech are at the center of attention of I.S. Riga. “Speak and write correctly, i.e. pure Russian language is the duty of every well-bred Russian,” he wrote. Many of the general considerations of I.S. Riga and now have not lost their relevance. The purity of speech, according to Riga, can be violated if unmotivated foreign words are used instead of Russian, phrases that violate the rules of the Russian language, foreign expressions peculiar only to a foreign language, common people, regional (dialect) words, as well as neologisms that do not meet the laws of the Russian language.

7) Among other theoretical works, one should mention “Short Rhetoric” by A.F. Merzlyakova, textbooks on rhetoric N.F. Koshansky, A.I. Galich.

8) In Russia, the peak of the development of rhetoric occurred in the first half of the 19th century. The art of secular public speech in Russia is associated with the development of university eloquence, which originated in the 18th century. It was in the university audience that the living word had the opportunity to develop and improve freely. The founder is the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Dashkova E.R., who obtained permission to open public courses "in Russian" in the main branches of science for everyone. Every day for four months, prominent experts gave public lectures on the main branches of science: mathematics, chemistry, mineralogy, and physics. This innovation was supposed to contribute to the spread of education. 9) The heyday of academic eloquence in Russia falls on the 19th century. and is associated with the awakening of the socio-political life of the country. The most popular is the university lecture, which gradually turns into a public, public lecture. From the second half of the XIX century. lectures are already given by scientists specifically for a wide audience, i.e. there is a popular science lecture. Crowded audiences were gathered for their lectures by remarkable scientists and historians, professors of Moscow University Granovsky T.N. and Klyuchevsky V.O. In the second half of the XIX century. - early XX century. physicist I.M. Sechenov, chemist D.I. Mendeleev, biologist I.I. Mechnikov, anatomist P.F. Lesgaft, botanist K.A. Timiryazev, geochemist V.I. Vernadsky, mineralogist A.E. Fersman, biologist N.I. Vavilov, physicist L.D. Landau and others.

M.Vlomonosov, naming three types of eloquence known in the ancient world (epideictic, deliberative, judicial), emphasized that judicial eloquence is absent in Russia. So it was until the reform of 1864, which laid down new principles of legal proceedings. The hearing of cases became open, the prosecutor, lawyer, jurors (non-professional judges) were introduced into the process of legal proceedings. The court became a place of public hearings, a field of verbal battles between officials of the prosecutor's office and defenders. The debate of the parties in open trials obliged the prosecutor, the lawyer, and the representative of the court to speak convincingly, intelligibly, and vividly. Thanks to these changes, in the second half of the 19th century, Russian judicial eloquence came to the fore and reached a high level of development, both in the practical sphere and in the development of the theory of oratory. A galaxy of brilliant judicial orators N.P. Karabchevsky, F.N. Plevako, S.A. Andreevsky. The original work on the history of Russian judicial eloquence "The Art of Speech in Court" was written by P.S. Porokhovshchikov (pseudonym - P. Sergeich).

The State Duma (1906-1917) became the school of political eloquence in Russia, where the foundations of parliamentary speech were born. During the years of the revolution and the civil war, propaganda and rally speeches became widespread. Famous orators of the revolution were V.I. Lenin, N.I. Bukharin, L.D. Trotsky, A.M. Kollontai, A.V. Lunacharsky, S.M. Kirov. An interesting phenomenon in the history of Russian rhetorical thought was the opening in Petrograd of the Institute of the Living Word (1918 - 1924). The origins of which were outstanding public and political figures: V.E. Meyerhold, N.A. Engelgard, A.F. Koni, L.V. Shcherba. The development of the theory of eloquence, the theory of dispute was started. However, by the beginning of the 1930s, the institute ceased to exist. The development of the theory of rhetoric was interrupted for several decades, and rhetoric as an academic discipline was excluded from school and university education. Only since the late 1970s (and especially in the late 1980s and early 1990s) did domestic linguistics reawaken interest in rhetoric, which was largely supported by the achievements of neo-rhetoric in Europe and the United States.

Patriotic tradition(according to the book: L.K. Graudina, G.I. Miskevich. “Theory and practice of Russian eloquence”).

The rules for using the word existed in Ancient Russia. Rhetorical knowledge spread along with the writings of Christian writers. Words were respected. Idle talk and idle talk is a sin. The first works appeared in monasteries. The first Russian rhetoric - Macarius, Metropolitan of Novgorod and Velikolutsky, refers to 17th century. Then the rhetorical traditions were continued in the Kiev-Mohyla and Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academies. In Kiev-Mohyla F. Prokopovich at the beginning of the 18th century, he read a course of lectures in Latin on the history of poetry and in Latin created a textbook on homiletics (creating sermons) "DeartepoeticaDearterhetorica". There was an instruction at the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy: to teach eloquence in Russian and Latin: on Mon, Wed, Fri, read Cicero’s speeches and “make imitations”, and on Tue, Thurs and Sat – Lomonosov’s speeches. " To greater success keep students in rhetorical exercises more often.

The role of M.V. Lomonosov. The Academy of Sciences rejected Lomonosov's first "Short Rhetoric" for the reason that it was written in Russian (1743). In 1747, Elizabeth approved Russian, along with Latin, as the official language of the Academy of Sciences. And in 1748 the following, “lengthy rhetoric” (“A short guide to eloquence”) was published. Another 10 years later, the book “On the Usefulness of Church Books” was published, where the theory of 3 calms was outlined. The main and new thing was that Lomonosov was guided by the structure of the Russian language and the language situation of his time.

Important milestones:

Turn of the 18th-19th centuries "The experience of rhetoric" acad. N.I. Riga. Rizhsky presciently formulates the "criteria of normativity": “The general opinion and consent of enlightened citizens should decide the lot of any speech” (usus + authority of the source). In 1802, the same idea was voiced at a meeting of the Academy of Sciences: "The general use gives the rule, and not the rule gives the general use."

1st floor The 19th century is the era of the formation of the norms of the national language and the development of functional styles. The laws of eloquence apply to conversations, letters, scientific writings and business papers. In rhetoric, theories of proportionality and conformity (content - expression) are developed. Content priority is asserted. The authors encourage simplicity and naturalness of the style. Proceedings: "General rhetoric" N.F. Koshansky (Professor of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum from 1811 to 1928); "General" and "private" rhetoric of K.P. Zelenetsky. Completely in the spirit of today, Zelenetsky writes: "Verbal expression depends on who, about what, when, for what purpose and for what circle he writes."

In the 19th century, academic eloquence also emerged as an independent direction. Many bright figures (N.T. Granovsky, V.O. Klyuchevsky, D.I. Mendeleev). In the second floor. In the 19th century judicial eloquence develops powerfully.

But in general, by the middle of the 19th century, the decline of rhetoric is observed. As a theory, it has exhausted itself; as a practical activity, it has not found application. The authority of Belinsky had an effect (he responded negatively to the rhetoric of N.F. Koshansky). VV Vinogradov about this period: "rhetoric drags out a miserable, anonymous existence."

The issue of CR, mainly its normative aspect, was touched upon in the works of linguists. OH. Vostokov puts living colloquial language as the basis for the study of grammar (“Abbreviated Grammar for Lower Educational Institutions”, 1831). The same is said by F.I. Buslaev "On the teaching of the national language" (1844). In the second half of the 19th century, the monumental works of Ya.K. Grot according to the rules of spelling ("Russian spelling", St. Petersburg, 1885).

But linguists also move away from the problems of CR at the end of the 19th century. Philologists of this time share the point of view of Acad. A.A. Shakhmatova: not to impose norms, but to describe the facts. Against the background of ignoring the normalizing activity, a striking and major phenomenon was the publication in 1909 of Chernyshev's work “Correctness and purity of Russian speech. The experience of Russian stylistic grammar” (then there were reprints, the author made adjustments). The strengths of the work are historicism, the lack of categorical evaluation.

Then the fate of developments in the field of rhetoric, stylistics, and CR was largely decided by a social explosion. 1917

In the 20s. the term "rhetoric" was replaced by a new concept - CR. The reasons are both social and scientific. On the social: rhetoric was perceived as a cultural category of the old world and bourgeois science. What was taught in the gymnasiums, indeed, was far from the needs of the illiterate population. In the 20s. the main task was the education of an elementary culture of speech. And this required scientific development of literary and linguistic norms. Thus, the scientific prerequisite for changing the term for the name of the discipline of good speech is a change in the subject. In dictionaries, rhetoric began to be defined as speech that is outwardly beautiful, but has little content. The term KR, on the contrary, corresponded to the task of teaching the people to speak. IN AND. Annushkin: "The subject of the Kyrgyz Republic is purely Russian, which arose and developed on domestic soil in the Soviet era."

Until the end of the 50s. CR developed as a doctrine of the language norm. During this time, science has been enriched with valuable research. In order to propagate norms, it was necessary to study the flow of live speech. Expeditions... Dictionaries. From 1918 to 1962 9000 dictionaries were published.

60-70 years: a stylistic norm is being developed.

80s the doctrine of the communicative qualities of speech

90s: three-level structure of the CD.

By this point, CR is developing in close interaction with stylistics and rhetoric.

Oratory and the art of speech, rhetoric exercises, video lessons in this discipline - all this, at first glance, may seem to you something unnecessary or even outdated.

It seems that parents and school taught to express their thoughts in childhood, there are no problems in communication with other people - that's great.

But speech is a very deep and interesting thing, which, in skillful lips, can work wonders.

Not just miracles, but very large-scale phenomena. For example, to change the world, to create, as well as to destroy.

You don't have to look far for examples: the great orators of the 20th century, including Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill, proved that the spoken word has tremendous power.

Life Reactor will tell you what the secret of oratory is and how it can serve you in all areas of life.

Origin of oratory

Most modern historians agree that the birthplace of the art of eloquence is Ancient Greece.

Although the ancient Romans also claimed their rights as discoverers and, to tell the truth, they had quite good reasons for this.

The spirit of cultural rivalry, which has always reigned between ancient Greece and ancient Rome, is especially aggravated on this issue.

The Hellenes succeeded a little more, because it was from their people that Demosthenes came out - the most skillful and famous speaker, whose skill was greatly revered by his contemporaries.

His speech was stunningly simple and beautiful.

Demosthenes voiced some thesis that was understandable to all his listeners, and then led the crowd along the winding paths of elegant and accurate metaphors, not forgetting to use logical conclusions.

Each speech of the famous Greek orator gathered thousands of onlookers who greedily caught every word, admiringwith an eloquence never seen before.

It is worth noting that the ancient era gave the world a whole galaxy of outstanding masters of eloquence.

Among them, the most notable are:

1. Pericles (490-429 BC)
2. Socrates (469-399 BC)
3. Plato (427-347 BC)
4. Mark Tullius Cicero ( 106–43 AD BC.)

The attitude of the ancient Greeks and Romans towards people who were fluent in the art of speech was so high that magical, and sometimes even divine, origins were attributed to their abilities.

Not everyone could master the most complex oratorical science. This required a lot of patience and a special attunement of consciousness.

It is not surprising that the training of the necessary skills took so much time that only those who had this time in abundance could do them.

As well as those who were ready to rely on oratory and give up other activities for a long time.

It is noteworthy that in the pagan pantheon of the ancient Greeks there was a place for the whole goddess of eloquence - Peyto, whose name in literal translation means" belief " .

It was the ability to convey one's thought to the listeners, to put a certain intention into their hearts and minds, that was considered the height of skill.

And if the speaker accompanied his speech with skillful artistic turns and logic, then an epithet was often attached to his name"divine" - so great was the veneration of the adepts of oratory.

It is noteworthy that in ancient Rome, a person’s intellectual baggage and even his character traits were evaluated by rhetorical abilities. These things were inextricably linked.

So the expression that literate and structured speech is the first sign of a person's general culture has ancient roots.

Centuries have absolutely not deprived it of its relevance, as anyone can see just by going out into the street.

Great orators of our time

Despite the fact that it is the ancient era that is considered the most generous for speakers, the 20th century also gave the world outstanding masters of this art.

Most of them were involved in politics and were leaders of their countries in a terrible time for humanity of bloody revolutions and world wars.

The great orators of the 20th and early 21st centuries are:

1. Anatoly Koni
2. Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin
3. Joseph Stalin
4. Leon Trotsky
5. Adolf Gitler
6. Joseph Goebbels
7. Winston Churchill
8. Sergey Shipunov
9. Vladimir Putin
10. Vladimir Zhirinovsky
11. James Humes

Life Reactor will briefly talk about the greatest masters from the list above, as they absolutely deserve not only your attention, but also the highest praise as outstanding speakers.

Anatoly Fedorovich Koni - the only person on the list who had nothing to do with politics.

An outstanding lawyer of the 20th century, Anatoly Koni gained fame as an unsurpassed master of persuasion with a word.

His speeches in court were not monotonous, but were lively, dynamic and full of meaning. This alone set him apart from the boring lawyers and public prosecutors of that time.

Anatoly Koni brilliantly wielded facts, not forgetting about.

He always knew how to find a middle ground: in his speeches there was no place for both excessive dryness, and eccentric cries and overly poetic speech turns.

The skill of the brilliant Russian lawyer was based on a personal conviction: judicial orators had to bring the truth, and for this it is necessary to be able to open human hearts.

Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin - this is not only the main ideologist, but also the voice of the Russian revolution, especially in its first years.

He earned people's love thanks to the simplicity and intelligibility of speech, as well as the ability to captivate with ideas.

Contemporaries of the main Russian revolutionary noted that he had a very strong energy.

Another important distinguishing feature of Lenin's oratorical skill was that he often entered into a dialogue with the audience.

Communication took place on a two-way basis, and this can leave few people indifferent.

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin adopted many rhetorical devices from his predecessor and mentor.

But unlike Lenin, who preferred to be extremely brief,

Stalin was not indifferent to long and complex lexical constructions, which, however, did not negate his success with the audience.

Experts in the field of oratory call Joseph Vissarionovich one of the brightest figures of the 20th century.

Trotsky was a very educated person, thanks to which he easily discussed any topic, delivering speeches without the slightest hesitation.

Ideological opponents feared him, and the people heeded every word.

Adolf Gitler is one of the most important orators of the 20th century. His speeches were distinguished by excessive emotional coloring, hypnotizing energy and liveliness.

The leader of the German people knew how to keep a crowd of thousands in suspense from the beginning to the end of the speech.

To do this, he used long pauses, speeding up speech, shouting, and so on.

The rhythm that he set to his speeches did not allow you to get bored for a second. In addition, Adolf Hitler actively used gestures - another important technique of oratory.

Winston Churchill - an example of a careful and thoughtful approach to public speaking.

Each text of the speech was polished to a dazzling brilliance. All ideas were thought out in advance, brought to perfection, inspired the speaker, and only then - the audience.

It is noteworthy that even taking into account the long preliminary preparation, Churchill held on very well, joked a lot and used metaphors, which attracted the attention of listeners.

How can I master the art of speaking and why do I need it?

Today, rhetoric is as necessary for a business person as it was centuries ago.

Despite a significant change in the methods of communication, among which the almighty Internet has taken the dominant position, nothing can replace live speech.

Only with direct contact between the speaker and the audience can a real relationship occur, the magic of persuasion can be created.

The speaker does not have to speak only in front of a large crowd.

You can use the art of rhetoric at work, during meetings with friends, as an auxiliary tool to achieve goals, or make it your hobby.

Possession of eloquence will definitely come in handy, so do not neglect the opportunities that the global network gives.

Today, there are three main ways to study rhetoric:

1. Online courses
2. Specialized literature
3. Master classes

The first option is the most affordable. The Internet offers courses for every taste and among them you can easily find lectures and video tutorials on public speaking.

A nice bonus is that they are mostly free and at the same time quite high quality. youfind everything you need.

Specialized literature also became available.Look to the work of Dale Carnegie or James Humes.

How to compose a good speech and prove your thesis, you will certainly learn thanks to their work.

Master classes in rhetoric are quite rare, so if you have the opportunity to attend a speech by a specialist in this field, do not miss it!

Watching the master speak with explanations is the best experience for a novice speaker, which is no less important than the theoretical background.

Russian judicial speakers in famous criminal trials of the 19th century Potapchuk I.V.

PORTRAITS AND BIOGRAPHIES

PORTRAITS AND BIOGRAPHIES

ANDREEVSKY SERGEY ARKADIEVICH 1847-1919

Born December 29, 1847 in Yekaterinoslav. In 1865 he graduated from the local gymnasium with a gold medal and entered the law faculty of Kharkov University. After graduating from the university in 1869, he was accepted as a candidate for a position at the prosecutor of the Kharkov Court of Justice, then as an investigator in the city of Karachev, a fellow prosecutor of the Kazan District Court.

In 1873, with the direct participation of A.F. Koni, with whom he was close in joint work, S.A. Andreevsky was transferred to the assistant prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court, where he established himself as a first-class judicial orator.

In 1878, a case was being prepared for hearing on the charge of V. Zasulich of attempted murder of the St. Petersburg mayor Trepov. In the bowels of the Ministry of Justice, issues related to the consideration of this case were carefully worked out. Much attention was paid to the composition of the court and the role of the prosecutor in the process. The choice fell on two prosecutors - S. A. Andreevsky and V. I. Zhukovsky - but they refused to participate in this process.

Self-reliant in his judgments, bold in his views, Andreevsky set the condition for giving him the right in his speech to give a public assessment of Trepov's act and his personality. The Ministry of Justice did not agree to Andreevsky's demand. After consideration of the case, V. Zasulich Andreevsky was fired.

In connection with Andreevsky's departure from the prosecutor's office, A.F. Koni wrote to him on June 16, 1878: “Dear Sergey Arkadyevich, do not lose heart, my dear friend, and do not lose heart. I am firmly convinced that your position will soon be determined and will be brilliant. It will give you freedom and security, it will give you no consciousness of offensive subordination to any insignificant personalities. I am even glad for you that fate pushes you on the road of a free profession in time. Why didn’t she do this to me 10 years ago?”

Soon A.F. Koni found him a position as a legal adviser in one of the St. Petersburg banks. In the same 1878, Andreevsky joined the bar.

Already the first trial, in which Andreevsky spoke (a speech in defense of Zaitsev, accused of the murder), created a reputation for him as a strong criminal lawyer. The speech in the case of Sarah Becker in defense of Mironovich brought him a reputation as one of the brilliant orators in criminal cases and wide popularity outside of Russia. His methods of defense were different than, say, Alexandrov's.

At the heart of Andreevsky's speeches, you almost never find a thorough analysis of the evidence, a sharp polemic with the prosecutor; rarely did he subject the materials of the preliminary and judicial investigation to a deep and detailed analysis; he always put forward the personality of the defendant, the conditions of his life, the internal "springs" of the crime as the basis of the speech. “Do not build your decision on the evidence of his act,” he said in one case, defending the defendant, “but look into his soul and into what inevitably caused the defendant to his course of action.”

Andreevsky skillfully used beautiful comparisons. To implement the defense, he often used sharp comparisons both to refute the arguments of the prosecution and to substantiate his conclusions. In his speeches, he almost did not touch on major socio-political problems. In the fight against evidence, he was always on top, sometimes allowing "defense for the sake of protection." He widely preached in his speeches the ideas of humanity and philanthropy. Andreevsky always gave a psychological analysis of the defendant's actions in a deep, lively, vivid and convincing manner. Without exaggeration, he can be called a master of psychological defense.

Carrying out defense in complex cases built on circumstantial evidence, he chose only the most convenient points for defense, however, he always gave them a thorough analysis. As a court orator, S. A. Andreevsky was original, independent, his oratorical work is colored by a bright personality.

The main feature of him as a court speaker is the wide introduction of literary and artistic techniques in his defense speech. Considering advocacy as an art, he called the defender "a talking writer."

His contemporaries said that Andreevsky's style is simple, clear, although somewhat pompous. Andreevsky was a very strong speaker, with a rich vocabulary and extensive experience in judicial work. His speeches are harmonious, smooth, full of vivid memorable images, but his passion for psychological analysis often prevented him from giving a deep study of the evidence, which in a number of cases greatly weakened his speech.

S. A. Andreevsky was also engaged in literary activities. He wrote many poems and poems on lyrical themes. Since the beginning of the eighties, he has been published in the Bulletin of Europe, in the book Literary Reading (1881) his literary, prose and journalistic works have been published - a number of critical articles about Baratynsky, Nekrasov, Turgenev; Dostoevsky and Garshin.

ARSENIEV KONSTANTIN KONSTANTINOVICH 1837-1919

One of the most prominent organizers of the Russian legal profession. Born on January 24, 1837 in the family of the famous academician K. I. Arseniev. In 1849 he entered the Imperial School of Law and in 1855, after graduating from college, he was appointed to serve in the Department of the Ministry of Justice. KK Arsenyev was not a professional lawyer, although he devoted about ten years of his life to working in the legal profession. The range of his social activities is very wide - he proved himself both as a publicist, and as a critic, a major theorist in the field of law, and as a public figure. K. K. Arsenyev was one of the editors of the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, for a number of years he was the chairman of the Literary Fund. Having published several works on the work of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, A. N. Pleshcheev, V. G. Korolenko, A. P. Chekhov, and others, he was elected an honorary academician in the category of fine literature.

In 1858-1863. he is the editor of the Journal of the Department of Justice. Since 1864, he leaves the service and devotes himself to literary activity: he collaborates in Otechestvennye Zapiski and St. Petersburg Vedomosti, and in the same year he goes abroad to the University of Bonn to supplement his education. Upon his return from abroad, Arseniev entered the sworn attorneys of the St. Petersburg Court of Justice, where he was soon elected chairman of the Council. He held this post for about eight years. It is to this period of his life that his activity in the field of a lawyer belongs, for the most part. Later (since 1874) he again served in the Ministry of Justice, was a comrade of the chief prosecutor of the civil cassation department of the ruling Senate, and then (from about 1880) he finally left the service and devoted himself entirely to literary work. Only in 1884 did he again become a barrister for a short time with the sole purpose of taking on defense in the St. Petersburg Judicial Chamber of Interests in St. Petersburg in the well-known case of the Water Pipes Society's refusal to install water purification filters.

Arseniev's contemporaries highly valued his activities in the legal profession, especially during his tenure as chairman of the Council, noting his disinterestedness, striving for the organizational strengthening of the legal profession and the introduction of moral principles into legal practice. “Elected as chairman of the St. Petersburg Council of Attorneys at Law in 1867,” L. D. Lyakhovetsky wrote about him, “he managed it all the time he was in the corporation as a head with great tact and dignity. Sensitive to issues of professional ethics, full of deep respect for the practice of law, in which he saw one of the forms of public service in a slippery field littered with the temptation of quick and easy money, K.K. activities of the Council to develop a likeable type of lawyer. He was one of the most active and energetic organizers of the bar in his life.

In his theoretical works devoted to the Russian legal profession, K. K. Arseniev also tirelessly preached those lofty ideals that he sought to translate into the organizational principles of a lawyer corporation through his practical activities. In this regard, his book "Notes on the Russian Advocacy", in which he highlighted the issue of moral principles in the practice of law, is especially noteworthy. He also wrote a number of works on foreign advocacy (“On the current state of the French advocacy”, “French advocacy, its strengths and weaknesses”, “Transformation of the German advocacy”, etc.). It is characteristic, however, that he subordinates these works to his main idea - the need to introduce high moral principles, moral and ethical principles into the practice of law.

The talent and originality of K. K. Arseniev as a practicing lawyer were manifested in his defense speeches in a number of major trials. He was not characterized by spectacular tirades, beautiful phrases and fiery eloquence. His speech was distinguished by avarice of colors and artistic images. He tried to convince the court with stingy but clear judgments, precise characteristics and arguments based on an analysis of even the smallest facts and circumstances. He, in his figurative expression, tried to "reduce the matter from the height to which his predecessor raises." K. K. Arseniev, speaking in the trials, put his conviction above all else, nothing could influence him. This gave his speeches a high temperament, great power. The style of his speeches, as well as his printed works, is smooth, businesslike, calm, devoid of nervous outbursts and harshness. As Arseniev's contemporaries note, he spoke smoothly, but quickly. The speed of his speech did not allow him to take shorthand of his speeches, as a result of which many of his published speeches differ to some extent, often to a large extent, from those delivered before the court. However, this does not detract from their merits.

The speeches in the Myasnikovs' case and in the Rybakova case quite clearly characterize him as a court orator. A deep and consistent analysis of evidence, a careful and comprehensive analysis of the accuser's arguments with a relatively simple structure of speeches, and the absence of excessive polemical enthusiasm are characteristic of both of his speeches. From the point of view of their susceptibility, compared with the speeches of a number of other speakers (Andreevsky, Plevako, Karabchevsky), they seem somewhat boring, but this in no way affects their value and richness as judicial speeches.

BOBRISCHEV-PUSHKIN ALEXANDER MIKHAILOVICH 1851-1903

Judicial figure, writer, was brought up at the Imperial School of Law. He held the positions of Chairman of the St. Petersburg District Court and Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Criminal Cassation Department of the Senate, one of the steadfast servants of the Judicial Charters, faithful to their spirit and precepts of the first years of the Judicial Reform. Not limited to practical activities, he devoted a lot of work to a thoughtful study of the conditions and results of the judicial work of representatives of public conscience. His "Electrical Laws of the Activity of the Russian Trial by Jury" with an atlas of tables and diagrams are rich and varied conclusions from observations on the heterogeneous manifestations of this trial. In his Senate activity, he passionately devoted himself to the desire for the proper conduct of cases of schism and sectarianism. Realizing that neither the caring word of the shepherd, nor the reasonable instructions of the teacher come to the wide and proper extent to help the people wandering in the semi-darkness and oppressed by harsh nature, age-old superstitions and the replacement of the spirit of writing with a dead letter, he found that from the wild views of fanaticism to pure rationalistic views, there are a number of shades and individual teachings, it would be unlawful to judge which on one scale. Recognizing, therefore, that the judge, who in all the diverse cases relating to the manifestation of sectarianism and schism, mechanically applies punishment, not taking into account the meaning and moral side of the doctrine pursued by the defendant, acts with automatic callousness, Bobrischev-Pushkin, in an effort to eliminate such cases and protect freedom conscience interpreted and explained the criminal law, meeting opposition, misunderstanding and discontent. His book "The Court and the Sectarian Dissenters" is a wonderful guide for a judicial figure, containing rich factual and historical material, united by the requirements of true justice and legitimate compassion.

In his practical activities, mainly as chairman of the St. Petersburg District Court, he remained invariably faithful to the great principles of the Judicial Charters. The favorite methods of investigation at the end of the nineties, involving the accused at the very end of the process in order to avoid his active self-defense, and with the artificial conversion of police and secret documents into investigative acts read in court, met in him a hot and painful rebuff for him in their official consequences. . In this regard, he experienced many anxious moments of lonely struggle.

Bobrischev-Pushkin was a lover of history, literature and a minister of poetry. In his own poems, published in the World Herald after his death, one can feel the fatigue that oppresses his soul from business anxieties and worldly disappointments. But in life he did not give up and was an energetic worker. His writing activity caused the election of his chairman of the literary and artistic circle named after the poet Polonsky, to which he brought great mental animation with his worries, reports and brilliant objections, full of heterogeneous information. He died in the full bloom of mental strength and mighty health from the consequences of an operation in one of the resorts in the vicinity of Dresden.

GERARD VLADIMIR NIKOLAEVICH 1839-1903

One of the most famous Russian lawyers. After graduating in 1859 from a course of science at the Imperial School of Law and having served for several years in the Senate and in the Kingdom of Poland (in the legal commission that prepared the introduction of the Judicial Charters there), he was appointed in 1866 a member of the newly opened St. Petersburg District Court. In 1868 he entered the sworn attorney district of the St. Petersburg Court of Justice; in 1868 he was elected a member of the Board of Attorneys at Law, was a deputy chairman of the Board.

Belonging both by origin and by place of upbringing (as a lawyer) to a privileged minority of judicial figures and having a secure, brilliant career ahead of him thanks to good connections, Gerard voluntarily and solely out of moral attraction chose and preferred the tempting, but difficult career of a lawyer. This career can sometimes give fame, less often wealth, but is by no means capable of quenching the thirst for external differences, lust for power and ambition. This democratic field, which is wide open only for competition of talent and knowledge, as is known, completely equalizes its leaders without distinction of origin and social status. Each lawyer wins his own place in the estate, and no efforts of high patrons and "gossips" will induce clients to entrust cases "by patronage."

It needed a really deep inner attraction to this difficult, but so attractive for people of an independent nature, free profession, in order to prefer it to another, more calm, secure and brilliant, from the point of view of ambition, crown service. A considerable moral temper was needed in order to safely bypass the pitfalls with which the lawyer's field abounds and against which unstable lawyers, even gifted with great talent, are so easily and often smashed.

V. D. Spasovich noted in the activities of Gerard his secularity, gallantry, gentlemanship, good manners, gentleness, complacency as outstanding features. These features are far from being as unimportant as it might seem at first glance. A lively, warm, even ardent, passionate attitude to the case is not only possible, but also necessary for a lawyer who, more or less conscientiously and by vocation, fulfills his professional duties. Here, as elsewhere, a sense of proportion and tact is necessary, otherwise doing business turns into a fight of angry roosters or a squabble of animals.

Gerard was primarily a propagandist of the "civilized", "chivalrous" methods of the Judicial Reform. For the successful fulfillment of this mission, nature itself gave him all the data and means: external grace, attractive appearance, soft baritone, innate delicacy, developed by education, refined, purely French politeness and courtesy, which, not only in a tournament, but on the very field of a real battle, is inferior to first shot to the enemy.

Only those who are closely acquainted with the intimate side of the legal profession know the extraordinary difficulties that it presents for a lawyer who regards his activity as a serious public service. Not without reason Quintilian, along with the technical element, with the ability to speak, with the gift of words, put an ethical element, moral decency, lawyer cleanliness. Without this moral element, the lawyer profession turns into one of the most unsympathetic, antisocial, dirty crafts, close to mental and moral prostitution, because what can be lower, more disgusting and insulting to human dignity, how to wholesale and retail your word, thought, everything his moral being, having no other goal and motivation than either the glory of an invincible sophist, or, even worse, a rough material calculation. The existence of such a lawyer type, unfortunately, is a fact beyond doubt. But, fortunately, he was not the one who set the tone for the Russian bar.

Its best representatives immediately understood and appreciated the important civic significance of the legal cohort in Russia as the only almost journalistic department for spreading the principles of law, equality, humanity and honesty in society.

And for the successful implementation of such a noble program, it is necessary: ​​a) a careful choice of the case and arguments on the case, from the point of view of moral and legal; b) fearless, selfless service to the cause "to the last drop of blood", according to the well-known sworn form, once such a careful choice has been made. In these two paragraphs, "the whole law and the prophets" of lawyer behavior, the alpha and omega of the lawyer's moral code.

“The secret of my success,” Gerard once said, “is very simple. I have always been strict about the choice of cases, taking only cases that I have to win, or at least also, for which I would not blush if I lost. Another habit of mine is a strict choice of arguments given in a case, even one with which I would not sympathize, but which I was obliged to conduct as directed by the court. This is the only example I have followed and can recommend to my young colleagues.”

Gerard played an outstanding role in the corporate life of the St. Petersburg advocacy, serving her not only as models of his personal professional activity, but also as a member of the class representation. Throughout his life, Gerard was a prominent and energetic class figure, continuously participating, as a member or fellow chairman of the Council, in the development of those professional rules of conduct that constitute the precious capital not only of St. Petersburg, but of the entire Russian sworn advocacy in general.

Being well aware of all the serious significance for the future of the legal profession of the correct and reasonable organization of a school for young lawyers, Vladimir Nikolayevich himself devoted a lot of time and love to studying with his personal assistants and strongly advocated the need to organize estate institutions, without which it is impossible to educate assistants of sworn attorneys in the spirit of traditions sworn advocacy.

GROMNITSKY MIKHAIL FYODOROVYCH

One of the first prosecutors of the Moscow District Court was, without a doubt, not only one of the most prominent Russian prosecutors, but also the first representative of those methods of prosecution that guided the Russian prosecutor's office in the early years of the Judicial Reform, favorably differing in its arguments in court and from the French made pathos, and from the German clerical character of speech. Gromnitsky's speeches are an excellent example for study and imitation, despite the fact that his appearance on the prosecutor's platform was not preceded by any practical school that facilitates acquaintance with the techniques and methods of judging.

A simple provincial attorney from the provinces, he immediately and without any systematic training took a prominent place as a judicial orator. The combination of the power of words with simplicity, the absence of any unnecessary introductions and any pathos, a calm conviction in its firmness, and the most detailed study and knowledge of all the circumstances and features of the crime under consideration made from his speech that irresistible "steel spear of the law" about which King Lear speaks. . In almost all large and complex cases of that time, Gromnitsky acted as a prosecutor, being not only a worthy, but also a dangerous opponent of talented defenders, who were distinguished in abundance from their midst by the then Moscow bar. Sometimes even the most casual atmosphere of the court session attached special significance to his speech. In his article about Gromnitsky, A.F. Koni wrote: “I remember the high-profile case of the student Danilov, who killed a usurer and his maid in an environment similar to Dostoevsky’s description of Raskolnikov’s crime, and subsequently akin to the murder committed by Landsberg in St. Petersburg, and it should be noted that that Dostoevsky wrote his novel before Danilov's crime (January 12, 1866), but published the first part of it later, in Russkiy vestnik, published at the very end of January 1866. to begin his speech in the courtroom, which was beginning to be shrouded in early twilight, very close by, in the Miracle Monastery, they struck for Vespers, and the sounds of the bell poured into the hall with such force that the prosecutor could begin his speech only when the last blow of the bell sounded. Calmness, impartiality and attractive simplicity of Gromnitsky's methods had an undoubted influence on the jury. This was reflected in the famous trial of the Matovs, who were accused of setting up a skillfully organized gang in the vicinity of Moscow to forge credit notes. There were more than twenty defendants and the same number of defenders, so that the meeting had to be opened in the famous rotunda of the Moscow Senate building. It lasted for many days, and when Gromnitsky got up to object to his opponents, the foreman of the jury also got up and, on their behalf, declared to the chairman that the assessors asked the prosecutor not to trouble themselves with an objection, since they had learned enough of his accusatory speech. Appointed for inscrutable bureaucratic reasons, which imputed his talent as a judicial fighter, as a member of the civil department of the Judicial Chamber, Gromnitsky went to the bar of the Judicial Chamber and occasionally began to act as a prosecutor in the district court in complex and difficult cases. ..

ZHUKOVSKY VLADIMIR IVANOVICH 1836-1899

He graduated from the law faculty of St. Petersburg University with the title of Candidate of Laws in 1861. In 1862 he entered the position of a judicial investigator in the Orenburg province. Subsequently, he worked in various judicial positions. In 1870 he was appointed assistant prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court.

Zhukovsky's contemporaries considered him one of the most talented accusers. It was in the role of the accuser that his gift as a judicial orator was most fully manifested. N.P. Karabchevsky wrote about Zhukovsky on the day of his death: “Thin, small in stature, with a weak, somewhat hoarse voice, with sharp profile lines suggestive of the profile of Mephistopheles in the statue of Antokolsky, this seemingly frail and weak man showed an extraordinary power, as soon as he managed to get into his sphere - the sphere of the judicial accuser, who stings people's sins and vices. While still a fellow prosecutor, he made a name for himself as a first-class judicial orator. The trial of Ovsyannikov, whom he accused of arson, strengthened this glory for him forever.

However, V. I. Zhukovsky was forced to leave the field of the accuser. L. D. Lyakhovetsky, taking into account the possibility of speaking in the press under conditions of censorship, wrote with caution about Zhukovsky’s departure from the prosecutor’s office: “Zhukovsky’s resignation took place under the same conditions under which S. A. Andreevsky left the service in the Ministry of Justice.” Andreevsky, as you know, left the service in the prosecutor's office in connection with the refusal of the offer to assume the functions of the prosecutor in the case of Vera Zasulich.

Since 1878, V. I. Zhukovsky has been in the legal profession. He takes part in the consideration of many well-known criminal cases as a defender. However, the functions of a representative of a civil plaintiff were closest to him. “Having switched to the bar,” wrote N.P. Karabchevsky, “he specialized in the role of a civil plaintiff in criminal proceedings, that is, he continued to accuse. There were, however, processes in which he was indispensable as a defender. In large and complex cases, where the efforts of the prosecutor's office had to be weakened by a subtle analysis of the very structure of the accusation, which "has gone too far", he, along with other defense lawyers who performed other functions, was magnificent and completely irreplaceable. In such cases, he usually warned his comrades: “Well, you defend yours there, and I will blame the “prosecutor”. Indeed, his accusations against the prosecutor were sometimes no less sensitive and dangerous than those against the defendants.

However, as a defender, V.I. Zhukovsky clearly showed his abilities and features of his talent. As a defender, he acted in almost all sensational group cases at that time, in which the most prominent professional lawyers took part. Despite the lack of experience as a professional defender, he always kept pace with the latter.

The main thing in Zhukovsky's oratory talent is wit and resourcefulness, which had grounds in a deep study of the case and thorough preliminary preparation for it. "AT. I. Zhukovsky, - wrote L. D. Lyakhovetsky, - in all fairness was considered the most witty person in the lawyer corporation. Sarcasm flows from Zhukovsky at ease in a speech delivered quietly and seemingly good-naturedly. Like the Greek lithographer Hyperides, he does not see the wound that he inflicts with the edge of his sword on the enemy, he does not hear the groan torn from the unfortunate chest. Zhukovsky is able to capture comic features in human actions, in morals, in characters, combine them into comic pictures and convey them in an inimitable playfulness of speech, enhancing its impression with appropriate gestures and movements. Zhukovsky's "sting" is feared by all opponents. It's hard to argue with him. He easily destroys a strong argument with a successful joke, well-aimed witticism.

As a court speaker, Zhukovsky is extremely attentive to his speeches. Preliminary extensive preparation for the process gave him confidence in his position, because with detailed knowledge of the matter, combined with resourcefulness and wit, he could resist any opponent.

Zhukovsky's defensive speeches are not without flaws, however. He hoped more for the success of the polemic with the prosecutor and for his oratorical talent; as a lawyer, he often paid little attention to the need for a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the circumstances of the case.

His contemporaries also reproached him in this regard. However, the peculiarities of his eloquence quite deservedly brought him fame not only in the field of the accuser, but also as a civil plaintiff and criminal defender. In their memoirs about Zhukovsky, contemporaries often noted that his recorded speeches are far from reproducing the speeches he delivered in court. His court speeches were an inseparable unity with facial expressions, gestures and other external additions to eloquence, without which the transcripts of his speeches in court often seem either helpless or overly complicated. L. D. Lyakhovetsky wrote about this feature of Zhukovsky’s oratorical work: “He delivers his speech, as if sitting with you in a cheerful company at the tea table, calmly without any solemnity and elation of tone, in a colloquial language in which the gestures of the comic figure itself are successful complement and illustrate the unsaid. The center of explanation with the audience is skillfully transferred to movement and gestures, and fragmentary words become, as it were, an auxiliary tool.

These are the features of V. I. Zhukovsky's oratory. However, it would be incomplete to finish his characterization on this without pointing out that, as a person, he was characterized by exceptional cordiality, warmth and attention in people, rare humanity, coexisting with cruelty to vices and non-virtue. “... When issues of honor were discussed, when it was about the trampled truth,” wrote P. G. Mironovich, also a well-known lawyer, “Vladimir Ivanovich’s face burned with indignation, and his voice sounded angry. He did not know how to put up with evil, did not know concessions in matters of honor. But how much cordiality, how much softness of soul he showed when it came to human weaknesses or mistakes, how much was the desire to be useful when issues of corporate life were discussed.

KONY ANATOLY FYODOROVYCH 1844-1927

Renowned judiciary and orator. Born January 28, 1844 in St. Petersburg. Until the age of 12 he was brought up at home, then in the German school of St. Anna, from where he moved to the Second Gymnasium; from the 6th grade of the gymnasium in May 1861 he took an exam for admission to St. Petersburg University in the mathematical department, and after the closure of St. . Upon submission of his dissertation “On the Right of Necessary Defense” (Moscow University News, 1866), Koni was supposed to go abroad, but due to the suspension of this trip, he entered the service, first in the Provisional Audit Commission under the State Control, then in the Military Ministry, where was at the disposal of the chief of staff, Count Heiden, for legal work. With the introduction of the Judicial Reform, Koni moved to serve in the St. Petersburg Court of Justice as an assistant secretary, and in 1867 to Moscow, as secretary of the prosecutor of the Moscow Court of Justice, Rovinsky; in the same year he was appointed deputy prosecutor, first of the Sumy, then Kharkov district courts. After a short stay in 1870 as a deputy prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court and the Samara provincial prosecutor, he participated in the introduction of the Judicial Reform in the Kazan District as a prosecutor of the Kazan District Court. In 1871 he was transferred to the same position in the St. Petersburg District Court, four years later he was appointed Vice Director of the Department of the Ministry of Justice, in 1877 - Chairman of the St. Petersburg District Court, in 1881 - Chairman of the Civil Department of the Judicial Chamber , in 1885 - chief prosecutor of the cassation department of the Senate, and in October of the following year he was again assigned the duties of chief prosecutor of the same department of the Senate, retaining the rank of senator.

Thus, Koni spent the first thirty years of judicial reforms in important judicial posts and was a witness to the changes that fell during this time on the lot of the court case, in relation to him both government and public authorities. The future historian of the internal life of Russia during the indicated period of time will find in Koni's judicial and public activities valuable indications for determining the nature and properties of the ebb and flow that Russia has experienced since the mid-1960s. In 1875, Koni was appointed a member of the Board of Management of the Institutions of the Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna; in 1876 he was one of the founders of the St. Petersburg Society at the University, from 1876 to 1883. was a member of the Highest Established Commission chaired by Count Baranov to study the railway business in Russia, and participated in the drafting of the general charter of Russian railways, from the same 1876 to 1883. was a teacher of the theory and practice of criminal justice at the Imperial School of Law, in 1877 he was elected to the capital's honorary magistrates, and in 1878 to honorary judges of St. Petersburg and Peterhof districts; in 1883, a member of the society of psychiatrists at the military medical academy; in 1888 he was sent to Kharkov to investigate the causes of the collapse of the imperial train on October 17 of the same year and to lead the investigation in this case, and in 1894 to Odessa to send the case of the death of the steamer "Vladimir"; in 1890 he was elevated to the rank of doctor of criminal law by Kharkov University; in 1892 he was elected by Moscow University as an honorary member; in 1894 he was appointed a member of the commission for the revision of legal provisions on the judicial part.

These are the main phases through which Koni's activity passed, enriching him with those diverse information and rich experience, which, with his broad scientific and literary education and outstanding abilities, gave him a special position in the judiciary, arming him with powerful means of action as a prosecutor and judge. Koni devoted all his energies to judicial reform and served the Judicial Charters with unfailing affection, both during the period of romantic enthusiasm for them, and during the period of skepticism towards them that followed. Such tireless service to the cause of justice was not easy. Imbued with the spirit of the Judicial Statutes, he created in his person a living type of judge and prosecutor, proving by his own example that it is possible to serve as state protection of legal interests without forgetting the identity of the defendant and without turning him into a simple object of study. As a judge, he reduced - in his words - "the great principle of justice accessible to a person in the conditions of place and time into earthly, human relations", and as a prosecutor "was an accusing judge who knew how to distinguish crime from misfortune, slander from truthful testimony."

Koni is known to Russian society in particular as a court speaker. Crowded courtrooms in cases considered with his participation, the confluence of a large audience, attracted by his literary and scientific speeches, serve as confirmation of this. The reason for this success of Koni lies in his personal qualities. Even in remote antiquity, the dependence of the orator's success on his personal qualities was clarified: Plato found that only a true philosopher can be an orator; Cicero held the same view and pointed out, moreover, the need for orators to study poets; Quintilian expressed the opinion that the orator must be a good person. Horses corresponded to these views. He was brought up under the influence of the literary and artistic environment to which his parents belonged. At Moscow University, he listened to lectures by Krylov, Chicherin, Babst, Dmitriev, Belyaev, Solovyov. Listening to these lectures laid in him a solid foundation for philosophical and legal education, and personal relationships with many representatives of science, fine literature and practical activities supported his interest in various phenomena of mental, social and state life. Extensive erudition, not limited to a special field of knowledge, with a happy memory, gave him, as his speeches testify to this, abundant material, which he always knew how to use as an artist of the word.

In terms of content, Koni's court speeches were always distinguished by a high psychological interest, which developed on the basis of a comprehensive study of the individual circumstances of each given case. The character of a person served for him as an object of observation not from the side of external layers, only formed in him, but also from the side of those special psychological elements that make up the “I” of a person. Having established the latter, he then found out what influence they could have on the birth of the will realized in the crime, and carefully noted the degree of participation of favorable or unfavorable conditions in the life of a given person. In the everyday situation of the figure, he found "the best material for a correct judgment about the matter", because "the colors that life itself imposes are always true and never erased."

Under the analytical knife, the Kony revealed the secret of their organization to a wide variety of types of people, as well as varieties of the same type. Such, for example, are the types of Solodovnikov, Sedkov, Princess Shcherbatova, as well as people with defects of will, like Chikhachev, who knew how to “wish everything” and who could not “want” anything, or Nikitin, “who evaluates everything with his mind, and heart and conscience stand behind at a great distance."

According to the content, the form of Koni's speeches is marked by features that testify to his outstanding oratorical talent: his speeches are always simple and alien to rhetorical embellishments. His word justifies the accuracy of Pascal's saying that true eloquence laughs at eloquence as an art that develops according to the rules of rhetoric. There are no phrases in his speeches, to which Horace gave the characteristic name of "labial phrases". He did not follow the methods of the ancient orators, who sought to influence the judge through flattery, intimidation, and in general arousing passions, and yet he had a rare degree of ability that distinguished the best representatives of ancient eloquence: he knew how to increase the volume of things in his word without distorting relations, where they actually were. His attitude towards the defendants and, in general, towards the persons participating in the trial was truly humane. Anger and bitterness, which easily take possession of the heart of a person who has long operated on the pathological phenomena of spiritual life, are alien to him. His moderation, however, was far from weakness and did not exclude the use of caustic irony and harsh evaluation, which were hardly able to forget the faces that called them out. The sense of proportion expressed in his words and methods finds its explanation in the fact that in him, according to the fair remark of K. K. Arsenyev, the gift of psychological analysis is combined with the temperament of the artist. In general, it can be said that Koni did not so much captivate as master those persons to whom his speech addressed, replete with images, comparisons, generalizations and well-aimed remarks that gave it life and beauty.

MURAVYEV NIKOLAY VALERYANOVYCH 1850-1908

Statesman, talented prosecutor. Having passed the exam for a candidate of rights, he entered the service in the judiciary. While holding the position of assistant prosecutor in Moscow, he passed the master's exam in criminal law and lectured at the university on criminal procedure. In 1881 he was appointed prosecutor of the St. Petersburg Court of Justice, in 1884 he was transferred to the same position in Moscow, in 1891 he was appointed chief prosecutor of the criminal cassation department, in 1892 he was secretary of state. From January 1, 1894 to January 14, 1905, he was Minister of Justice, then Ambassador to Rome. His accusatory speeches attracted everyone's attention, as well as some of the Chief Prosecutor's conclusions. His university lectures were a great success. Books about prosecutorial supervision and candidates for judicial positions and articles published in the collection "From Past Activities" were read with unfailing interest.

When he was Minister of Justice, three judicial chambers (Irkutsk, Omsk and Tashkent) and 23 district courts were established, the Criminal Code was published on March 22, 1903, work was significantly advanced on the preparation of the Civil Code, the section of which on illegitimate children was published in the form of law 3 June 1902, laws were passed on streamlining the calling of witnesses in criminal cases (1896), on punishability and the procedure for prosecuting minors and juvenile delinquents (1897), on the abolition of exile (1900), a new bill of exchange charter (1902 .), the law on the abolition of cruel corporal punishment for convicts and exiles (1903), etc. The Main Prison Department was attached to the Ministry of Justice (1895), the old departments of the Senate were transformed (1898), the content of members of district courts was increased ( 1896, 1899), a charitable society of the judiciary was formed (1895), the publication of the Journal of the Ministry of Justice was resumed (1894). Established in 1894, a special commission for the revision of legal provisions on the judicial part, chaired by Muravyov, outlined a number of significant changes in the Judicial Charters. Sharply diverging on many points from the main principles of the Reform of 1864, Muravyov found that “the court must first of all be a faithful and loyal conductor and executor of the autocratic will of the monarch” and “as one of the government bodies, must be in solidarity with its other bodies in all their lawful actions and endeavors. In the first place, Muravyov put "a change in the existing rules on judicial irremovability, which, in their current formulation, do not meet the conditions of our state system and do not provide the highest judicial administration with sufficient funds to eliminate unworthy figures from the judiciary." Nikolai Valeryanovich Muravyov was the same in the prosecutor's office that Plevako was in the bar. His speeches, full of the deepest content, were colorful to such an extent that when he painted a picture, it seemed to the listener that he saw this picture in the most realistic way with his own eyes. Undoubtedly, neither before nor since did the public manage to hear anything like this.

OBNINSKY PETER NARKIZOVYCH 1837-1904

Well-known judicial figure and publicist. In 1859 he graduated from Moscow University. He had the joy of listening to Granovsky, had the good fortune to serve with Viktor Antonovich Artsimovich. The images of both shone to him and warmed him both in the years of his greedy youth for activity, and in the years of suffering old age. He himself combined them into one noble recollection, saying that Artsimovich did what Granovsky taught. At the university, he had to go through that change of views and trends that occurred in the whole of Russian society with the accession to the throne of Alexander II. He graduated from the course at a time when, in his words, it was necessary to devote his strength to the realization of the ideas of law and freedom. Fate saved him from the futility of single efforts, from boiling “in empty action” and from those disappointments at the very first steps that often mark the lack of will for the rest of his life. He got the opportunity to say to himself: "Blessed is he who ties his shuttle to the stern of a large ship." This ship was the Peasant Reform, and the helmsman in the Kaluga province was Artsimovich, to whose activity and memory Obninsky more than once returned with tenderness and gratitude, placing his attractive and majestic personality in close spiritual proximity with dear and beloved Moscow professors Granovsky, Kudryavtsev and Nikita Krylov .

Appointed as a mediator of the "first call", Obninsky immediately fell into the field of vigorous work, where he had to not only apply the Regulations of February 19, still pristine and not overgrown with circulars and all sorts of explanations, but also to do a lot, in it only outlined, but required by life, create, of course, in the spirit of the Regulation, understood broadly and applied impartially.

With the departure of Artsimovich, who was appointed to the Moscow departments of the Senate, different times came and a different attitude towards mediators, but the main thing - the introduction of the Regulations on February 19 and the drafting of the Statutory Charter - was done, and meanwhile another great reform began to be carried out - the Judiciary. Obninsky joined her as a district justice of the peace and merged with her and with her fundamental principle - the Judicial Charters - with all his heart, serving with word and pen to clarify the necessary conditions for the success of the first and protecting the second from alterations, distortions and touches of unclean hands, driven by personal ambition or cowardly complaisance.

His service to the Judicial Statutes was never limited to defending them and criticizing the work of their corrupters. He took a lively part in the development of those questions of technology and judicial ethics, which in essence could not be touched by a positive law; he pursued in his prosecutorial activity those beginnings and methods in which the type of accuser should have manifested itself, corresponding to the intention and expectation of the creators of the Judicial Reform. The question of what the Russian public prosecutor would be in practice was of particular importance. Therefore, it was necessary to go our own way and work out the type of accuser on our own.